The next time someone tells you the Nazis were anti-capitalist, show them this.

[bripat9643]

After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.

This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.

This argument has been raging back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany.

Here's a non-revisionist source;

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

You mean "here's some commie pinko propaganda."

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

I don't bother reading sources posted by snowflake idiots. Whenever I do I feel I have actually become dumber as a result.

 

[Ringel05]

This argument has been raging back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany.

Here's a non-revisionist source;

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

You mean "here's some commie pinko propaganda."

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

I don't bother reading sources posted by snowflake idiots. Whenever I do I feel I have actually become dumber as a result.

I find that extremely difficult to believe.........

 

[Tehon]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.

This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.

This argument has been raging back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany.

Here's a non-revisionist source;

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

You mean "here's some commie pinko propaganda."

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

 

[Freiheit]

After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.

This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Another socialist trying spread the tired, debunked, disproven, idiocy of socialism. Cory Robin writes for Jacobin a socialist anti capitalist magazine.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

This argument has been raging back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany.

Here's a non-revisionist source;

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

You mean "here's some commie pinko propaganda."

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition (based on theoretical definitions). This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

 

[Tehon]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

You mean "here's some commie pinko propaganda."

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is fundamentally capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.

The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.

 

[sartre play]

Started as an interesting discussion, as usual went quickly to the bottom with name calling.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

Right on cue.....

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.

 

[Tehon]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.

The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.

Your article lacks citations to back up its claims from Mises.

 

[Tehon]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.

It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.

The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.

Does it?

The notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

 

[Ringel05]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.

The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.

Your article lacks citations to back up its claims from Mises.

I'm referring to content withing the body of the writing as in citing content........ You must really be desperate to have it be capitalist, why?

 

[Cellblock2429]

After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.

This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.

All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.

The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.

/—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh good, another Nazi thread.

Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.

The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.

Does it?

The notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

Page 391 -393 gives some very good examples of why it could be both and/or neither.

 

[Tehon]

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.

The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.

Your article lacks citations to back up its claims from Mises.

I'm referring to content withing the body of the writing as in citing content........ You must really be desperate to have it be capitalist, why?

That was a reply to bripat.

Fundamentally privatization of industry is capitalist. Truth is all I seek.

 

[Ringel05]

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.

The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.

Your article lacks citations to back up its claims from Mises.

I'm referring to content withing the body of the writing as in citing content........ You must really be desperate to have it be capitalist, why?

That was a reply to bripat.

Fundamentally privatization of industry is capitalist. Truth is all I seek.

Paper definitions are fine in the academic world.........

 

[Tehon]

After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.

This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.

All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.

The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.

/—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.

And Ferdinand Porsche hired labor and built what was asked for a profit.

 

[bripat9643]

After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.

This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.

All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.

The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.

/—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.

He wasn't given the option of building sports cars.

By "asked" you mean "ordered to."

 

[bripat9643]

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.

The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.

Your article lacks citations to back up its claims from Mises.

I'm referring to content withing the body of the writing as in citing content........ You must really be desperate to have it be capitalist, why?

That was a reply to bripat.

Fundamentally privatization of industry is capitalist. Truth is all I seek.

It wasn't really privatized.

 

[Tehon]

Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?

Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.

That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.

That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.

The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.

Does it?

The notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

Page 391 -393 gives some very good examples of why it could be both and/or neither.

They were laying out the arguments that they would refute in the coming pages.

But it is not so obvious why widespread nationalization of industry was not undertaken. For it definitely cannot be argued that there existed a kind of quasi-socialization with private firm property only preserved nominally