What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
This essay explains why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And why Socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, requires either fraud or armed robbery in order to achieve power, and then the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in order to remain in power. Social Democrats do not have the stomach for armed robbery and the mass murder it entails, and thus do not establish socialism but merely a more hampered market economy. It takes the Communists to openly establish socialism.
24 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 3, 2014
209 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
About the author
George Reisman
36 books41 followersGeorge Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996; Kindle Edition, 2012), The Government Against the Economy; Warren Buffett, Class Warfare, and the Exploitation Theory; The Benevolent Nature of Capitalism and Other Essays; Labor Unions, Thugs, and Strom Troopers; and, most recently, Piketty's Capital: Wrong Theory/Destructive Program. His website is capitalism.net. His blog is georgereismansblog.blogspot.com. See his Amazon.com author's page and follow him on Twitter @GGReisman.
Dr. Reisman is married to Edith Packer, J.D., Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, with whom he lives in Laguna Hills, California.
He was personally a student of Ludwig von Mises, whose NYU seminar he attended for eight years and under whom he obtained his doctorate in economics in 1963. He is the translator of von Mises's Epistemological Problems of Economics (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1960). From1957 until her death in 1982, he was an associate of Ayn Rand.
Dr. Reisman is married to Edith Packer, J.D., Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, with whom he lives in Laguna Hills, California.
He was personally a student of Ludwig von Mises, whose NYU seminar he attended for eight years and under whom he obtained his doctorate in economics in 1963. He is the translator of von Mises's Epistemological Problems of Economics (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1960). From1957 until her death in 1982, he was an associate of Ayn Rand.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
February 4, 2021
This book is a Doctoral Thesis on how to fail your Sociology and Economics classes. Fascism (Nazism) is the marriage of State and Corporate Power, according to Benito Mussolini. In order to have Corporate Power you need Private Property. Socialism ABOLISHES Private Property. Ipso facto, Socialism is inherently antithetical to Fascism.
George Reisman is a propagandist, and an uneducated one at that.
George Reisman is a propagandist, and an uneducated one at that.
December 29, 2016
READ THIS!!!
I can attest that this short essay is one hundred percent right.
I live in an on going experiment in Venezuela, they are trying socialism (again, people never learn) we have shortages of every thing from life saving medicines to toilet paper. The people in government, mostly exmilitary, calls every one who doesn't agree with them "fascists".
What defenders of free enterprise lack is an understanding of how well socialism works for those in power, and how important is the influence of ENVY in the real world.
Pay attention, before is too late
Peter
So I can attest that this small essay is right, correct, accurate.
What every defender of a free economy lacks is an understanding of how well this system works for those in power, the o
I can attest that this short essay is one hundred percent right.
I live in an on going experiment in Venezuela, they are trying socialism (again, people never learn) we have shortages of every thing from life saving medicines to toilet paper. The people in government, mostly exmilitary, calls every one who doesn't agree with them "fascists".
What defenders of free enterprise lack is an understanding of how well socialism works for those in power, and how important is the influence of ENVY in the real world.
Pay attention, before is too late
Peter
So I can attest that this small essay is right, correct, accurate.
What every defender of a free economy lacks is an understanding of how well this system works for those in power, the o
March 15, 2017
Excellent summary
It makes it very easy to understand the plague of socialism, a major threat to humanity today!
Recommended to all those in search for quick references and arguments to speak up against it.
It makes it very easy to understand the plague of socialism, a major threat to humanity today!
Recommended to all those in search for quick references and arguments to speak up against it.
February 7, 2019
Should be a must read on all college campuses or for that matter all high schools in these United States!
July 3, 2016
The Truth Hurts
Democrats aka socialists should not read this book. Why? You are going to find out what you are ... As the saying goes: the Truth hurts. Hitler's party was the, National Socialist German Workers’ Party— On the other hand, if you love freedom you will enjoy this book.
Yours in Christ,
Alex
Democrats aka socialists should not read this book. Why? You are going to find out what you are ... As the saying goes: the Truth hurts. Hitler's party was the, National Socialist German Workers’ Party— On the other hand, if you love freedom you will enjoy this book.
Yours in Christ,
Alex
July 8, 2016
Brief and to the point.
This is of course, a brief essay on the basic characteristics of a socialist system. Which was the basis of the NAZI regime in Germany during the 1930's.
This is of course, a brief essay on the basic characteristics of a socialist system. Which was the basis of the NAZI regime in Germany during the 1930's.
July 30, 2025
Why Nazism was Socialism
“When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiters Partei—in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party—Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?”
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.”
Why Socialism is Totalitarian
“what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.”
How would a government enforce this price control? What's to stop people from simply selling things in black market anyway?
“We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?
The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.
Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.”
“Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline—for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one—but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. [..] To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with
resentment and hostility.
“Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. [..] It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.
Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.”
“it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.
A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.”
Lessons for today
“Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen’s life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.
The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.
Though the government’s policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.”
“Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.
More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.
There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.
“Two very major ways of fighting for freedom are to educate oneself to the point of being able to speak and write articulately in its defense, or, if one does not have the time or inclination to pursue such activity, then to morally and materially support the work of those who do.
It is possible to turn the tide. No single person can do it. But a large and growing number of intelligent people, educated in the cause of economic freedom, and speaking up and arguing in its defense whenever possible, is capable of gradually forming the attitudes of the culture and thus of the nature of its political and economic system.”
“When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiters Partei—in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party—Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?”
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.”
Why Socialism is Totalitarian
“what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.”
How would a government enforce this price control? What's to stop people from simply selling things in black market anyway?
“We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?
The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.
Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.”
“Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline—for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one—but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. [..] To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with
resentment and hostility.
“Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. [..] It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.
Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.”
“it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.
A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.”
Lessons for today
“Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen’s life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.
The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.
Though the government’s policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.”
“Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.
More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.
There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.
“Two very major ways of fighting for freedom are to educate oneself to the point of being able to speak and write articulately in its defense, or, if one does not have the time or inclination to pursue such activity, then to morally and materially support the work of those who do.
It is possible to turn the tide. No single person can do it. But a large and growing number of intelligent people, educated in the cause of economic freedom, and speaking up and arguing in its defense whenever possible, is capable of gradually forming the attitudes of the culture and thus of the nature of its political and economic system.”
January 3, 2018
Professor George Reisman originally delivered “Why Nazism was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian as a lecture at the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s “The Economics of Fascism, Supporters Summit 2005.” The purpose of Professor Reisman’s essay is to show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, requires a totalitarian dictatorship in order to remain in power. A short and precise read on the failures of socialism. I recommend this book to any lover of Austrian Economics and it’s two champions: Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. This short 17 page book/essay will take you less than an hour to read and can be found as an e-book on amazon for $0.99 cents.
May 1, 2022
São tratados como esse que me fazem querer destruir a mesa a dentadas, bem ao estilo dos antigos cartoons.
George Reisman, um estadunidense doutor em economia, tenta convencer nesse breve ensaio que o Nazismo tinha cunho socialista.
Eu precisaria escrever outro ensaio para refutar as afirmações do doutor Reisman, então vou apenas apontar algumas coisas mais gritantes...
Primeiro, ele dá especial atenção a interferência do Estado na economia, projetando isso no socialismo pelo controle dos meios de produção. Pessoas, não é incomum que Estados capitalistas interfiram na economia através de leis e incentivos (vide EUA), e especiais concessões são feitas em período de Guerra - quando a economia se volta para bens essenciais e produtos armamentistas (vide Europa, em qualquer guerra).
Segundo, ele nota a escassez de produtos e a queda econômica durante o regime nazista. E ignora totalmente o fato que isso se deu durante a parte final da Guerra, quando Hitler já não conseguia combater em dois frontes. Reisman também menciona que tal miséria é comum em regimes socialistas... como se isso fosse suficiente argumentação. Não vou nem comentar a maioria esmagadora de países capitalistas na mesma situação.
Terceiro, George Reisman observa o totalitarismo vigente no Nazismo, ao mesmo tempo em que evoca a liberdade, implicitamente dos EUA. Não há discussão quanto a isso, o problema é que totalitarismo não é uma característica unicamente socialista (vide Franco e Salazar).
Finalmente, nosso doutor termina o texto destilando meia dúzia de opiniões sem fundamento e preconceituosas.
Esse é o tipo de texto que deveria ser usado para exemplificar má-argumentação, falácias e manipulação de dados. Parece que George Reisman formulou ou acatou a ideia e então se preocupou em coletar dados específicos e descontextualizados para apoiá-lo.
George Reisman, um estadunidense doutor em economia, tenta convencer nesse breve ensaio que o Nazismo tinha cunho socialista.
Eu precisaria escrever outro ensaio para refutar as afirmações do doutor Reisman, então vou apenas apontar algumas coisas mais gritantes...
Primeiro, ele dá especial atenção a interferência do Estado na economia, projetando isso no socialismo pelo controle dos meios de produção. Pessoas, não é incomum que Estados capitalistas interfiram na economia através de leis e incentivos (vide EUA), e especiais concessões são feitas em período de Guerra - quando a economia se volta para bens essenciais e produtos armamentistas (vide Europa, em qualquer guerra).
Segundo, ele nota a escassez de produtos e a queda econômica durante o regime nazista. E ignora totalmente o fato que isso se deu durante a parte final da Guerra, quando Hitler já não conseguia combater em dois frontes. Reisman também menciona que tal miséria é comum em regimes socialistas... como se isso fosse suficiente argumentação. Não vou nem comentar a maioria esmagadora de países capitalistas na mesma situação.
Terceiro, George Reisman observa o totalitarismo vigente no Nazismo, ao mesmo tempo em que evoca a liberdade, implicitamente dos EUA. Não há discussão quanto a isso, o problema é que totalitarismo não é uma característica unicamente socialista (vide Franco e Salazar).
Finalmente, nosso doutor termina o texto destilando meia dúzia de opiniões sem fundamento e preconceituosas.
Esse é o tipo de texto que deveria ser usado para exemplificar má-argumentação, falácias e manipulação de dados. Parece que George Reisman formulou ou acatou a ideia e então se preocupou em coletar dados específicos e descontextualizados para apoiá-lo.
September 12, 2020
* المؤلف بيهاجم الشيوعية و بيصورها كشيطان و بيحاول يثبت مجموعة من الأفكار باستخدام المنطق و التحليل.
الأفكار دي هي:
- النازية نظام شيوعي في جوهره حتي لو مش شيوعي في شكله الظاهري.
- الشيوعية بالمفهوم الواقعي أو التطبيقي هي نظام شمولي قمعي.
- ضرر ازدياد التدخل الحكومي في الاقتصاد في أمريكا.
* في مصلحة الأغنياء:
في الجزء الأخير من الكتاب ظهر قد ايه المؤلف مش مهتم بمصلحة الفقراء و عاوز يسيب السوق مفتوح بلا قوانين أو تحديد لأسعار بضائع أو .. أو .. أو .. كل أفكاره في مصلحة الشخص اللي بيملك قدرة أصلا علي الاستثمار و إزاي يبقي حر في مكسبه و طبيعة الأعمال اللي عاوز يشتغل فيها، مع اغفال تام أن ده ممكن يأث علي سلع اساسية و تخلي الفقراء غير قادرين علي شراء الاحتياجات الأساسية دي.
أو أنه بيراهن بشكل كبير علي الطبيعة الطيبة للأنسان و أنه عمره ما هيأذي حد بلا سبب و أنه أكيد مش عاوز يكسب علي حساب الفقراء. و بيتهيالأي أن الفكرة دي أثبتت فشلها علي مر التاريخ من أيام الاقطاع.
الأفكار دي هي:
- النازية نظام شيوعي في جوهره حتي لو مش شيوعي في شكله الظاهري.
- الشيوعية بالمفهوم الواقعي أو التطبيقي هي نظام شمولي قمعي.
- ضرر ازدياد التدخل الحكومي في الاقتصاد في أمريكا.
* في مصلحة الأغنياء:
في الجزء الأخير من الكتاب ظهر قد ايه المؤلف مش مهتم بمصلحة الفقراء و عاوز يسيب السوق مفتوح بلا قوانين أو تحديد لأسعار بضائع أو .. أو .. أو .. كل أفكاره في مصلحة الشخص اللي بيملك قدرة أصلا علي الاستثمار و إزاي يبقي حر في مكسبه و طبيعة الأعمال اللي عاوز يشتغل فيها، مع اغفال تام أن ده ممكن يأث علي سلع اساسية و تخلي الفقراء غير قادرين علي شراء الاحتياجات الأساسية دي.
أو أنه بيراهن بشكل كبير علي الطبيعة الطيبة للأنسان و أنه عمره ما هيأذي حد بلا سبب و أنه أكيد مش عاوز يكسب علي حساب الفقراء. و بيتهيالأي أن الفكرة دي أثبتت فشلها علي مر التاريخ من أيام الاقطاع.
December 4, 2021
NAZI's are socialist period
Facistism, as a form of government, is not the only socialist form of government. Fascism isn't necessarily socialist... But Nazism is socialist by their own definition.
Why do you think you know more about their goals and the form of government they chose to implement those goals then they did?
You don't.
You may argue that there were better forms they could have chosen to accomplish their goals. But the Nazis are still socialists, because they said so.
Facistism, as a form of government, is not the only socialist form of government. Fascism isn't necessarily socialist... But Nazism is socialist by their own definition.
Why do you think you know more about their goals and the form of government they chose to implement those goals then they did?
You don't.
You may argue that there were better forms they could have chosen to accomplish their goals. But the Nazis are still socialists, because they said so.
June 19, 2018
In this short "book" Reisman shows the ideological similarities between Nazism and socialism, why they are the same although they use different methods of achieving the goal. He also shows why socialism is totalitarian in its nature and can only be achieved by force - and why social democracies are not socialist. It says basically what the title implies. Good book, although too short. Need to look into his greater work.
December 30, 2023
Another brief but excellent read on Nazism == Socialism == Totalitarianism and why those who argue Democratic Socialism is Not totalitarianism are Wrong because it's Not Socialism. People need to understand that words and terms matter and often they are obscure. And the more we read the more we'll understand how words are often used to obscure concepts for the general public. This book would be a good start.
June 27, 2024
I so wish more people would read this
Socialism and its ideology is evil. If doesn't matter what type of socialism it is all ultimately anti human. Yet line a siren call people are drawn to it, primarily due to ignorance and governmental propaganda.
I do not know what the remedy is but I do know that reading such essays as this helps people to grow and reject such evil.
Socialism and its ideology is evil. If doesn't matter what type of socialism it is all ultimately anti human. Yet line a siren call people are drawn to it, primarily due to ignorance and governmental propaganda.
I do not know what the remedy is but I do know that reading such essays as this helps people to grow and reject such evil.
September 24, 2020
Gives you a basic and good understanding of why nazism and communist are deeply related via socialism. Also, why this totalitarian method is a danger to the free thinker and to everyone´s personal freedom and why the end results are a paranoid system and death for many people
August 26, 2018
He makes a solid case
This little book is a great book to recommend to friends who want to understand the bad side of socialism in a short time.
This little book is a great book to recommend to friends who want to understand the bad side of socialism in a short time.
February 4, 2020
Pertinent for today
Great illustrations on the problems of price and wage controls. The PostScript is material also worth the price of entry.
Great illustrations on the problems of price and wage controls. The PostScript is material also worth the price of entry.
August 30, 2020
Wonderful succinct summary excellently worded and to the point.
October 14, 2020
A really simple explanation of socialism in a nutshell.
July 10, 2024
Pretty stupid. Obviously has a hard on for the 1%.
September 25, 2025
Excellent Summation
As a brief overview, this essay is spot on and a great place to begin to understand the true nature of Nazism.
As a brief overview, this essay is spot on and a great place to begin to understand the true nature of Nazism.
December 23, 2021
In 2021 we are stomping toward Socialism
Sadly many of our colleges (I'd like to use the phrase schools or higher learning but they're not) have decided that a well heeled society is for more useful than a well educated one. A very large percentage of our schools no longer teach economic freedom but do spend years making sure that the young minds are well heeled servants of the state. The lack of Freedom of Speech is a hallmark of most campuses today. Few promote it and fewer still allow it. Most graduates today and to be honest for the last couple of decades; though it has escalated in recent years, have what used to be deemed common sense. What they have now is a rout response based not on any logic but what they have been taught ie brainwashed into believing is the path that should be followed.
Sadly many of our colleges (I'd like to use the phrase schools or higher learning but they're not) have decided that a well heeled society is for more useful than a well educated one. A very large percentage of our schools no longer teach economic freedom but do spend years making sure that the young minds are well heeled servants of the state. The lack of Freedom of Speech is a hallmark of most campuses today. Few promote it and fewer still allow it. Most graduates today and to be honest for the last couple of decades; though it has escalated in recent years, have what used to be deemed common sense. What they have now is a rout response based not on any logic but what they have been taught ie brainwashed into believing is the path that should be followed.
April 20, 2015
So and so
classic talk about individual liberty and freedom with the usual stereotypical arguments for individualism. Good analysis about the economic system of nazi Germany but nevertheless the book in total was reproducing well know ideas and bringing nothing new in the table.
classic talk about individual liberty and freedom with the usual stereotypical arguments for individualism. Good analysis about the economic system of nazi Germany but nevertheless the book in total was reproducing well know ideas and bringing nothing new in the table.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews