The chapter titled 'The Socialist roots of Nazism' in Hayek's Road to Serfdom is brilliant
Discussion
Naziism was really just racist, nationalist, socialism.
I am quite surprised that this is not widely recognised in 'mainstream' political discourse, and they engage in mental gymnastics to differentiate socialism and nazism.
Glad that we can stay away from that type of discourse thanks to Nostr.
You are wrong
Can you elaborate?
National Socialism valued private property amd businesses and did not want to seize the means of production.
This misconception that people generally have is the reason why I mentioned that chapter in the OP.
Hayek argues that Nazism emerged from socialist ideologies rather than traditional conservatism or capitalism, tracing its intellectual lineage to thinkers like Fichte, Hegel, and Marx.
Both socialism and Nazism prioritize the collective over individual freedom, advocating centralized economic planning. Economic planning, whether socialist or fascist, inevitably leads to state dominance and suppression of dissent.
The Nazis adopted socialist economic structures, including nationalized industries and wage controls.
The disdain for classical liberalism is common to both.
Yeah but National Socialism does not fit the definition of Socialism at all. Libertarians and conservatives like to link them all together but that is not true.
Socialism is not what HItler wanted nor stood for
You don't own your property if you can't use it according to your will.
You don't own your means of production if you can't empoy it according to your will.
In a national socialist society, you are directed and coerced to use your property and employ the means of production you own according to the will of the state authority, not yours.
So the state does own your property and the means of production by such direction and coercion.
This is what socialists do as well.
The stated end goals might be different for both.
But the means used to achieve those stated goals are the same.
And those means used lead to suffering, violence and misery.
Collective administration?
How about the Nazi Party Platform:
"7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich."
"9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties."
"We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work."
"12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."
The remaining provisions are either of a similar character or are nationalist (eg a demand that State officials must be German citizens)
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform
National Socialism forced most businesses to join industry cartels, regulated them harder than SPD ever did, prevented dismissal other than for cause and with govt sign-off, and restricted corporate distribution of profits to 6% of net assets annually.
That last I'm actually a huge fanboi of, gives monopolists the finger; but the rest of NatSoc was "Socialism-lite". And I see no reason to believe it would have stayed "lite".
The German State absolutely seized the means of production, for example taking them from Jewish businesses and then "privatizing" them to NSDAP loyalists. Business interests that were not stolen outright were subject to quotas, regulations, state approval to hire or fire and various other controls. In short, the nominal owner did not exercise the power associated with private property. The "owner" (in the sense of having the choice of how to use or dispose of the asset) was indeed the State.
Here is a lecture on the topic:
100%.
"Capital must be the handmaid of the State, not her mistress"
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated, quoting from memory.
I like how clearly he makes the argument that socialism and fascism are the same thing: state mandated control towards a defined direction.
what extent of government should we afford?
And the 'withering away of the state' through violent means like restricting freedoms and confiscating private property that socialists promote is quite nonsensical.
Steps like deregulation, privatisation, spending cuts, demilitarisation, stronger property rights, disinvestment and decentralisation of governance is a far more realistic path to reduce the role of government in our lives. It's realistic because it is possible to do this in a peaceful manner.
what violent means are you thinking of that socialists advocating for to wither away the state?
I would add to the list of things that government can do: to make sure that tools, technology and scientific discoveries are deployed in the service of people rather than the service of corporations
perhaps one may say that people will do this themselves of their own volitiion and that there is no need for governance
but I find that these transformations come in cyclical patterns and periods where governance is needed over commons can be replaced by periods where commons can be managed in self-organized manners
for example, most electricity infrastructure in european countries is centrally built and managed, so in a shift to more decentralized grids we inevitably pass through a necessary period of governance of these commons.
Socialists of the current age use the violent means of the state to 'democratise' or 'redistribute' capital.
This inevitably leads to capital being concentrated in the hands of an entrenched elite who use coercive means to preserve their entrenched status. This entrenched elite can be a bureaucracy or cronies. The effect is the same.
Governance of commons, if privatised, will make sure that it is used in a resourceful manner. If bureaucrats do it, it leads to corruption and destruction of the commons because incentives are misaligned.
To judge whether a particular policy is good or not, the question to ask is:
'In what situation is government coercion used?'
If used in a way that an individual's natural rights are violated, it is bad.
If used in a way that an individual's natural rights are protected, it is good.