Max, I don't know who this bastard is, but you don't speak to the point. Did he or did he not prettify Hitler's employment programmes? Did he or did he not fail to mention that workers were paid hardly better, if that, than the unemployment benefit (even Michael P does not seem to understand why this speaks against Hitler's employment programs)? Does he say anything about working conditions in these programmes at all? How was it possible to press people into hard, physically draining labor without a commensurate increase in their pay?
Why such an obsession over the attainment of full employment that we don't enquire into the conditions and objectives of the work? Work for all, not wealth for all (see Alfred Sohn Rethel, Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism)?
If the state's power to attain full employment at all costs is granted, then the conditions of labor become irrelevant, the destruction of trade unions justifiable, the use value aspects of the labor projects a non issue (what was the quality of the public housing? why autobahns, not public transportation, why armaments?), and the demonisation, sterilisation and elimination of those who cannot work for the state a liklihood (see Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann, The Racial State).
There is nothing radical about Keynesian full employment socialists. Indeed it is the ideology and practice of the fascist state.
Rakesh