Hitler Cared Nothing At All about Economics

Hitler didn’t give two shits about class, economics, rich versus poor, or any of that. He was a true nationalist. If you were a true loyal German or Aryan, he loved you to death. About the economics, he didn’t care. He couldn’t be less interested. They gave him economic plans and he just threw them back and them and said, “You do it. I don’t care about this stuff! I care about Germany!” He only purged the Nazi Left (including the Nazi Communists!) in the Night of the Long Knives because the junkers and industrialists ordered him to do it else they would not support him.

There were some major components to German society:

Junkers– Large landowners – I guess they’ve done a land reform now?

Industrialists – The usual, with the usual interests. Hitler said make what I tell you, I’ll buy it, and you’ll do fine. Industrialists said ok, will do.

Military, especially military officers – They were rich, conservative, and anti-Semitic. They had to be appeased.

All of them had to be appeased. Hitler had to convince all of them to go along with his program or it would die. He convinced them. The rest, as they say, is history.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

27 thoughts on “Hitler Cared Nothing At All about Economics”

  1. Look the only great talent that he possessed was oratory skills. And he was an exceptional speaker. But beyond that he was utterly incompetent. He didn’t know strategy nor tactics. He challenged people who knew better than him. He was always lazy and a dreamer. He was no napoleon Bonaparte.

  2. Bonaparte’s strategy and Hitler’s political acumen would be an interesting mix. Hitler was not lazy, he took the most dangerous tasks during WW1. The Nazi Commies weren’t led by a fag. Hitler lied about that. I’m all for abandoning class. Hitler had a limited skill set, so one of his good German Generals should’ve handled military matters. It was a flawed system and artsy-romantic Hitler wanted peace with Britain. Hitler was basically a flower child in a military uniform during WWII. In the end, the peace-hating aggressors won WWII.

  3. And the Chinese care nothing at all about freedom. And that’s perfectly okay with me. The previous U.S. presidents said China is bad because they are Commie dictatorship. That’s bullshit. China isn’t bad because of that. They are “bad” simply because they are our adversary and a different race. Trump points this out. And Chinese people aren’t brainwashed, they simply have racial and national pride. Something disappearing in the West.

    I care about economics so I’m happy with any rightwing government, authoritarian or libertarian though I prefer the later.

    Quote from Chinese user on Quora:

    “Why do some Chinese people hate democracy? Looking to stay inspired and creative?”
    We don’t hate democracy. But we are laughing at your unrealistic idea of a democratic China.
    Let me give a brief answer. If you want an American democracy in China, let’s count the electoral votes in China. China now has 1.4 billions population. If every ten million people get a vote, and each province gets at least one vote, there will be 130 votes, and each of the 33 provinces get extra 2 votes.

    There are 156 votes by provincial population and 66 vetoes for the Senate seats of all provinces. It adds up to 222 electoral college vetoes. The minorities get at most 14 votes in Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Ningxia, while the elections will all be manipulated by Han Chinese. Who will care about those remote 14 votes if they have swamped by the other 208 votes?

    The same as the regional difference. The East will get the majority. The West will be left out. Fewer cities and less economy activity are in the West. The president of China would rather exercise socialism equity in the prosperous East Coast rather than investing in the remote West. If you want the elections like Hong Kongers, the result will be crystal clear: Han Chinese are 92% population, while the minorities live in the mountainous rural areas. I have never seen Trump or Hillary Clinton give a single speech in such forbidden and remote place as we have in our country. Did they? In countryside?

    It is impossible to have your system in China just now. The minorities have over 10% seats in the current Chinese Parliament. So they should get over 20 votes in elections instead of the overestimated 14 votes. I haven’t seen any major investment in rural America by the federal government. Only thing I can see is Monsanto monopolizing the US grain industry. If democracy could solve this one problem alone, I would desperately love your democracy. But it can’t.

    As a student born and raised in China, actually, what you claim is wrong. We DO NOT hate democracy. No. What we hate are the people who use this political propoganda as a weapon to attack or attempt to destroy us. And that’s why we sometimes act like we hate this word.

    In China, the communist party lists DEMOCRACY as the second most important thing they want to achieve, and if you’ve been to China, in every county, city and village, you WILL see propoganda like this: The 24 Words. The 24 words are very popular in China. Basically you see them literally everywhere. You can see them on bridges and road crossings, and maybe even on the freaking toilet. These 24 words are called “24-word-policy”, which means that in everything the CCP does, it should follow these 24 words.

    I don’t have to translate each and every word to you. I’ll just do the first two. The 2nd one on the first row is DEMOCRACY. And before that, the first one on the first row is STRONG and RICH. So as you can see, what the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government want to achieve first is to get the country be STRONG enough, and then when we are strong enough, we can have democracy.

    People in America or Japan are always confused with this. In their country, the people there are basically rich, and satisfied on their daily life.They get good food, they get the best education on the world, and they have this steady strong and highly regulated society, so when they are rich, they find that democracy maybe a great way for the government.

    On the other hand, for people in China, that’s bullshit. We don’t have the steady society as Japan of America, and the good law for our people, we even don’t have enough money. We have limited resources, and the resources are highly unbalanced. Everyone in China has to fight for their life, I mean , in a hard way. In this situation, achieving democracy is not the first thing the Chinese people really need, getting rich is.

    What is policy? Policy is to do the RIGHT thing, not the GREAT thing. Chinese president and leadership is not as gooey and romantic as president in America. President Obama, is such a idealism man. He has made so many GREAT things, even it’s not right. And the great thing create GREAT trouble.

    To support Japan, America pissed off China, and since the American government is not brave or motivated enough to fight against China, now China has almost the entire South China Sea. The GREAT thing means to do fight for people in other countries, such as Russia, and Putin, well, to do GREAT things, they destroyed Russian economy, but the Putin is getting more and more support, and the Russian people hate America even more.

    To do the GREAT thing, the American government give the gay group human right to get married. As the government legalized gay marriage without enough legal protection, the Orlando things happened, and government still don’t have the guts to say, ‘the killer is terrorist’. Well, the law just allow them to get married, the other things, sorry ,nothing changed in America.

    What I write those things to tell you, my friend ,is that the government, no matter what the form it is, have to do the right thing first, not the great thing and say “we change the world by one law over and over and freaking over again”. To solve the problem, we have to claim it first. If we want to build democracy on poverty and unbalance, the first thing you will see is that some crazy president is elected and rob each and every rich guy in China and get their money to distribute to everyone.

    That’s… not looking good. I mean, really not good.

    An interesting question, isn’t it?

    I don’t hate democracy. In fact, I even argue that communism should not exist independent of democracy, which is why I admire writers as Leon Trotsky for pointing such an important message out.

    The “democracy” that I dislike is the one derived from a Cold War philosophy, very much like I dislike its counterpart used by the USSR. Sadly, it is the de facto “democracy” that people tend to talk about. One of the many consequences following from the ideology behind it is that Russia, a democratic state in the 21st century, is not considered by many in the West as such, and even among people who do consider it as democratic, demonization of its politics is pervasive if not universal.

    So what is it about China? In simple terms, if China were to embrace democracy, it would be the Chinese’s decision and wouldn’t be the result of some fancy Eurocentric or Americo-centric ideology that China, as some uncivilized barbaric regime, should kneel to the all glorious, all righteous, all benevolent democracy of the West.

    Very often, I face people criticizing China for being an autocratic state, prohibiting freedom of speech and press, and trumping human rights. Of course, I won’t entirely disagree because macroscopically they are true, though microscopically there can be debates about their positiveness. What I often find problematic is the conclusion following these statements, which, most of the times, is that the Chinese people should rise up against the government.

    I often respond that most of the Chinese people don’t find such a need nor joy to violently convert the current political system into a seemingly correct one, not to mention that they do actually have some influence over the behaviors of the government and CCP. Most Chinese people, including those living in the rural and often impoverished countrysides, insofar have enjoyed and are still enjoying this unprecedented “Pax Sinica” brought upon by the CCP. It is also a general consensus in the academia that by the middle of this century, China will become a developed country under the current standards. Moreover, importantly, the gap between 2020, the near future, and 2050, the estimated time when China will become developed, is as wide as 30 years, meaning that there are at least three Chinese presidents to come and the political system of China is unlikely to remain purely untouched. Last but not least, given that democracy works for the people, if the people don’t find any problem with the current regime, why should they rise up against it?

    However, I don’t think that this response is satisfactory to most of those critics I mentioned earlier. They might want to say that I’m somehow brainwashed into thinking like this, even though all of the points I posted above are validated by experiences or, therefore, evidence; they might also want to say that the CCP is evil and has done huge crimes against the people of China such as the Cultural Revolution and the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident, though my personal solution to their concerns is that the CCP owes its citizens some form of apology which, still, is far from a total annihilation of itself; or they might even use some typical liberal cases as LGBT rights, sexism, racism, religious freedom, etc. to imply that I’m some calculated apologist of communism, which I shall respond by using a conservative stance as to why these things just don’t matter more than the current well-beings of the Chinese people.

    The intention of their criticism are highly questionable, which is why I used “Cold War philosophy” to describe it. Many of them don’t and don’t want to appreciate that there are good reasons for doing the otherwise of their ideology; they don’t want to see that the Chinese have lived a happy life – much happier than the Victorian British – without the form of government they are familiar with and with a regime they despise; they embark on this criticism not really because they “sympathize” the Chinese for living in a life that they consider to be undesirable but because of the very Sinophobia rooted in their mindset. And as I quoted the example of Russia, I speculate that the issue between China and the West won’t be settled simply because China embraces democracy.

    How can women gain more confidence in investing?
    What percentage of Chinese people want democracy?
    Why do Chinese citizens support the Chinese government despite its record of human rights violations?
    Are Chinese people really happy under their government?
    PROCLAIM: I did not refer to ALL Chinese. The question asked about SOME Chinese and I answered about SOME Chinese. We are living in a large country(1.3 billion people indeed). I fully understand you feel frustrated seeing some disturbing questions over and over again, but overreacting will do nothing good. Describing China as everything perfect will only makes them believe what they believe(that we cannot think by ourselves). Face the REALITY that surely SOME Chinese believing something ridiculous. SEE THE WANGYI COMMENTING AREA. SEE WHAT THEY SAID IN TIEXUE WEBSITES. We do not need to pretend

    For 3500 years – Chinese were ruled by consecutive dynastic regimes. No voting allowed. Sun Yat Sen’s overthrow of the last Xing Emperor started the country’s first go at “Chinese” democracy.
    It’s noteworthy that the second principal of Sun’s “Three Principals of the People” is that of DEMOCRACY for the people.
    The intervening 37 years (1912-1949) were turbulent years – first with the northward military unification effort against numerous warlords, then in 1937 the 8 year war against the Japanese invasion, and afterwards the 4 year civil war between the Kuomintang and the prevailed Communists

    As a Chinese students , i think the situation in China is very similar to Syria , Egypt and Libya before the Arab Spring . Our Government is very corrupt and cruel . But the economy is rising , the life of people is becoming better and better , our people are suffering from the rule of Communist Party , yet they can endure the corrupt leader class . And they don’t want anyone break the situation .

    But , what will happen if the economy stop rising ?

    Average daily power generation of china in 2015

    Today’s National Bureau of Statistics announced that China generating capacity in October fell 3.2 per

    This answer only represent myself.

    I wouldn’t say hate, more like doubtful. Some of my fellow countrymen hold a very strong belief in democracy, every single time they saw any bad thing happen, no matter government involved or not, they always blame the system and leave a comment like “Things like this will never happened in US since they have democracy!”.

    I use to be one like that (when I just enter into university and start to pay attention in our society), but as time goes by, a lot of reading as well, I realized things couldn’t be that simple. Democracy is a very good and powerful form of go

    No, we don’t hate democracy, just simply think the western democracy is not suitable. We want to establish a Chinese style one.

    When many foreigners see mega cities like Beijing or Shanghai, they see a modern China as advanced as Europe or USA, but in remote west of China, they may see a feudalistic China where law and government’s only function is merely to show it’s there.

    I went to mountainous part of Sichuan province where close to Tibet a month ago, when I went back, an old man crashed into my car, yes he saw me approaching and f**king accelerated his speed and ran toward me! Oops, he crash

    I don’t think the Chinese reject the premise entirely; however, we are sick of other people trying to “teach” us how to run our countries. I’m not from China; in fact, there is even a subtle sense of passive aggressive behaviour in Singapore because of the increasing Chinese population. However, many of us are still ethnically Chinese; and largely share the same core values. At what point will Americans realize that the culture of collectivism and authoritarianism is what we identify with.

    Just look at the case of Singapore. We have elections every 6 years with a near 100% participation rate. Y

    Where’s the statistical evidence suggesting that Chinese people hate democracy?

    From what I heard, not many people I knew really hate democracy, they are just not obsessed with it.

    The fact is that: not all countries are performing well with the democratic system; probably it’s because the system they are having is not true democracy… But how do you define democracy?

    Another fact is that Chinese people have fought for its own democratic path for too long… From the end of Qing dynasty till recently. We never succeeded. There’s an opportunity for Yuan Shikai to become a Washington in China… however

    Because they don’t understand it— and that’s undertand-able; in fact I don’t think anyone understands what democracy is, anymore.

    Too many think of democracy in a negative context, like in this screed-video:

    Accordingly, they claim that democracy should be limited by a “republic,” which is actually an oligarchy— that the video-makers naively claim is precluded from abuse, by constitutional limitations that are simply “NEVER SUPERSEDED….“ with no further explanation.

    Therefore, the People do not consent to their government under this dogmatic sophistry; but rathe

    Hate level? ? It’s a little exaggerated, isn’t it?

    Personally, I don’t hate democracy at all and I bet no one hates democracy back in China.

    I can see a lot of dedicated people from west, who propagandize democracy, once they have opportunity. However, you know what, democracy is not a panacea to everything too.

    Different countries have different issues. You can’t implant a successful system or experience or other stuff from one country to another. Please take a look at the world map, Europe, America, Latino America, Africa and a lot of Asia countries are under democracy. However, why only Europe

    From what I do see in the press and in answers here on Quora, I do not think that people in China hate democracy.

    But… what democracy are you talking about? Here in Brazil, we used to have indirect elections for president, just as in the U.S.

    There, everyone considers indirect elections to be ‘democratic’. However, it was not ‘democratic’ for us, so in the 80’s there was a huge campaign to have free *direct* elections for president. To our feeling, the U.S. is not democratic, as we were not then.

    If we were a Super Power, that should enable us to cause a civil war in the U.S., and shove down th

    No, we don’t hate real democracy. We love democratic as much as you guys. We only hate your “American democracy”. To be honest, most of us think western politician are haughty. They think their system is best, and every country should accept it. It’s wrong, very very wrong.
    I can’t say how do “Chinese” think about democratic. Let’s only talk myself. Personality, I have a strong believe with communism. I believe there is another world waiting for us. Not now, maybe I can’t say the better world. But it’s my believe, it’s my hope. I know most of you hate communism, and thought I must be washed b

    I’ve been in china for some time and can confidentially assert that few, if any, Chinese HATE democracy. What they hate is advocates shoving democracy down their throats as if it was the solution to all the problems in China. Most of the problems here just require time.

    The Chinese government is having to manage growth on a massive scale and thus regulation (or more often the case of enforcing regulation) is a game of catch up. The US had almost a century to do what china did in 20 years.

    It also doesn’t help that many of the people spouting off about how China should be more “democratic” don’t

    No Chinese hates democracy it’s just a political system. It is the populist policies, shit-talking politicians, and lying medias that democratic system tends to produce that really annoys some of the Chinese people. The so-called “freedom” is bullshit when you don’t even have honesty.

    One time, I overheard an American lady criticizing China for being non-democratic by saying: “Why can’t Chinese people understand that everyone is equal in the eyes of God?” (……………) I mean no disrespect but the only thing echoed in my mind was: “WTF is God?” The criticism was so baffling it terrifies me….” Continued below

  4. CA, I think I saw a Chinese person boil the Chinese goverments’ philosophy down to this: “We recognize only two rights: The right to eat, and the right to live.” That’s it. Of course this particular person was a harsh critic of the Chinese government, saying “those aren’t human rights, those are ANIMAL rights. I think he was actually from mainland China, but left.

      1. “Two tits on you back and a dick in your ass, never a bad thing.” Chinese proverb.

        What does it mean? Sounds gay.

    1. The CCP is correct in a way. Here in the US, we don’t even guarantee those two. We could start with these two basic ones and then move up from there. As someone said, the right to vote isn’t worth a whole lot if you have no shelter, no food, no medical care, no money.

      American idiot: “Yeah, but you get to vote! Isn’t that cool? You have that right to vote, but you don’t have the right to any of those other things. That’s called Freedom (TM), American style.”

      Dude with no shelter, no food, no medical care, and no money: “Um, no? Um, I think I’ll pass on that freedom of yours. By the way, think you could give me some spare change so I can get something to eat? I’ve barely eaten in a couple of days.”

      American idiot: “Get a job, derelict!”

      1. Meh. As I said to Rambo, who the fuck cares what rights people think we have. They’re fake.

        Do I have the right not deny feeding others with my redistributed wealth? Do I have the right not to be taxed? Nope. But I also have no obligations either.

        Government and society is by it’s nature an act of coercion. Is the patriarchy real and oppressive? Yes it is. Don’t women have any natural rights NOT to be oppressed? Nope.

        I can’t argue for or against the American “idiot” you caricatured. What I can argue for is which mode of oppression (read: society) I think is better. But key point, here, I have no natural right not to be subjected to a society I don’t like. That’s fake too. I either fight or accept it. But bitching about it like a faggot won’t do much for me.

        1. Well of course. You’re a Libertarian. Of course you argue that humans have no inherent rights. Of course you think the state is inherently oppressive.

          Society has a duty to guarantee those rights. What any particular egotist Libertarians think is of no consequence.

          I think women have a natural right not to be oppressed.

          The good thing is that a majority doesn’t agree with you last time I checked. Also no promoting Libertardianism please.

    2. Rambo, I actually don’t think people have the above two rights. I don’t people have any natural rights whatsoever. Rights are philosophical stances.

      1. Like the “right” to Healthcare?” What’s your opinion of those that say that right is inherent? Should they feel that way whether or not they paid for those doctors to go to medical school? Doctors aren’t just grown on trees. Your thoughts would be most appreciated. Thank you.

        1. No inherent right to healthcare either unless agreed upon by the collective. To address both you and RL’s points:

          “Society has a duty to guarantee those rights.”

          Which rights? Certainly not natural rights that don’t exist. The physical laws of the universe are the only natural rights we have. The right to being and to be subjected to being.

          So then which rights should society guarantee? Only those explicitly agreed upon by the people in their laws whatever they me be. They are arbitrary. However, only those societies which protect useful rights survive, hence patriarchies and not matriarchies.

          “What any particular egotist Libertarians think is of no consequence.”

          True. I’m not promoting Libertarianism. A belief in lack of natural rights may be inherent to Libertarian ideology, but it’s not the other way around. Also, as I said above, unnatural rights must be protected by a society if it wishes to legitimize itself. Which I think is a contradiction within Libertarian thought that is somewhat addressed by Minarchism. But a mini-state whose sole purpose is to promote the idea that the state is coercive, and thus the state should help limit itself? Lolz. I actually reject Libertarianism as a mode of government and only believe it should be a guiding principle.

          Libertarian societies are inherently unstable and quickly “collapse” into a statist society of some sort. The U.S. is a prime example from Confederacy to Republic to the current Deep State abomination it is. Now by unstable I don’t mean that there is chaos in the streets, rather I mean that a Libertarian society is merely a transient state.

          “I think women have a natural right not to be oppressed.”

          No they don’t. Unless you can demonstrate that in the biology of humans there exists a certain universal protocol that causes people to psychologically reject the mistreatment of women, there simple is no natural protecting against oppression.

          1. Ok you are being philosophical. I guess I would say that in my ideal vision of the world, the right to health care, shelter, food, basic survival and lack of misogynistic oppression of females ought to be guaranteed. But you’re probably correct that this is not a natural right. It probably is an unnatural right. But in that case, I would mandate a lot of unnatural rights.

  5. I’ve been flirting with the idea of political nature being racial. Chinese as Communists by nature, some posts Yee has made here back this up. East Indians Capitalistic and secretly hate White hippies. I’m also curious about East Asian sexual evolution, maybe Japanese have such repressed sexual culture they became a bit more quirky…. Maybe Ainu are more kinky.

      1. Northern Europeans aren’t antisemitic in nature. Sure, we all had our moments, but no one has been more Jew-friendly.

        Germans were very Jew-friendly, and Ashkenazi Jews evolved to be intelligent through them. Without living in Germany, Ashkenazi Jews would just obsess over their scriptures and remain backwards. The Dutch were Jew-lovers, and Jews were important to their Empire. The English elite were tied to Jews.

        Pagans, Arianists, and Protestants were less antisemitic and more Northern (I’m not talking just racially). Catholicism has Rome as its center of power. A Visigoth Catholic was generally more Romanized and antisemitic than Pagan and Arian Visigoths. Throughout history, true Roman Catholicism has been more antisemitic and rightly so, I might add.

      2. Yes, they are merchants and Commies both at the same time. Same as women are nymphos and prudes both at the same time. Hence the Dialectic and change itself is born of the marriage of opposites. If you believe Hegel was right, that is.

        Being merchants and Commies at the same time fits in well with this Market Socialism or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics of theirs.

    1. Not so sure about race and political philosophy. The Chinese were the opposite of Communists forever. They suffered under the most vicious feudalism. As did the Russians. It’s hard to argue that people who create feudalist societies for centuries have some sort of genetic fetish for equality. Not buying it, man.

  6. Power has an ugly side. Just seen a show where a Roman nails a barbarian to a cross and threatens the same to anyone that takes the kid down, the tribe does nothing. Rome had the power, NS Germany had a brief taste of power. Today Israel has military power over Palestinians. It’s human nature to want the benefits of power though.

  7. The Passion of the Christ? 😄 Just thinking about Healthcare though, the government’s emphasis on training and paying for medical school for doctors, i.e. those that show prodigal scientific aptitude might be one “socialist government program” that could get broad-based support. For such a worthwhile profession, maybe such an idea could fly without the usual political bickering of party politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *