Weimar-era cartelization forced the state to pick between crushing or strengthening monopolies

Evidence

Neumann then presented considerable data concerning the increased cartelization and rationalization of big business that had taken place during Weimar. This process, he contended, had created an unstable situation in which the economy was becoming more rigid, more susceptible to cyclical changes, and vulnerable to pressures from the discontented masses. As a result, the state had to intervene to break the increasingly explosive deadlock. Its choice was clear: “Shall the state crush monopolistic possessions, shall it restrict them for the sake of the masses, or shall interference be used to strengthen the monopolistic position, to aid in the complete incorporation of all business activities into the network of industrial organizations?” 99 To Neumann, the answer was obvious: the Nazis had taken the latter course, despite their propaganda to the contrary. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 509

Categorization

• XREF: Neumann’s fascism-as-monopoly-defense analysis connects to later Frankfurt School debates and to the general historiographical question of why the Nazi state needed to intervene in a cartelized economy. — connects to: Command economy and monopoly capitalism coexisted under Nazi rule — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 510; States sometimes act against direct capitalist class interests; Weimar’s compromise order collapsed once economic crisis intervened — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 928 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Command economy and monopoly capitalism coexisted under Nazi rule #expands (0.80) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 510
• States sometimes act against direct capitalist class interests #expands (0.75)