Why Mises Institute Articles Suck ("Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian")

The article, Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | Mises Institute, has been shared approvingly by some people and is used as 'proof' that Nazism was socialism.

Yet, this was an awful article. For one, like most articles from the Mises institute it spends an inordinate portion of the article fellating him.

The article claims that it shows why 1) Nazi Germany was socialist, not capitalist as well as 2) why socialism needs a totalitarian dictaorship. We are interested here in 1). I will ignore the other ranting, e.g. about the USA.

In support of 1) it claims not just that the Nazi state de facto controlled what was to be produced and how, but more importantly that price and wage controls were introduced in 1936, leading to government control over the economy. The article indeed claims to show how price and wage controls lead to totalitarianism, but it does a sleight of hand and doesn't show how price and wage controls lead to *socialism*; it then goes on sneakily to equate price controls to de facto government ownership of private property. It does this using a lot of rhetoric to claim that de facto government ownership is an inevitable result of price controls, without looking at real world examples - not even that of Nazi Germany. Which is telling, since it doesn't substantiate its points - just makes broad assertions. "As Mises showed" is not an argument - if governments are okay with some of the outcomes of price/wage controls like shortages, there is no need for them to seize the means of production (i.e. socialism).

Indeed, other economies have imposed price and wage controls in the past.

Nixon imposed price and wage controls from 1971-1974 (Commanding Heights : Nixon Tries Price Controls | on PBS). Does that mean the US was a socialist economy from 1971-1974, or was becoming one? Similarly the UK had the National Board for Prices and Incomes from 1965 to 1970.

Perhaps one might quibble that the article claims that only prolonged price/wage controls lead to "socialism" - but just how prolonged a period is needed to qualify? As the article mentions Germany introduced price and wage controls in 1936 - and World War II broke out in 1939. Note that price and wage controls are not unheard of during wars.

Furthermore, just because the government had some control over the economy does not mean that it was de facto socialist.

Recall that according to Merriam Webster, socialism is "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property" or "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state". Let us use the latter definition, which is less strict, but note that even here the Mises Institute article's definition would not count, since it claims the state had control (even if not ownership - and according to the definition both conditions are necessary for socialism).

Did Nazi Germany really have full control over the means of production?

No.

As the paper The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry notes, "firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment patterns. Even regarding war-related projects freedom of contract was generally respected and, instead of using power, the state offered firms a bundle of contract options to choose from".

So at the very most, we can say that Nazi Germany had some characteristics of a de facto socialist country. But to be more precise we should say that there was some government economic planning.

Of course that doesn't sound as sexy as claiming that it was socialist.

Of course, there were some left wing elements to Nazi policies, but that is a separate story.