The Führer versusFree Enterprise 187kindto... eliminatewhatis sick and weak... Whateverhas enteredhumansocietymust
somehowbe placedin the serviceof this societyand caredfor.”^64
“Socialism,in Naziterminology,” summarizesGeorgeL. Mosse,“meantcompetition
in the serviceof the Volk.. .”^65
Havingthatsamegoalin mind,Goebbelscommanded,“Be socialistsof action.”^66
Hitlerseriouslyconductedhimselfaccordingto this credo.To him,socialismwasnot all
talk;he walkedhis talkby ministeringa numberof the samepolicieschampionedby
America’s so-calledprogressives.Theseare the sameprogressiveswhomRichardHof-
stadterand otherhistorianshavecreditedwithdefeatingsocialDarwinismon accountof
theirsupportfor suchwelfare-statepolicies.^67
Anti-capitalismcan be detectedin the NaziParty’s treatmentof departmentstores—
the 1920sequivalentof the 1990s’ big-boxretailers.Hitlerdemonizedthemin his ownday
for the samereasonsthatbig-boxretailersare presentlybeingdenounced—allegedlyfor
competingagainstsmaller,mom-and-popstoresandputtingthemout of business.^68
Chewon an observationby Ian BurumaandAvishaiMargalit.Theywritethat“Berlin
departmentstores... werevilifiedas symbolsof ‘Jewishmaterialism,’... depictedin
Nazipublicationsas slimyoctopusesstranglingsmallGermanenterprisesandhonest
Germancraftsmen.. .” Compoundingthe irrationality,thesepublicationsthenadded
thatthe storescorrupted“Germanwomanhoodwithdecadent,‘cosmopolitan’ products,
suchas cosmeticsand cigarettes.. .”^69
Plank16 of the NaziParty’s 1920splatform,co-authoredby Hitlerhimself,reads,“We
demand... immediatecommunalizationof the greatwarehouses”—meaningdepartment
storeshousingtheirwares—“and theirbeingleasedat low cost to smallfirms,the utmost
considerationof all smallfirmsin contractswiththe State,countryor municipality.”^70
OncetheytookabsolutecontroloverGermany,the Nazisdid not end up fullynationaliz-
ing the departmentstores.But,as JonahGoldberg(b. 1965)reveals,the Nazisdid ban the
stores“fromenteringa slewof businesses—muchas today’s criticswouldlike to do with
Wal-Mart.”^71 Therewasa time,for instance,thatWal-Marttriedto set up its ownauto-
matedtellermachines.Therehavebeenlegislativeinitiatives,for example,to stopthis,
barringWal-Martfromthe bankingindustry.^72
Moreover,revealsRobertGellately,whenthe Nazisbeganto institutea forcibleboy-
cott on businesseseitherownedby or stereotypicallyassociatedwithSemites,“the boy-
cott was directedparticularlyat departmentstores,manyof themownedby Jews.”^73
In a predictableirony,it is thesebig-boxretailers,the present-dayanalogto Jewish
departmentstores—ratherthanthe governistsitchingto shacklethem—thatare com-
paredto totalitarians.NewYorkDailyNewscolumnistNeilSteinbergderidesWal-Mart
as “an enormousfascistbeastrisingto its feet and searchingfor newworldsto conquer.”
Note the upcoming equivocation between the company’s peaceful commerce with
governmentalviolence.Steinbergopines,“Wal-Martdestroysthe uniquebusinessand
culturalidentityof a city withthe ruthlessefficiencyof RedGuardsdynamitinga 1,000-
year-oldTibetanmonastery.”^74
As an additionalmeasure,the NSDAPproposedthatrichlandholders’ real estatebe
seizedin Germany’s then-equivalentof eminentdomain,and thenreapportionedtoward
poorerAryans.In 1920,its programadvocated“the expropriationof landfor communal
purposeswithoutcompensation,the abolitionof groundrent,andthe prohibitionof
speculationin land.” Logically,therewereobservationsthatthisplanksoundedlike
somethingthe Sovietswoulddo. In reaction,Hitlerdecidedto issuesomegovernist
double-speak.Hitlerpredictablyrationalizedthe NSDAP’s arrogationof the powerto
seizerightfulprivatepropertyat the behestof somecollectivistrationale.On April,1928,
he prevaricated,“SinceNSDAPstandson the basisof privateproperty,”—nowhere
comesto the contradictionof thatclaim—“it goeswithoutsayingthatthe phrase‘expro-