Unable to load image

[๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜] People hate it when you point out that fascists are socialists

https://old.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1hyy6ka/people_hate_it_when_you_point_out_that_fascists/

								

								

Most Based Comments

Basedness: ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

Statist may be even better. It's not burdened by too many associations. (33)

Statists = ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚Libertarians really are the vegans of the political spectrum. (-25)

Basedness: ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

He also killed the Socialists. They were among the first people in the camps. (50)

The communists were the first, but that's because they were being blamed for the woes of Germany as they were in charge during the Weimar Republic. Hitler was an avowed socialist and his 25 point plan shows it. (-16)

Basedness: ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

Yeah, when a fricking moron makes a claim that even a cursory Google search would easily disprove, people tend to get irritated. The same way people get upset when a clown tries to erroneously claim that the American Civil War wasn't fought over African chattel slavery or that the Earth is flat. The Nazis were far-right authoritarians, their entire political and economic ideology was predicated on the existence of racial and social hierarchy. Completely opposite to the doctrine of Socialism/Communism as outlined by Marx and Engels.The Third Reich was about as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an actual democracy. Make stupid claims, get laughed at by the majority of informed people. A favorite Austrian economist and Lolbertarian/AnCap past time it seems. (43)

You're literally making the same mistake that I specifically called out in my post lmao (-15)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

Ok. I feel like I've been most of the reasoning and you've been most of the name calling.The nazis very clearly considered themselves socialists. They even put it in their name. They used socialist tactics to get control, and they ran that country like a socialist country. They also killed the other socialists that weren't exactly their brand of socialism, just like all other socialists do when they get power. (1)

No, Nazi's were NOT socialists. They used the idea of socialism, and progressive ideas, to get into power. Then, killed all the fricking socialists, shut down all unions, arrested union leaders, and made laws prohibiting strikes. It turned the entire workforce of the country into slaves.Christ, read an ACTUAL history book instead of listening to conservative propaganda. Which is all you've spouted, literally every single comment and thread you have made has been conservative propaganda. So you are either a troll, an idiot, or a russian asset.All those books conservatives are banning? Yeah you should be reading them, because just like with socialism... Nazi's were the ones burning books and trying to prevent the population from learning. Weird how conservatives are all in on the banning of books, specifically history books.You are on the wrong side of history here, and so far nothing you have said has been truthful or accurate. You find a technically true fact, then mix it in ... (2)

Angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

Ah, the "fascists were socialists" spin again. Do people actually think this is a gotcha? Let's break it down so even OP can keep up.First off, the "National Socialist" name was pure marketing. Hitler used it to appeal to workers and steal support from actual socialists and communists, who he hated. The Night of the Long Knives? That was Hitler purging the socialist-leaning faction of his own party. Real socialists didn't just oppose the Nazis - they were some of the first people sent to concentration camps.Socialism is about workers owning the means of production. Fascism keeps private ownership intact but demands businesses serve the State's goals. That's not socialism - it's state-directed capitalism. The Nazis were all about cozying up to big business, not dismantling it.And let's not forget Mussolini. Sure, he started out as a socialist, but he ditched that as soon as it was convenient and leaned hard into nationalism. His whole "everything in the State" line doesn't make fasci... (1)

Angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

What did Hitler say about it? Very little, but totalitarian Hitler called himself a Socialist. Hitler was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party. He nationalised some industries. Hitler introduced social welfare on a scale (before the war) that shamed Stalin. Stalin ran the USSR unopposed, the "Union of Soviet, Socialist Republics". Totalitarian Stalin was a Socialist. As to outcomes, Stalin had killed over 20 million USSR citizens before WW2. Hitler killed 10 million Germans and Europeans before and during the war but he started with a smaller population. To me, both figures are mind boggling.My opinion? I would never vote for any party in a free election that includes socialists. (2)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/DigitialWitness

Score: ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿ”˜

Number of comments: 10

Average angriness: ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

Maximum angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

Minimum angriness: ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining! :marseyminer:

:marppy: autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. :marseycapitalistmanlet: Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion :marseyjamming:

63
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

ppl always say hitler couldnt have been a socialist if he killed socialists, stalin also killed communists (mensheviks) and we still call him a commie

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nazism was not just killing socialists, it existed as a form of anti-socialism that in part came into being as a right wing response to a growing german left.

The idea fascism is actually socialism or a form of leftoidism is like declaring 2+2=10.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nah, the name was initially earnest. National Socialists were opposed to the globalist part of communist revolution. Instead of "workers of the world, unite", they wanted "workers of the nation, unite." Very much a dirtbag left kind of thing -- "Socialism, but racist! :marseythumbsup2:"

Hitler however, wasn't a socialist at all. He was a bitter drama kid who was desperate for any sort of power so that people would have to pay attention to his theatrics. He had no ideology beyond narcissism.

Hitler took over the nazi sozis by pretending to be a gay socialist and subsequently rose to a position of political power. But the actual gay socialists in the party got mad that he wasn't being socialist or gay enough. (Hitler wouldn't eat any meat, real or metaphorical.) This culminated in an event called "The Night of the @Bussy-boy" where Hitler's faction purged the girlies and the gays.

So were the nazis :quote:really:quote: socialist? Stupid question. Have a nice day.


!historychads

Bonus fun fact: "nazi" was originally german slang meaning "r-slur"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

nazi" was originally german slang meaning "r-slur"

Munich journos called them that way, they always hated the term and never referred themselves as such instead using solely "nationalsozialistische" (comes from "Ignaz" which was a common peasant name).

Hitler and the top NSDAP didn't care for economic policies, class struggle, not even "workers of the nation, unite". Hitler cared solely for racial supremacy and nothing more, that was his obsession. Everything else, including the economy was secondary and just a means to achieve his goals of a GroรŸ Deutschland free of Jews and with enough Lebensraum to ensure its future.

The NSDAP had some NazBol types who were purged from the party as soon as they got into power, and while the top Nazis supported some form of partial central planning, they never had any intentions to get rid of capitalism. Their electoral base wasn't made of blue collar factory workers, but farmers and the middle class so they pandered to them.

!historychads

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

they had a really incoherent economic policy, both before and after getting into power, and sometimes the worst of both worlds - like having state-controlled ESKOM type businesses in control of a sector of industry, but only after selling off such a sector to oligarchic businessmen who were nazi loyalists/or highest bidders, they utilized whatever they thought would help them in the short term to gain power and traction until conquest could begin

so at times they were neither capitalistic/socialistic ,but not in the nazbol way

!historychads

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apartheid era South Africa also had dozens of state monopolies, most of which were privatized by Madiba (ESKOM being one of the big exceptions).

Nazi central planning and statism was mostly pragmatic and directed towards their military goals, they wanted to rearm as soon as possible. During WW2 their suffered from labor shortages due to massive conscription of men, but they also refused to put women to work so they instead made use of millions of conscripted foreign workers from occupied countries (these workers were placed on conditions akin to slavery) to keep the factories running and to increase production.

They were absolutely anti communists and despised the economic left wing, but Hitler's main concerns were always racial, not economical. The man was a complete schizo who thought Jews were going to poison his soup at any moment.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Taking ownership of the economy and breaking off pieces to your favored people is very much the heart of socialism in action.

You're doing this thing that socialists do:

Socialists think there's a big difference because they really emphasize words instead of outcomes and actual real world goals of their favored government. For example, there is no progress toward a magical stateless society in happy Marx land, but they say there is; therefore, it cannot be at all like fascism.

https://rdrama.net/post/332735/people-hate-it-when-you-point/7620348#context

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

did you just quote yourself?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseychadyes: YES.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hitler was a socialist who hated Bolsheviks because he thought slavs are inferior COOMers who couldn't implement socialism correctly.

That's the most succinct answer.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

im not so sure he was socialist, he pretty much purged the socialist arms of his party by the time he gained greatest power within his own party, and their economic policy was so incoherent, before and after gaining dictatorship in Krautland, that any resemblance to true social policy was by expedience not dogmatic intent @nuclearshill i don't know the purges part of history well, help me out here

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reported by:

don't know the purges part of history well, help me out here

The head of the SA, Ernst Rรถhm was part of the economical left wing of the NSDAP. Hitler purged him and his goons in 1934 for 3 reasons.

1) the SA wanted to absorb the army, and the generals were naturally opposed to something as asinine as letting some street thugs in charge.

2) Rรถhm supported economic socialist policies which placed the party at odds with it's support base (the middle class and industrialists)

3) Rรถhm was a threat to Hitler, by 1934 he was the only person to call him "Adolf" instead of "Mein Fรผhrer", and used the informal "du" while talking to Hitler instead of the formal "sie".

Other nazbol types like Strasser were also killed.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Also they were gay lovers and Rohm broke up with Hitler for being too racist. :marseynails:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

OH GOD ITS REPEATING ITSELF

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hitler literally said he wanted to kill all jews because the jewish financial capitalists wanted to control his COOM

Aka leftoid 101. What part about wanting to kill capitalists is not socialism? Eat the rich is literally parroted by reddit coomies on the reg.

Why are you guys saying Hitler was not a socialist? @pizzashill @nuclearshill @TournamentFishingussy-Boy

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hitler literally said he wanted to kill all jews because the jewish financial capitalists wanted to control his COOM

He said that while the defending the BASED and TRAD German-Aryan financiers and industrialists. He never intended to nationalize Jewish property, it rather was "aryanized" (aka sold to German businessmen for a bargain price).

Hitler didn't give a frick about banking, his antisemitism was racial, not economical. He literally believed Jews were genetically predisposed to be tricksy and treacherous.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hitler didn't give a frick about banking

Well then explain this excerpt from Nazi War Finance and Banking by Otto Nathan, published by the NBER in 1944 before the academia was taken over by leftoids who kept on saying Nazis weren't leftists (like them)

Under the impact of spreading direct controls of the evolving military economy, the money and banking mechanism was compelled to relinquish the position it had occupied as the nerve center of the traditional capitalist economy. The money and capital market characteristic of that economy had all but disappeared long before the actual outbreak of hostilities, and credit institutions had been shorn of much of their power. In an article published in January 1938, a leading Nazi banker with a great deal of political influence candidly called attention to the change in the position of the banks, and, indirectly, to some of the other changes. "The banks," he wrote, "can hardly decide on their own any longer which services to render to the entire economy. Their opportunities for service depend on the everchanging requests which are made of them depending upon the general situation in the economy. The more the capital market as well as the entire economic development are regulated and influenced by the central government, the more the use of bank credit and the volume to be used depend upon decisions which the banks Cannot influence directly."

!historychads I have the final and authoritative answer to was Hitler a Socialist cuck or a Capitalist COOMchad

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>hitler

>chad

Pick one

@i_onIy_downmarsey_bad_posts stand with ukraine

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He wasn't which you would have learnt had you read my silky creamy and smooth COOMent in its entirety

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hotler was a transgender immigrant and STOOD FOR MINORITY RIGHTS.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1736783047LrHPYULg_J-yNw.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here is an excerpt from Heinrich Hunke's article Ten Theses of World Interest, published around 1944, discussing the planned future of the German economy had they won the war, you r-slurs might enjoy.

Three old theoriesโ€”three new ideas. Germany opposes to the three main tenets of economic liberalism three new principles the truth of which has been demonstrated by practice. The idea of economic guidance has been opposed to self-regulating markets, the idea of full employment to the theory of capital and the idea of the European economic community to international free trade. These three, principles must continually be clearly expounded so that they shall neither be watered down, distorted nor employed against Germany. It would not be the first time that ideas with a great future before them had been adopted and then turned against their inventor. I would recall to mind that the Dutch legal authority, Hugo de Groot, advocated the conception of the "'free seas" for the first time in the year 1609 in his book "Mare liberum," and that in 1635 this idea was opposed by John Seldem in his book "Mare clausum." He championed the theory of the "closed seas" until the British realized the appeal of word "freedom of the seas" and used it in their propaganda as they still are doing today without ever having followed the principle. I would, therefore, like to take the opportunity to formulate the postulates to the new German and European policy. These theses are as follows:โ€”

1. Economic guidance โ€” We advocate the principle of politically controlled or guided economy: We wish thereby to express the fact that within the scope of the limits formed by the nature of national economy, we are in a position to shape our economy according to our own ideals and necessities and are prepared to recognize the leadership of the community instead of the automatism of economy. Economic guidance means for us that economy is no longer subject to Its own laws in the same way as the State, Jurisdiction and culture, but is a function of the people. Guided economy is not, however, a planned economy directed by a central will according to a plan previously laid down in detail. Our principle is rather: "Guidance but not administration."

2. The right to work for all โ€” In accordance with the principle of economic guidance, the political demand on economy represents a minimum. It demands the complete application of the principle of the right to work, the result of which is a state of full employment and full consideration of military requirements at all times. These two principles are norms placing obligations on German economic, policy in both peace and war. All demands and interventions going beyond these principles are not, however, the consequences of an unalterable economic principle but are subject at any moment to Judgement by the practical common sense of economy. The method of the application of labour, of the distribution of raw materials, of the planning of investments and the guidance of capitalโ€”all these things have their own importance but they also have their limits and their dangers. They must consequently be judged according to the requirements of the moment but must not be made into economic principles.

3. Maintenance of private initiative โ€” It cannot consequently be the task of the state to carry on trade itself as a principle. On the contrary, as a general rule the execution of economic tasks is the concern of the employer. We recognize the efforts and the risks of the Individual as the deciding factor in economic life. The art of guiding economy must consist in being able to train and employ persons of enterprise, guarantee them the freedom necessary for their activity and grant competition Its rights.

4. Maintenance of private property โ€” In such a State, private property is the consequence of a corresponding achievement and the preliminary condition for individual work. It finds therein its moral and economic Justification.

5. Continental collaboration โ€” The German claim to organize and lead Europe is the expression of the greatness of the German people and of Germany's achievements for the Continent's security. It is neither a claim to domination nor an attempt at exploitation. Rather does it serve to exclude extra-Continental powers and to re-establish neighbourly collaboration.

6. Autonomous economic systems โ€” In accordance with the principle of community in the European living space, the political demand on the European nations constitutes a minimum. It aims at economic and military security, that Is to say, it demands access at all times to the vital products and the full exploitation of Europe's productive power for the common defence. In other respects the European nations have the right to organize their economic systems according to their own autonomous principles.

7. International economic relations โ€” The European economic community is founded upon the recognition of the principle of reciprocity and the principle of permanence in international economic relations. The assertion being made by the British and Americans regarding international economic relations on the Continent that Germany is at present living by plundering Europe is wrong. The study of the trade balances of European States and Germany's export trade balances shows that Germany is exporting more than before the war and that the clearing passivity is to a large extent a political phenomenon due to the fact that Germany is fighting against extra-Continental powers for the whole of Europe. Germany is not plundering Europe but is enabling other national economic units in Europe to function even during the war.

8. Reciprocal help โ€” Germany's experience and achievements make it possible to develop the productive power of Europe. The delivery of agricultural machinery and industrial investment goods, the granting of credits and the payment of reasonable prices, the training of experts in Germany and the reciprocal exchange of experiences are the expression of this fact.

9. Overseas barter โ€” Alter the war Germany will not begin again to purchase according to the principle of the liberal trade policy but according to the requirements of the economic community of Europe. The economic community of Europe does not, however, intend to break off economic relations with non-European countries. On the contrary, it appears probable that in consequence of full employment in Europe and of the resulting increased consumption, the overseas barter will be developed, although vital goods will primarily be excluded from the scope of European economy.

10. The aimโ€”the raising of the standard of living โ€” Germany's economic policy and the policy of the economic community in Europe have only one aimโ€”the guaranteeing and the raising of the standard of living as the result of their own efforts and work In common.

These ideas are at present still at a stage between their birth and their realization. They have made it possible to organize the German economic system and have partially shaped the international collaboration of the present time. It is true, however, that people like everything that has already proved its value and mistrust what is new particularly when it is great and dazzling. But these problems fundamentally concern the whole world. They have become interesting and as far as human beings can judge, they will never again cease to exist.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What economic policies could happen if Germany won is beyond discussing. How the economy was actually run during Nazi rule is the main point of COOMing.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Jews were genetically predisposed to be tricksy and treacherous

Where is the lie?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Orginal party before night of long katanas had 3 wings. Hitler/himmler wing. Dirtbag wing and cute twink wing.

Cute twink wing was strange. Best way to describe it would be counter revolution agaist socialism. It was about mobilising masses to destroy communism. Yet rethoric was very socialist. But it was used against socialist.

Dirtbag was most socialistic wing of nazi party. Mobilising masses and empowering them. Economic mobility and all that stuff. Plus racial elements.

These two wings were purged and what was left hitler and friends. Middle class of germany that hated old elite and wanted to replace them with themselves. Didnt like social mobility that much. Didnt want to mobilis masses or soviet style revolution.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the Nazi conception of the State is the means to protect its race. So Germany's state is about protecting ethnic Germans (Aryans), a fascist Britain would try to preserve the ethnic British, and so on. Pretty much every modern country is breaking this rule through globohomo and mass immigration. So every country is effectively Weimar right now.

Theoretically, if you take MK at face value, this is also why it spurns democracy, because democracy in practice elevates weak leadership, which leads to social degeneration, decay of borders, miscegenation and multiracialism etc.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the Nazi conception of the State is the means to protect its race. So Germany's state is about protecting ethnic Germans (Aryans), a fascist Britain would try to preserve the ethnic British, and so on. Pretty much every modern country is breaking this rule through globohomo and mass immigration. So every country is effectively Weimar right now.

>nazism is when no immigration :brainletchest:

!nonchuds we've come full circle with chuds believing nazism was about le secure borders and cultural protection.

The nazi conception of the state was to use it for expansionist wars, ethnic cleansing, and enforcing totalitarian rule.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1736790109lQbOo1gV4_UY1A.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

weak leadership is a male-brained concept, and I want leadership with some emotional intelligence and ability to multitask, and Its no use making the trains run on time :marseydramautist: if you burn 6 million jews and get your shit pushed in by the US, bongs and USSR and its EVERYTHING


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1739271948y52utXmckBNkwg.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hmm, interesting.

:marseynotes:

I learn so much about history on rdrama.net!

:marseygrad:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have a nice day

I do, thanks!! I also hate you for stealing my meme, but I will forgive you.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're playing word games again like you people always do. :marseysmughipskorean:

"Nazi" != "fascist" unless you're going by the definition of Soviet propaganda for a brief period of a few years before they were allied with the Nazis where they were trying to muddy the waters. Or the definitions of ignorant r-slurs.

Fascism's roots go back to WWI when Mussolini (please for the love of God don't tell me he wasn't a real fascist) broke away from the other socialists to start a faction of nationalist socialists (:marseyhmm:) who wanted to get in on the war.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it's moreso that horseshoe theory has a shade of truth to it.

Fascism posited itself as populist and addressing 'social justice' (i.e. poverty, wages, and equal rights - before that all got associated with shrieking blue hairs). The 'Socialist' moniker and colour red was a combination of 1) goading their commie rivals and 2) competing for the same audience. All of this is in Mein Kampf.

The soc/com -> fascism pipeline is due to both seeking to radically change society and attracting poor young men. Hitler hates the bourgeois class for being rootless and surrendering the Kaiser to revolutionaries.

Can't speak for Benito specifically, but Adolf wrote that this economic policy would be whatever helps the Aryan race prosper, grow, live healthy lives etc and expand its land border. He doesn't prioritise econ for its own sake, mainly out of the belief that finance capital ruins society. He thought the poor/working class should prosper just enough to reduce class conflict, because that got in the way of a unified nation. He didn't want to abolish class at all.

I personally put fascist econ as 'radical centre'. Authoritarianism and cronyism in the economy on its own doesn't strictly = socialism.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Authoritarianism and cronyism in the economy on its own doesn't strictly = socialism.

It was like 90% central planning. Sure, they had something like "markets" kinda, and did leave some people in charge of their own businesses (kinda, and except for those they nationalized and gave to others), but they set all prices, controlled the labor market within one union, set wages, and told people where they could and couldn't work. It was very much a socialist society, and I'm tired of pretending it wasn't. :marseyindignant!:

The "left-right" dichotomy comes during the 60s, when you had tons of socialist academics in Europe wringing their hands and crying that national socialism is so close to their own ideology, so they arbitrarily separated it by calling it "right wing." It's literally a "good faith-bad faith" dichotomy built on their own opinions about how great socialism is. Communism and fascism are two sides of the same totalitarian coin.

Socialists think there's a big difference because they really emphasize words instead of outcomes and actual real world goals of their favored government. For example, there is no progress toward a magical stateless society in happy Marx land, but they say there is; therefore, it cannot be at all like fascism.

!neolibs !historychads, I'm tired of quoting myself in this thread, so here you go. :marseyreading:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hitlerbros we're so back

!chuds

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseykneel:

Chud goals

Literally 0 trans lives matter

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lmao what are you talking about.

each fascist movement is different, yes italian fascism existed, nazism is the only form of facism to reach end stage though.

even then italian fascism was strictly anti-socialist and anti-left.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>the national socialists were actually anti-socialist :marseynails:

:#speechbubble:

:#marseypizzashillblacked:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why do you think the german conservative movement levered the nazis into power and were talking about "uniting the right" lmao.

Yeah, thats where "unite the right" came from btw.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It was literally a "third way" due to the disenfranchisement by communism and capitalism. It was socialist at its heart which caused all sorts of economic issues.

Are you trolling?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are outright wrong in so many ways it isnt funny. I can save this comment and book post at you at some point if you want.

No expert on the topic views it this way.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have you ever agreed with anyone?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When it turns out he was wrong (almost every time), he rewrites history to say he always agreed.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The word "privatization" was literally invented to describe Nazi Germany's economic policies.

Capitalism just means society is structured around a class of people (capitalists) who don't add value to production beyond contributing capital. Doesn't have anything to do with free markets. Germany was state capitalist, like modern China.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The term privatizing first appeared in English, with quotation marks, in the New York Times, in April 1923, in a translation of a German speech referring to the potential for German state railroads to be bought by American companies.[5] In German, the word Privatisierung has been used since at least the 19th century.[6] Ultimately, the word came to German through French from the Latin privatus.[7]

The term reprivatization, again translated directly from German (Reprivatisierung), was used frequently in the mid-1930s as The Economist reported on Nazi Germany's sale of nationalized banks back to public shareholders following the 1931 economic crisis.

They also implemented a massive expansion of state interference into the private sector pre war as seen in The vampire economy.

  • The incursion of rent seeking party middlemen into business and the expanded requirement of connections and dependency upon state favoritism to succeed in business.

  • The incursion of party favoritism for hiring workers under the threat of violence

  • Rationing of strategic materials through supervisory boards

  • Implementation of wage, price and production quotas set by the state

  • State run groups pressured businesses to align with state and party interests

Some industries may have been released from dejure state ownership. But the state destroyed the autonomy of German business, eliminated the free market in many goods and the party used its political power to extract from the private sector. The state never fully handed over control of the businesses to the private sector in actuality.

Capitalism just means society is structured around a class of people (capitalists) who don't add value to production beyond contributing capital.

Allocating capital is the most important job in any country. The alternative is the nations investment decisions (aka its future) being decided by rslurred wingcuck beauracrats or cousin fricking landed aristocrats.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Market style and capital ownership are two different things.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

socialism isn't really halfway between communism and capitalism. If you have a likart scale where 1 is gommies and 5 is free market capitalism, socialism would be a 2. Nazi Germany would be a 3 or 3.5.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

also like It was anti-communist, but youre missing the obvious point

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it has socialism in the name, how can you refute that :marseysmughips:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reported by:

Wrong, Stalin wasn't real communism

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.