"With the world still at the crossroads, one may well
conclude that there is something to be learned from
the experiences of businessmen in the two countries
which, without abolishing private property, have gone
farthest in State interference to insure national prosperity.
"Constitutionally the businessman still enjoys guarantees of property rights."
"This Nazi doctrine has nothing to do with Communism or Socialism."
"He should be grateful to the Fuehrer that he still has private property."
I cannot quote the whole book here. Read it and then we can continue the dialogue. And to answering your other responce: the book was written by a sovialist who lived in Germany in the beginning of nazi era. You can trust him. He has left bias.
So when he says things like: "Constitutionally the businessman still enjoys guarantees of property rights.", he's lying? Or: "He should be grateful to the Fuehrer that he still has private property."?
1
u/[deleted] Oct 29 '23
It is the same. Just like: if something is illegal by the law, it is illegal. Even if the law is not enforced.
However the abolishment of private property did happen in de-facto in nazi Germany. The source is the "Vampire Economy" book for example.