in this context I consider it extremely worrying if a left wing commentator like Paul Mason starts interpreting Nazi economic policies as success . "(Unemployment) in Germany after Hitler takes power (...) falls from 5.5 million in 1932 to half a million six years later. It shows the nationalist right has answers that, in the short term, often work better than those offered by democrats and globalists." This quite shocking paragraph neglects the fact that this number reflects around 500.000 Jewish citizens expropriated, fired and forced to leave the country, plus vast numbers of so.called stateless people deported, expropriated etc. etc. - all this partly legitimized by a discourse of "rootless cosmopolitanism", "degenerate arts" etc., which strongly reemerges right now. It also neglects the fact that all labour policies were subjected to the principle of "Wehrhaftmachung", (a pseudoteutonic verbal contraption meaning all-out militarisation of production and daily life). Unions were disbanded, strikes banned, labour leaders killed or imprisoned in concentration camps. The promised nationalisation of industries did obviously not happen. Workers salaries were reduced to under the level of 1928. After 1936 demand for labor was strongest in defence industries, that were gearing up for WWII. Nazi labour policies had major implications for working women too. How about this statistics: in the 20es there were on average around 17,7 mio working women in Germany as opposed to 5,5 mio in 1936. All of this happens in the "short term" and I dont even want to mention the longer term here, Unemployment went down at the price of the total destruction of the workers movement and its institutions, plus massive ethnic "cleansing" with benefits.These measures benefited an organisationally disenfranchised, ethnically and politically decimated and militarised sector of the population - it would be an insult to working classes to be confused with this anemic surrogate.
Mason ends up ultimately not endorsing these policies - not because they are utterly fascist, and ultimately benefited Aryan oligarchs above anyone else - but because he thinks they could potentially be ineffective in a globalised economy.: you cant steal stuff from anyone like in the 30es because there is no surplus or net growth anywhere. Does this mean one should perhaps endorse them if there were some surplus to be appropriated, plundered, robbed and stolen? A bissi Kraft durch Freude perhaps?
To be fair, the paragraph mentioned above is definitely not the main point of Masons overall argument which is for Britain to join EEA, but I have no idea what could be gained from making such statements.