"Why did Biden call out white supremacists, not exactly a key political player in the US? Because despite controlling the state, corporations, churches, etc. utopia has not arrived. The deplorables must be blamed. They are the new Kulaks." @TheWorthyHouse with @AuronMacintyre.
Soviets had their Kulaks and Nazis had their Jews, but the basic principle and resons is the same. Naming convections and method of vampire economy change but its the same damn thing.
The Vampire Economy is a book by Günter Reimann. It is a study of the actual workings of business under national socialism. Written in 1939, Reimann discusses the effects of heavy regulation, inflation, price controls, trade interference, national economic planning, and attacks on private property, and what consequences they had for human rights and economic development.
IN NAZI GERMANY there is no field of business activity in which the State does not interfere. In detailed form it prescribes how the businessman may use capital which is still presumably his private property. And because of this, the German businessman has become a fatalist; he does not believe that the new rules will work out well, yet he knows that he cannot alter the course of events.
He has been made the tool of a gigantic machine which he cannot direct. He looks at the rest of the capitalist world, hoping for help in winning back from the State his lost rights and freedom. But wherever he turns there are trends and changes of a similar, though milder, character, indicating that the totalitarian regime in Germany cannot be attributed to the madness of one man or to the self-interest of one ruling party; that it represents in caricature some of the fundamental phenomena in modern capitalism, which lead to more and more State interference and consequent usurpation of the businessman’s rights and privileges.
State Secretary Brinkmann summarized the lost rights of the German businessman as follows:
“You will call attention to the fact that the freedom of disposition of the entrepreneur in the sphere of commodity purchases is chained down by the system of supervisory boards and other regulations, that the utilization of labor is subject to various restrictions, that the wage ceiling and prohibition of price increases level which in a liberal economy would be impossible, that money intended for consumption is forcibly shifted to capital investment and the entrepreneur sees himself forced under State interference to make capital investments which he would never have made if he had been left to his own doing, that; money capital is enfeebled by the law for the Compulsory Investment of Surplus Dividends and is forced by the prohibition of private issues to offer itself at a cheap rate for purposes in which it is but little interested.
“And you will argue further that in the shadow of this governmental procedure, which you call economy of coercion, there is occurring under the eyes of the same state the very thing it wishes to prevent, namely, choking up of individual initiative by administrative activity, a burdening, perhaps even an overburdening, of the economic apparatus with dead costs; the impairment of a standard of living to be derived from a certain nominal income, due to rising taxes and monopoly prices; a still further expansion of the already great concerns, and death or dormancy among the small and medium-sized businesses.”
This frankness on the part of the former State Secretary is evidence that he is speaking of something which is the common experience and knowledge of any businessman in Germany.
What position in society does the businessman have when he lives under a totalitarian regime from which he cannot escape? Many businessmen in Germany would answer this question with an anecdote which is very popular among them. It tells of two peasants who did not understand the difference between Bolshevism and National Socialism. One of them asked the other his opinion on the matter. The answer was:
“Under Bolshevism all your cows will be taken away from you because you are a kulak (wealthy independent farmer in the Russian Empire, designated as class enemy in the Soviet Union). Under National Socialism you are allowed to keep the cows; but the State takes all the milk, and you have the expense and labor of feeding them”. - Günter Reimann, “The Vampire Economy”
In order that a capitalist may exercise his proper function, it is essential that he use his capital freely for his own personal advantage. But this principle is no longer valid in Germany. The State bureaucracy “directs” the use of capital “in the interests of the State.” The attitude of the businessman toward his loss of freedom, and what he thinks about the State’s diversion of capital to its own uses, is well illustrated by the story of the owner of a Westphalian machine-tool plant. In describing his experiences to a friend, this industrialist declared:
“I have a million marks to invest. If I could use this money as I please, I would buy gold. This I would put in a safe deposit vault where not even the Reichsbank president could touch it. The gold would earn no interest. I would lose possible profits. But I would be free of the constant fear of losing my capital. I would not have to worry about having to invest it where I can never be sure of its worth from day to day. But I cannot buy gold with my million marks. I must invest it as soon as possible, since if I leave it in my bank account too long, it may be confiscated by the tax controller, the Party may demand a large contribution, or the Party secretary may inform me that I am to be honored as the founder of a new enterprise for the unprofitable production of some ersatz product. Before I receive some such suggestion, I must make up my mind about the possibilities of investment. Two years ago I might have decided to buy a new house for my family, or to erect an apartment building. I would not have cared particularly whether there were tenants or not, as much as I would at least have had some real property that could not be wiped out by inflation, and that would be at my free disposal. But today this is out of the question without a special permit from the State. The only way out seems to be to invest the money in extending my own plant.”
A few weeks later the manufacturer again met his friend and reported to him:
“New decrees forbid installation of machinery made of iron and steel, whenever ersatz materials can be used. I cannot get any new machinery for the next fifteen months. However, the State has taken care of my worries. I was ‘asked’ to build a huge refuge where valuables could be safely stored and workers accommodated during air raids. It will cost nearly 150,000 marks. Then our manufacturers’ association worked out several new machines for using ersatz materials. Replacement of my obsolete machines cost me 500,000 marks. Then the tax controller discovered I had liquid assets and found a ‘mistake’ in a tax return I made some years ago; I had to pay a fine of 350,000 marks. So, I am relieved of the worry of how to invest my million marks.”
Nevertheless, the State refuses to become the owner of industrial or distribution enterprises; it prefers to leave the difficulties of production to the private entrepreneur. But markets with price movements dependent mainly on the business cycle have been supplanted by markets dependent on State policies and on the whims of the commissars who carry them out. The markets as such, however, still exist. Private enterprises do not buy or sell goods as agents of the State; they still act on private calculation. The system thus is a strange mixture of State interference and planning combined with private management—an economic system which is neither competitive capitalism, nor the planned economy of state socialism nor state capitalism. It is so bewildering in its complexity that the capitalist no longer knows whether he is a capitalist or whether he has become a mere agent of the State.
The new system has, as its representative, a powerful bureaucracy which is not particularly interested in the defense of any system—except as far as it contributes to the bureaucracy’s own absolute power. Capitalist enterprises are desirable and tolerated if their existence is compatible with and useful to the State bureaucracy.
This raises the question of the position in society of the State bureaucracy. Is it a dictatorship standing above and against all social classes? A comparison with the State which emerged from the Russian Revolution is relevant.
Although defending a system of private property, the fascist State bureaucracy and all those whose existence is dependent on the absolute power of the totalitarian State must act in defense of their own interests even if this hurts the interests of all classes in society.
Many German capitalists who demonstratively show their devotion to the Fuehrer, secretly believe that fascism or National Socialism is “almost the same” or “just the same” as Bolshevism. Under both regimes the State bureaucracy is independent of any democratic institution; it is under the sole command of an authoritarian leadership.
In both countries the economic system is difficult to define because of its complexity. This is particularly true of fascism. Here the capitalists may feel that they are mere agents of a State which is building up a new anti-capitalist society. But it is easy to prove that fascism relies on capitalist economy. Capitalist owners or managers—so-called “leaders”—still try to enrich themselves by obtaining as much profit as possible. State regulations restrict their activities and they may disagree with State policies. Yet the fact that this clash of interests between the State and the capitalist still occurs is in itself proof that private property and the search for profit have not ceased to exist under fascism. Balance-sheets may reveal that dividends have increased, yet the amounts paid in taxes considerably exceed these profits. There is much planning, leading to more State interference in private enterprise, yet there is no national plan which abolishes private enterprise as such, except in the event of a wartime economy.
The present economic system under fascism or National Socialism escapes definition in a single term, such as “capitalist” or “socialist.” Two mutually contradictory systems exist side by side—the genesis of a planned economy and unplanned private enterprise.
Capitalism still exists, because private enterprise still owns as private property most of the means of production and distribution. But the State has already introduced measures typical of state socialism, such as national investment boards, state control of prices, banking, and foreign trade, general regimentation of business activities. These measures have not, however, been introduced on the basis of any new principle, but in order to maintain and increase the absolute power of the State.
The progress which state capitalism has made in fascist countries has created economic phenomena like those in Soviet Russia. In both cases the Five- and Four-Year Plans diverted capital funds into the army’s budget and into armament industries. At the end of the first Five-Year Plan in the U.S.S.R., just as at the end of the first Four-Year Plan in Nazi Germany, the one-sided development of the armament industries led to a distressing shortage of consumption goods. For similar reasons both countries experienced a serious railway crisis; too little capital had been spent for repairs and extension.
Under both systems an inflationary increase of State credits and currency circulation took place, but the immediate effect of this process was not a general rise in prices; several State-regulated prices remained “stable” while other prices rose considerably and the quality of most goods declined. The peasants felt that they were being exploited and that the prices they received for agricultural products no longer made their production worthwhile. Consequently, they answered with “sabotage” of production for the market, while at the same time the State tried to compel the peasants to fulfill “their duty” and feed the towns. A new type of agrarian crisis had occurred, quite different from such crises under a competitive economy. The German peasants were not yet threatened with starvation, but they lost interest in producing for a State-regulated market.
This was also a feature of the agricultural crisis in the U.S.S.R. during the first Five-Year Plan, when the peasants received almost nothing in return for the grain they were forced to deliver to the State. In 1932-33, it was realized that some inducement must be given to the peasants. So they were allowed to sell in the free market any produce they might have left after delivering their quotas to the State. For a time two price systems existed side by side: a free market where shortage of foodstuffs led to excessively high prices, and the State shops where all workers and employees could buy their bread rations and a very few other necessities.
This is equally true of Nazi Germany where the State is playing a similar role. The Reich Nutrition Estate—a huge bureaucratic State organization—has completely replaced private grain dealers and has established a strict control over sales of most foodstuffs. State agencies buy grain at artificially low prices while the price for flour has been increased. The higher profit of the “distributor” State is largely spent by the administration for the huge costs of its bureaucratic machine. In Germany the Government has somewhat disguised the increased profit which it takes from producers and consumers by lowering the quality of the bread supplied. In addition, the Party bureaucracy endeavors to foster an artificial antagonism between town and country by telling the workers that the peasants are responsible for the poor supplies. When workers visit the villages, they are astonished to find how little the peasants are, in fact, receiving, and both feel oppressed.
In Germany the peasants have not been “collectivized” and they therefore feel the more keenly the loss of their right and freedom to sell their products as they please. But a loosening of State control and a return to private marketing of agricultural products could be inaugurated only if the Government agreed to an increase of prices for these products.
Fast forward to 2023, Middle of “free and democratic” European Union. Netherlands.
Despite its small size, the Netherlands is the world’s second-biggest exporter of agricultural products by value behind the US. Dutch agricultural exports were worth €122.3 billion last year, according to the national statistics office. Intensive farming has left the small nation with higher nitrogen oxide levels than EU regulations allow or so it claims. Under lame excuse that these emissions worsen climate change hoax and can harm biodiversity ,the Dutch state is collectivizing, forcefully compensating farmers land and banning them from farming for life now. Very similar to National Socialists and Communists. Because they might have a new name, or even new ideology, but methods and interests of power do not change.
The Nazi economy has been described as dirigiste by several scholars. Overall, according to historian Richard Overy, the Nazi war economy was a mixed economy that combined free markets with central planning; Overy describes it as being somewhere in between the command economy of the Soviet Union and the capitalist system of the United States.
The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement. Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labor, composed of prisoners and concentration camp inmates, which was greatly expanded after the beginning of World War II. In Poland alone, some five million people (including Polish Jews) were used as slave labor throughout the war. Among the slave laborers in the occupied territories, hundreds of thousands were used by leading German corporations including Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen, as well as the Dutch corporation Philips. By 1944, slave labor made up one-quarter of Germany's entire civilian work force, and the majority of German factories had a contingent of prisoners.
Today’s Germany is going in the same direction as it was in the 1930-1940. New boss, same thing. New ideology with a new name, but same practices. And similar situation is in much of the western world. This time they call it “Great Reset” and “fourth industrial revolution” and “state capitalism”. But its at its core the same type of people doing the same type of things as roughly a century earlier. This time it is the “watermelon politics”. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
My grandfather grew up in a village where he cultivated the land with his brother and their children. His neighbor, Petya, was a ne’er-do-well, who slept on the porch of his ramshackle hut and spent his evenings drinking and beating his miserable wife. He would watch in disdain as we sweated in the hot sun building a new barn or brought home a new cow. During hard times, Petya would appear at our door asking for a handout. In 1929, Petya appeared at my grandfather’s door accompanied by a handful of thugs, sporting a military uniform and cap bearing a red star, and declared: “In the name of Soviet power, I order you to hand over all your property and land to the collective”. This is why my grandfather hated communism and Soviet power all his life.
(Story told to the author in Moscow by a seventy-five-year-old Russian.)
“I remembered Papa talking about Stalin confiscating peasants' land, tools, and animals. He told them what crops they would produce and how much they would be paid. I thought it was ridiculous. How could Stalin simply take something that didn't belong to him, something that a farmer and his family had worked their whole lives for? "That's communism, Lina," Papa had said.” ― Ruta Sepetys, Between Shades of Gray
Today in the middle or European Union you see this happening again where the Dutch government under World Economic Forum’s Great Reset program is collectivizing farm land and banning farms from practicing farming in order to control food. It happening right in the middle or Europe in 2023 and EU commission approved it just a few days ago.
Blaming the Kulaks | Guest: Charles Haywood | 5/22/23
America: Mercenary Empire of CHAOS