ללא מחבר No Author

Did the Nazis Win the War? – Because Everyone Copies Their Economics…

Hitler’s Economics

By 

October 29, 2018

[Originally published August 02, 2003.]

For today’s generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler’s economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.

The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. “Regardless of the economic arguments” the letter said, “Hitler’s economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide.… Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point.”

The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler’s economic program is a case in point.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that “Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it.”

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every “capitalist” democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: “[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

Keynes’s comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler’s economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, “Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany,” The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

Even as late as 1962, in a report written for President Kennedy, Paul Samuelson had implicit praise for Hitler: “History reminds us that even in the worst days of the great depression there was never a shortage of experts to warn against all curative public actions.… Had this counsel prevailed here, as it did in the pre-Hitler Germany, the existence of our form of government could be at stake. No modern government will make that mistake again.”

On one level, this is not surprising. Hitler instituted a New Deal for Germany, different from FDR and Mussolini only in the details. And it worked only on paper in the sense that the GDP figures from the era reflect a growth path. Unemployment stayed low because Hitler, though he intervened in labor markets, never attempted to boost wages beyond their market level. But underneath it all, grave distortions were taking place, just as they occur in any non-market economy. They may boost GDP in the short run (see how government spending boosted the US Q2 2003 growth rate from 0.7 to 2.4 percent), but they do not work in the long run.

“To write of Hitler without the context of the millions of innocents brutally murdered and the tens of millions who died fighting against him is an insult to all of their memories,” wrote the ADL in protest of the analysis published by the Glenview State Bank. Indeed it is.

But being cavalier about the moral implications of economic policies is the stock-in-trade of the profession. When economists call for boosting “aggregate demand,” they do not spell out what this really means. It means forcibly overriding the voluntary decisions of consumers and savers, violating their property rights and their freedom of association in order to realize the national government’s economic ambitions. Even if such programs worked in some technical economic sense, they should be rejected on grounds that they are incompatible with liberty.

So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler’s economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia.

And yet even in the United States today, protectionist policies are making a tragic comeback. Under the Bush administration alone, a huge range of products from lumber to microchips are being protected from low-priced foreign competition. These policies are being combined with attempts to stimulate supply and demand through large-scale military expenditure, foreign-policy adventurism, welfare, deficits, and the promotion of nationalist fervor. Such policies can create the illusion of growing prosperity, but the reality is that they divert scarce resources away from productive employment.

Perhaps the worst part of these policies is that they are inconceivable without a leviathan state, exactly as Keynes said. A government big enough and powerful enough to manipulate aggregate demand is big and powerful enough to violate people’s civil liberties and attack their rights in every other way. Keynesian (or Hitlerian) policies unleash the sword of the state on the whole population. Central planning, even in its most petty variety, and freedom are incompatible.

Ever since 9/11 and the authoritarian, militarist response, the political left has warned that Bush is the new Hitler, while the right decries this kind of rhetoric as irresponsible hyperbole. The truth is that the left, in making these claims, is more correct than it knows. Hitler, like FDR, left his mark on Germany and the world by smashing the taboos against central planning and making big government a seemingly permanent feature of Western economies.

David Raub, the author of the article for Glenview, was being naïve in thinking he could look at the facts as the mainstream sees them and come up with what he thought would be a conventional answer. The ADL is right in this case: central planning should never be praised. We must always consider its historical context and inevitable political results.

From LRC, here.

Don’t ‘Follow the Footprints of the Sheep’, Exactly

Vayeira, Breishis 19:26. Why Salt?

Why did Lot’s wife turn into a pillar of salt? Chazal talk about her unwillingness to share her valuable salt with guests, a stinginess unmitigated by seeing her husband’s highly developed trait of hachnasas orchim.  Rav Alfie Cherrick told me something he said, something he thought of while learning Melicha (from Reb Ahron Soloveitchik, his Rebbi Muvhak,) many years ago.
He said that salt is a preservative, and it preserves the past. Lot’s wife turned around, she turned wistfully to her past in Sedom when she should have been focused on the gift she was given, the opportunity of spiritual growth. That was the worst thing she could have done at that moment.I think his idea is excellent. It’s obviously true in the case of Lot’s wife, who was leaving the depraved lifestyle of Sedom. But to some extent, it is true for everyone, even those that have a glorious past and live a Torah life. Our past informs and gives direction to our lives, but like all living things, we have to adapt to new circumstances. We have to think about what we can do in the future. Don’t stagnate, move forward.  Even Avraham Avinu was told Lech Lecha, and Rav Ahron Kotler, in his sefer, talks about life being l’maala l’maskil.  Move forward and move upward, or fall – retain what is good of your past, and use it as a stepping stone to your future.

I’ve used that idea in many speeches, sometimes to the annoyance of Bnei Torah who dislike quoting a goy and/or dislike the idea in general.  I quote either Basho or Jaurès:

Matsuo Basho, a Japanese poet/philosopher.
Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.
or
Seek not to follow in the footsteps of men of old; seek what they sought.

Then, similar, from Jean Jaurès, a French socialist politician and a defender of Dreyfus:
“Être fidèle à la tradition, c’est être fidèle à la flamme et non à la cendre”
“To be faithful to tradition is to be faithful to the flame and not to the ashes”

Jaurès’ words were paraphrased by Mahler as
“Tradition ist die Weitergabe des Feuers und nicht die Anbetung der Asche.”
“Tradition is the handing down of the flame and not the worshipping of ashes”.

(Rav Lau talks about this combination of fidelity to the past and adapting to new circumstances in his biography, quoting his father in law about the dual meaning of Ya’azove. I posted it in a drasha for a Sheva Brachos.)

Why Does Teshuva Require Tzedaka?

Teshuva, Tefilla, and Tzedaka. Tzedaka’s Role in Teshuva

Introduction

Chazal and the Rishonim and the Achronim make it clear that Tzedaka has a role in Teshuva. We are going to analyze the relationship of Tzedaka to Teshuva. But please, do not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Do not let the Yetzer Hara cheat you out of an effective and meaningful Teshuva. Shedding tears and sincerely klapping Al Chet is not enough. You need to remember that Tzedaka is a vitally important part of Teshuva.

I am very grateful to Harav Shimon Kalman Goldstein for bringing up this excellent question. Remarkably, I have found almost nobody talks about it.

Let’s put Unesaneh Tokef to the side for a moment.  The Rambam in the second perek looks at Teshuva from three perspectives

אי זו היא תשובה
ומה היא התשובה
מדרכי התשובה

2:1 –

אי זו היא תשובה גמורה. זה שבא לידו דבר שעבר בו ואפשר בידו לעשותו ופירש ולא עשה מפני התשובה.

What is “Complete Teshuva”? When the opportunity to sin presents itself and he rejects it.

2:2 and 3 –

ומה היא התשובה הוא שיעזוב החוטא חטאו ויסירו ממחשבתו ויגמור בלבו שלא יעשהו עוד שנאמר יעזוב רשע דרכו וגו’. וכן יתנחם על שעבר שנאמר כי אחרי שובי נחמתי. ויעיד עליו יודע תעלומות שלא ישוב לזה החטא לעולם

What is (the process) of Teshuva? Leaving the sin, not thinking about how nice it would be to sin, a decision to never sin, and regret for the past. The resolution has to be so firm that God Himself will testify that he will never do this sin again.

כל המתודה בדברים ולא גמר בלבו לעזוב הרי זה דומה לטובל ושרץ בידו שאין הטבילה מועלת לו עד שישליך השרץ. וכן הוא אומר ומודה ועוזב ירוחם. וצריך לפרוט את החטא שנאמר אנא חטא העם הזה חטאה גדולה ויעשו להם אלהי זהב:

Teshuva requires Vidui. Vidui must specify what sins you are doing teshuva for, and it must verbalize an absolute resolution to never sin again.

2:4 –

מדרכי התשובה
להיות השב צועק תמיד לפני השם בבכי ובתחנונים 
ועושה צדקה כפי כחו 
ומתרחק הרבה מן הדבר שחטא בו

ומשנה שמו כלומר אני אחר ואיני אותו האיש שעשה אותן המעשים ומשנה מעשיו כולן לטובה ולדרך ישרה וגולה ממקומו. שגלות מכפרת עון מפני שגורמת לו להכנע ולהיות עניו ושפל רוח:

The “Ways of Teshuva” are tearful prayer, Tzedaka to the extent he is able, rigorous avoidance of the opportunity to sin, changing his name (as if saying “I am no longer that sinful man, I am a different person,”) and exile (because exile brings forgiveness by making a person feel humble and lowly.)

Here the Rambam has introduced something new.
He told us what proves full Teshuva in 2:1.
He already told us how to do Teshuva in 2:2 and 3.
What is he telling us now in 2:4? What does that mean, מדרכי התשובה? What is the meaning of “the ways/paths/behaviors of Teshuva?” Is it part of Teshuva or not?

In the next perek, 3:4, he says the specific association of Tzedaka with Teshuva is common knowledge and universally observed.

….לפיכך צריך כל אדם שיראה עצמו כל השנה כולה כאילו חציו זכאי וחציו חייב….עשה מצוה אחת הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל העולם כולו לכף זכות…..ומפני ענין זה נהגו כל בית ישראל להרבות בצדקה ובמעשים טובים ולעסוק במצות מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים יתר מכל השנה…..

The Rambam’s association of Tzedaka with Teshuva and Kapara appears in many places in Tanach and Chazal, which is why it is common knowledge.

We know this from the words of the Navi Yeshaya (58,)

הכזה יהיה צום אבחרהו יום ענות אדם נפשו הלכף כאגמן ראשו ושק ואפר יציע הלזה תקרא צום ויום רצון לה’
הלוא זה צום אבחרהו פתח חרצבות רשע התר אגדות מוטה ושלח רצוצים חפשים וכל מוטה תנתקו
הלוא פרס לרעב לחמך ועניים מרודים תביא בית כי תראה ערם וכסיתו ומבשרך לא תתעלם
אז יבקע כשחר אורך וארכתך מהרה תצמח והלך לפניך צדקך כבוד ה’ יאספך

And from what Daniel told Belshatzar in Daniel 4,

לָהֵן מַלְכָּא מִלְכִּי יִשְׁפַּר עליך [עֲלָךְ] וחטיך [וַחֲטָאָךְ] בְּצִדְקָה פְרֻק וַעֲוָיָתָךְ בְּמִחַן עֲנָיִן הֵן תֶּהֱוֵא אַרְכָה לִשְׁלֵוְתָךְ׃

Additional mekoros for the Rambam are the Gemara and the Yerushalmi/Medrash Rabba.
RH 16b-

 וא”ר יצחק ד’ דברים מקרעין גזר דינו של אדם אלו הן צדקה צעקה שינוי השם ושינוי מעשה צדקה דכתיב (משלי י, ב) וצדקה תציל ממות צעקה דכתיב (תהלים קז, כח) ויצעקו אל ה’ בצר להם וממצוקותיהם יוציאם שינוי השם דכתיב (בראשית יז, טו) שרי אשתך לא תקרא את שמה שרי כי שרה שמה וכתיב וברכתי אותה וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן שינוי מעשה דכתיב (יונה ג, י) וירא האלהים את מעשיהם וכתיב (יונה ג, י) וינחם האלהים על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות להם ולא עשה וי”א אף שינוי מקום דכתיב (בראשית יב, א) ויאמר ה’ אל אברם לך לך מארצך והדר ואעשך לגוי גדול ואידך ההוא זכותא דא”י הוא דאהניא ליה

Yerushalmi Taanis 2:1 and MR Breishis 44:12.

ר’ יודן בשם ר”א אמר שלשה דברים מבטלים גזירות רעות ואלו הם תפלה וצדקה ותשובה ושלשתן נאמרו בפסוק אחד הה”ד (ד”ה ב ז) ויכנעו עמי אשר נקרא שמי עליהם ויתפללו זו תפלה ויבקשו פני הרי צדקה כמד”א (תהלים יז) אני בצדק אחזה פניך וישובו מדרכם הרעה זו תשובה ואח”כ (ד”ה ב ז) ואסלח לחטאם וארפא את ארצם ר’ הונא בר רב יוסף אמר אף שנוי שם ומעשה טוב שנוי השם מאברהם ולא יקרא עוד שמך אברם מעשה טוב מאנשי נינוה שנאמר (יונה ג) וירא אלהים את מעשיהם כי שבו וגו’ וי”א אף שנוי מקום שנאמר (בראשית יב) ויאמר ה’ אל אברם לך לך ר’ מונא אמר אף התענית שנאמר (תהלים כ) יענך ה’ ביום צרה וגו’
*****************************************

Tzedaka figures prominently in the idea of Teshuva and Kapara.  But why? We all understand that Teshuva brings Kapara. What does Tzedaka have to do with Teshuva and Kapara?

Is it because כל המרחם על הבריות מרחמין עליו מן השמים so it protects from punishment, or does it somehow erase the aveira, as Teshuva does? Is it direct, or indirect? Is it for Teshuva, or is it for Kapara, or is it for Ritzui?

In proper English: Punishment for a crime, or a sin, might be avoided in two ways – Pardon and Expungement.  A Pardon grants forgiveness. It does not erase the event, it only means that the person, or the society, that had a claim against the malefactor no longer seeks to punish or penalize him. Expungement, on the other hand, erases the criminal act. It is as if the event never occurred.

Here is a perfect example of what being a Baal Chesed can do. In some cases, after a person has been found guilty, the judge has discretion in determining the sentence. Often, a judge will allow letters of character to be submitted to the court, and such letters can carry substantial weight in his decision. He might mitigate the sentence significantly, or at least incline toward the lower end of the sentencing guidelines.

By Aveiros, it would be a great chesed if the punishment alone were removed or mitigated, and that is what comes to mind when we think about the Rachamei Hashem that is evoked by Tzedaka.  The avaryan, through showing mercy to others, is shown mercy as well, and the punishment he earned is mercifully set aside.

When we talk about Teshuva, we think about Expungement, מריקת ועקירת החטא. Tzedaka and Chesed, on the other hand, would seem to have an effect of Pardon, הגנה מן היסורין וכפרה. So in what way is Tzedaka related to Teshuva?

Besides the very important difference in hashkafa, here’s another obvious nafka minah. If it’s because כל המרחם, then it falls under the regular rubric of Tzedaka, and so the usual rule of אל יבזבז would apply. If it is directly related to the din of teshuva, then the idea of צדקה כפי כחו  would mean he should do whatever is possible for him to do in order to get kappara, and אל יבזבז would not apply.
Poskim do discuss this issue, of whether אל יבזבז applies in this case. I have not seen any that make what seems to me to be a clear cut tliyah.

*****************************************

I have organized the answers into FOUR basic approaches. There are important variations within each.

1. Tzedaka is an adjunct to Teshuva.
A. Tzekada is completely unnecessary for Teshuva for most sins because Teshuva alone is effective. Only in special cases, where Teshuva alone is not sufficient to eliminate the consequences of the sin, (i.e., Kareis and Missas Beis Din,) will Tzedaka become necessary as a “booster,” or a supplement.  This is clearly not like the Rambam who applies it to all cases.
B. Special effort for Tzedaka is an “echo” that follows Teshuva – that Teshuva ought to create a special desire for Ritzui and Dveikus (perhaps to bring you closer to the darga of תשובה מאהבה,) and the way to bring that about is through Tzedaka.
(Rabbeinu Yona in Sha’arei Teshuva and Peirush on Mishlei; (brought below, preceding the numbered answers).)

2. Tzedaka is the vital prerequisite to Teshuva. It is not itself Teshuva, but it is an essential threshold to doing Teshuva.
The forgiveness brought by Teshuva is not an entitlement.  It is a gift granted when Hashem acts with Middas HaRachamim. Only a person that is himself a rachaman is granted Middas HaRachamim.  (In a range of variations – Chafetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed and as quoted by Rav Friedlander in Sifsei Chayim (Section I of End-Note), the Netziv in Ki Savo (1), and the Leket Yosher (4).)

3. Tzedaka is a part of Teshuva – it helps erase the aveira.
A. Because giving Tzedaka nullifies the apikorsus that lies at the root of every aveira. It is an antidote to the underlying disease of aveiros. (Harav Shimon Kalman Goldstein  and R Avrohom ben HaRambam (2).)
B. Because it is like a Korban. (Rashi and Rabbeinu Bachaye (3).)
C. Because you can’t disentangle yourself from self indulgence and impulsiveness without taking actual steps of selflessness and hispashtus from Gashmiyus through chesed.  (Rabbi Moshe Eisenberg  and R Avrohom ben HaRambam (6).)
D. The effect of an Aveira on your soul depends on the purity of your soul. An essential purity will protect you the Tuma effect of the Aveira.  (Section II of End-Note, from Sifsei Chaim.)
E. Teshuva alone does not erase the sin of the past. That requires either Teshuvas HaMishkal, or that you learn Torah and do Gemillus Chasadim. Torah and Gemillus Chasadim, as part of Teshuva, are more effective than self-mortification. (The Gaon in his Peirush on Mishlei, (8).)

4. Tzedaka is, in a sense, a part of Teshuva because Teshuva has two steps:  First you must eliminate your wicked past. AFTER eliminating your wicked past by doing Teshuva, you have to re-create your better future self. Creating a “Bein Adam LaMakom Tzadik” while ignoring Bein Adam l’Chaveiro produces a monster, not a Tzadik, and your Teshuva will accomplish nothing permanent, like a זורע ואינו קוצר.
(R Micha Berger (5), R D Gary Schreiber (7), and the Ritva in Rosh Hashanna (9), and possibly Rabbeinu Yona in his first answer in Mishlei.)

מי שרוצה איך, צריך שיהיה לו למה

יהודה דים – החיים האלה // מילים: חני וינרוט ז”ל

Published on Mar 31, 2015

חני ויינרוט, חולה בסרטן כמה שנים. הרופאים באיכילוב כבר התיאשו והעידו שלא נתקלו בתופעה כזו.
מבחינתם הייתה אמורה להיות ״למעלה״ כבר מזמן, אך כנראה שיש מי שמחליט אחרת.
חני כתבה ספר על מה שהיא עוברת, היא מעבירה הרצאות, מעודדת את חברותה למחלקה ומספרת את סיפורה בכל מקום.
לפני חודשיים עלה רעיון שחני תכתוב שיר שיושר ויולחן על ידי הזמר והמלחין יהודה דים.
למערכה הצטרפו כל הנגנים מהשורה הראשונה בארץ והאולפנים הטובים ביותר. והתוצאה לפניכם.

מילים: חני ויינרוט
לחן ושירה: יהודה דים
ומקהלת הילדים ‏‎’‎שימחה ‏‎ ‘boys‏
עיבוד מוסיקלי: ג’ף הורביץ
מקהלות: ישראל ברגמן וחבורתו
גיטרות: אבי סינגולדה ונחמן הלביט
תופים: אבי אבידני
פסנתר: אביה גרינברג
כינור: גדי פוגאטש
הוקלט: באולפני קריאיטיב
יעוץ מוזיקלי: בני לאופר

מילים לשיר – “החיים האלה”:

בא לי לשיר לכם שיר קיטש עם מנגינה
כי מה לעשות החיים הם קלישאה
ובחיי שניסיתי לכתוב שורה מתוחכמת
אבל הי היום יש לי יום הולדת

מה לבקש זו בכלל לא שאלה
יום של חיים
אפילו עוד דקה
ובחיי שראיתי
השאר יקרה מעצמו
הטוב פשוט מאליו יבוא.

פזמון:
כי מה זה החיים האלה אם לא אהבה,
ואיך אפשר לעבור אותם בלי תקווה
ומה כל זה שווה בלי הודיה
כי מי שרוצה איך, צריך שיהיה לו למה.

תמיד הייתי איש של אנשים
סובב עוטף מעגל של חברים
ובחיי שחויתי היסוסים וקשיים
אתם גם שם בלילות הלבנים.

אחריי ישארו מילים ומנגינה
כח של תפילה סיפור של נתינה
ובחיי שהבנתי שאין רגע קטן
זמנים שוטפים גלים למרחקים.

פזמון:
כי מה זה החיים האלה אם לא אהבה,
ואיך אפשר לעבור אותם בלי תקווה
ומה כל זה שווה בלי הודיה
כי מי שרוצה איך, צריך שיהיה לו למה.

—————————————————————

להרשמה לערוץ “מוזיקה דתית עולמית” ביוטיוב:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPu2…

בכדי להתעדכן בשירים חדשים הירשמו לגוגל +:
https://plus.google.com/b/10606386115…

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.