Again, economist calls Naziism socialist

This is a lecture done at Hillsdale College a famous college of thought.

The lecture is title Hayek's Road to Serfdom and is a speech delivered by Lawrence H. White.

Lawrence H. White is Professor of Economics at George Mason University.

So Professor White is no kid punk.

I have spent time calling out the Nazis as Socialists. Why do this? Did the Nazis control the means of production?

Definitely they did. Did they do it aiming to make wealthy men richer? I do not believe the Nazis cared one bit about that.

Enjoy this video and think hard. Do not fight me. I am not Professor White. I do not give public lectures on Hayek nor on Socialism.

Rewind to the top to see all of it. Rewind a few moments if you must do so.

If you want to argue, argue the actual points made by Professor White. Thanks.

Denying the Nazis were socialists is like disliking a pot of boiling water so you then break the thermometer.

 

Yeahright. But it's revisionism. The earlier definition of fascism given by dictionaries and agreed to by Mussolini didn't sit well with the fascist right. They need to appear to be free of it so they can perpetrate it again, which they are doing.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor).

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism":

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


My rather old American Heritage Dictionary (1973) defines it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

The Oxford Dictionary defines fascism as:
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/fascism

 

Nazis, socialists, and fascists can all rot in Hades for all I care. Give me good old fashioned Henry Ford capitalism any day.

 

I would probably not look to Mussolini to gauges left right spectrum. You are aware he was kicked out of the communist party in Italy for being too radically to the left right? He legit had a photo of Karl Marx hung up in his office right until his last day. Certainly everyone to the left of Karl Marx was right wing to him.

 

Fascism is to the right of Communism to be sure but its still far to the left of anything we have today. Even todays democrats would be considered right wing to most Nazis.

 

Just because he’s a professor doesn’t mean he’s isn’t an idiot.

 

You may agree or disagree with Mussolini as a gauge of left or right, but that was just one of the three different sources I posted. Naming just one to object to smacks of spinning and dodging while knowing your own objection is not really valid.

 

Either side can be fascist. It's a tool for control, after all.

Though it stands to reason that a libertarian politic would be less inclined to engage in fascism.

 

I mean to be fair that is like me posting hitler quotes talking about how he was a socialist. Im pretty sure thats a valid point.

 

Culturally Hitler was a nationalist, Economically he was a Socialist.

National Socialism. It is all in the name. It is a blend. Pro ethno state nationalism, conservative, traditional, but with an economy that is socialist.

You must separate the idea of cultural socialism and economic socialism which have become intertwined today. Culturally Hitler was a nationalist, Economically he was a Socialist.

 

...and I thought Henry Ford was a capitalist.

Yes, let us argue Argumentum ex (reality) instead of Argumentum ex verbo (terms).

Right-Winger often claim Hitler and the Nazis were socialist leftist because their party was named "National Socialist." The term "Socialist" was a popular political term like "Democratic" is today. The totalitarian state of North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Right-Wing Fundamentalists love to make this argument the Nazis were leftists because it disguises the fact that the Nazis were pro-Christian, anti-modernist, anti-liberal, anti-Marxist (Russia was their terrorist state and the Nazis killed, or jailed thousands of German communists), anti-abortion, anti-atheist, pro-traditional values and anti-evolutionists.

In America, German Fascism dazzled many American leaders of capitalist industry. They were William Randolph Hearst], Joseph Kennedy (JFK’s father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic Capitalists in America, but Right-Wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were Socialists.

Henry Ford supplied Racist propaganda and even refused to return his Nazi medal after the war.

Charles Lindbergh getting Nazi medal.

William Randolph Hearst had a special loving relationship with the Nazis.

And see that historic "Socialist"editor's special edition by Henry Luce’s Time magazine with Benito Mussolini’s on the cover extolling the virtues of fascism.

Let's not forget those other three famous American fascists: Fred Koch and his two weird sons.

Report: Koch Brothers' Father Helped Nazis Build Oil Refinery | Alternet

Concentration Camp Inmates Had To Rebuild A Nazi Refinery The Koch Brothers' Dad Helped Construct

The Kochs & the Nazis: Book Reveals Billionaires’ Father Built Key Oil Refinery for the Third Reich.

Quote:
"Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was."

In fact, Hitler defined a Socialist as a German Nationalist. Hitler’s definition of Socialism had nothing to do with economics.

Quote: “…definition of a “socialist” which Hitler gave in a speech on July 28, 1922:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land-that man is a Socialist. (Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 85)”[/quote]

Here is an interesting passage in William Shirer's book about Hitler's economic theories. I think you will recognize the talking points.

Quote: “By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.”

At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"[/quote]

And anyone in the Nazi ranks that took the Socialist talk seriously was dealt with immediately with expulsion or even death.

Quote:“Otto, Gregor Strasser’s brother, had fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party. (Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 147).“

The Reich-Wing has been arguing that Hitler was a Leftist since the Crypto-Nazi Fredrick von Hayek first developed this counter propaganda to conceal their earlier enthusiastic support for Hitler like the American Capitalists.

Quote: What Fascism Is and Isn't ," : A historical study of the Third Reich by Glen Yeadon

[excerpts....]

• There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
• Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are inherently unstable, as is any system created by man....
• Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings. The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism in Germany and Italy.
• In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the private sector after returning them to profitability such as the Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
• In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression.
• Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."73
• Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance themselves from their previous support of fascism."

Let's not forget those other three famous American fascists: Fred Koch and his two weird sons.

• Report: Koch Brothers' Father Helped Nazis Build Oil Refinery | Alternet
• Concentration Camp Inmates Had To Rebuild A Nazi Refinery The Koch Brothers' Dad Helped Construct
• The Kochs & the Nazis: Book Reveals Billionaires’ Father Built Key Oil Refinery for the Third Reich | Interview with Jane Mayer

And then there is Texaco that supplied Franco fascists with US fuel.

Fueling Fascism: The Secret History of How Texaco Supplied Oil to Fascists in Spain | Democracy Now!

 

Pre Hitler's takeover of the party, Nazis were socialist. After his takeover, they weren't.

 

Here is a pretty good short video on the Nazis and their socialist beard.

How One Man Fought Hitler Through Anti-fascist Art
​

 

The only thing which would have made him a socialist would have been the nationalization of means of production, because that is the definition of a socialist. Socialism = Government owned and operated means of production.

But Hitler did not do that. He left means of production in private hands, and the private corporations did very well during those times, because the military machine bought all the good they could produce. Same is true in any country which is engaged in full scale war (like Ukraine today).

Hitler's Germany was a military dictatorship, and as such it didn't really follow any standard economic model. Period. Trying to associate it to left or right in US is a fools errand.

 

Many socialists claim that Nazis are their main enemy. This makes it difficult to recognize Nazis as socialists as well.

Socialism is based on envy, oppression and state terrorism against (wealthy) people.
Nazism too. Nazis only accept rich who have to do with armaments or are supporters of the Nazi state, unless they are Jews.

 

Socialism cannot be defined. There is no common agreement on what socialism is and why there are at least five definitions in the Webster dictionary.
Henry Ford was not a socialist, but a capitalist. The attributes of fascism are clearly known. When capitalism fails, it immediately turns into fascism:

• In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression.
• Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."73
• Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance themselves from their previous support of fascism." (What Fascism Is and Isn't A historical study of the Third Reich by Glen Yeadon)

In Germany the industrial capitalists asked Hitler for-- and received--the following economic policies which are identical to the American Republican Party platform today:
1. The government must take steps to lower the cost of production to profits.
2. Lower taxes.
3. Reduce the size of government.
4. Lower unemployment insurance benefit.
5. The government must allow wages to progress to lower levels, by voiding labor contracts and binding arbitration.

 

are white nationalists capitalist?

 

Yes, you will only become confused if you only consult capitalist sources of definitions of socialism. That SHOULD be no surprise. But if we look at socialist sources to see what socialism is, we get a different picture. You can’t trust an advocate of capitalism to tell you the truth about the nature of a system that corrects capitalist problems by ending capitalism!

Socialism is only presented by socialists as a system that ends capitalism. It is always described by socialists as a system that puts the working class in control and ends the profit motive and private profits. There is no variation from this theme among socialists. See for yourself….

https://www.socialism101.com/basic

https://www.socialistalternative.org/about/

https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/


So no, “national socialism”/fascism/Naziism is not socialism.

 

it brings clarity to your view though. And to me it says your view is askew If you consider that a valid source of truth. It says far more about your view than it does mine to object to a die hard communist like Mussolini

 

Socialism is cutting your foot off when your toe hurts.

What socialist system has "corrected" capitalist "problems".

 

I don’t much care what a confused right winger says about the subject. NOBODY from center to far left agrees with you.

 

"After the revolution everyone will live like Spinoza."-- Antonio Labriola (1843-1904) ​

....that is "ethical" like Spinoza. You make good points! You are not wrong. However, Marcus'e view is socialism's conceptual validation requires a consensus on it meaning which is difficult if not impossible to obtain. Even your first good source "socialism101" notes that "Socialism" can also be used as an umbrella term, describing a collection of ideologies that advocate for the socialist mode of production. This includes but is not limited to...."

Also, closely related to the definitions of socialism are the disagreements on how socialism emerges through history such as between Hegelian-Marxist Lukacs, Hegelian-Marxist Gramsci, Italian anti-Hegelian Marxist like Della Volpe (1895-1968 ) and anti-Hegelian anti-materialist Italian Marxist Colletti (1924-2001) the anti-Hegelian French Marxists (Sartre and Henri Lefebvre) wanted to ditch the whole Hegelian theological view of teleological history. It is down at this level that the word "socialism" becomes subject to a great divergence of its meaning.

I like Marcuse's view of Marxism that does not relay on historical teleology and is more Kantian than the Hegelian in this sense. Marcuse hardly ever quotes Marx. Morton Schoolman writes about Marcuse's view of history in "The Imaginary Witness: The Critical Theory of Herbert Marcuse," (pdf.)

"Technical rationality has abolished the traditional foundation for theory, a development threatening the viability of criticism. Marcuse’s insight is that from these ashes a phoenix has arisen. What first appeared to end theory’s claims to objective rationality actually has emancipated theory from the yoke that prevented its appreciation and celebration of the real nature of reason. Theory’s release from the Marxist conception of history allows it to represent the values of reason, subjectivity, and freedom without dictating what reason, freedom, and subjectivity ought to be. Critical theory also escapes its theological past as it was shaped by Hegel as well as Marx." (ibid, p. 274).

Here is an interesting lecture by Professor Michael Pelias on the conflicting views regarding classical Marxism.

Seminar 9: Marx, Marxism and Philosophy Today with Michael Pelias
​

 

hitler had ole henrys picture in his office, hitler looked up to ford as well

 

RWers have their nuts and bolts over-torqued, they need to relax some tension

 

Here is an interesting passage in William Shirer's book about Hitler's economic theories. I think you will recognize the talking points.

Quote: “By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.”

At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"[/quote]

And anyone in the Nazi ranks that took the Socialist talk seriously was dealt with immediately with expulsion or even death.

Quote:“Otto, Gregor Strasser’s brother, had fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party. (Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 147).“

The Reich-Wing has been arguing that Hitler was a Leftist since the Crypto-Nazi Fredrick von Hayek first developed this counter propaganda to conceal their earlier enthusiastic support for Hitler like the American Capitalists.

Quote: What Fascism Is and Isn't ," : A historical study of the Third Reich by Glen Yeadon

[excerpts....]

• There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
• Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are inherently unstable, as is any system created by man....
• Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings. The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism in Germany and Italy.
• In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the private sector after returning them to profitability such as the Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
• In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression.
• Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."73
• Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance themselves from their previous support of fascism."

Let's not forget those other three famous American fascists: Fred Koch and his two weird sons.

• Report: Koch Brothers' Father Helped Nazis Build Oil Refinery | Alternet
• Concentration Camp Inmates Had To Rebuild A Nazi Refinery The Koch Brothers' Dad Helped Construct
• The Kochs & the Nazis: Book Reveals Billionaires’ Father Built Key Oil Refinery for the Third Reich | Interview with Jane Mayer

And then there is Texaco that supplied Franco fascists with US fuel.

Fueling Fascism: The Secret History of How Texaco Supplied Oil to Fascists in Spain | Democracy Now![/QUOTE]
I don't care about labels like Marxism, Fascism, Nazism aor any other "ism". I oppose any system that takes hard earned money out of my pocket and gives it away to lazy bums.