After what USA is doing with countries like Syria (media manipulation, false flag attacks, funding the opposition...)...

This one was for you.

You, like many other moronic Americans, are confusing authoritarianism with socialism.

I can see some similarities between most events that involves USA:

>destabilisation of the zone
>honorable rebels fight against the evil dictator
>allied forces throw troops in order to restablish peace and freedom

Maybe you should read what socialism is.

I would be stupid if I would spend my war resources just to kill useless unarmed people. Would be cheaper to let them die of starving.

>Spanish American War- US uses a false flag to invade and "liberate" Spanish territories, eventually killing off the natives who collaborated and turning the territories into colonies
>WW1- Germany sinks a liner smughling arms with a handful of Americans on board and the US declares war
>WW2- after much provocation the Japanese say fuck it and strike back, the Germans do the same, after claiming victory the US turns both nations into emasculated puppet states
>Korea- the US invades the Korean penninsula and sets up another puppet state
>Vietnam- the US props up an unpopular regime as a puppet state
>Iraq-Iran War- the US provides WMDs and war materiel to Iraq to fight the Iranians who just ousted the US' puppet
and ironically
>Desert Storm- Iraq invades Kuwait due to Kuwaits fucking with the Iraqis economy- the US attacks Iraq and furthers it's influence
>Iraqi Freedom- using fake evidence and non-existent ties to Al Queda the US invades Iraq and deposes Saddam, thus setting off a civil war costing millions of lives

Is there anything worse than the Eternal Yank?

Socialism is defined by government ownership of the means of production.

Hitler`s government owned the means of production of Nazi Germany. Not only that but he also owned the means of reproduction of the population itself and made it so his people would forcefully breed.

Therefore he is a socialist.

There are no buts or questions to this. If blue is blue therefore blue is blue.

All authoritarians push their ideology towards socialism but if they do not outright possess control over them then they are not yet socialists.

Assad is authoritarian, but he is not a socialist.

They take too long to die of starvation and they get away. Is it more cost efficient to spend the lead and powder of a bullet or a few liters of gas or to build a new cage?
The cage needs to be watched at all times as well.

>hitler was a socialist

"no"

Yes, I agree OP. Germany during WWII did a lot of media manipulation, false flag attacks, and so on.
Luckily they got what they deserved.

>Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
>The National Socialist German Workers' Party

It has Socialist and Worker's in it, thats double communism.

>this is what Americans actually believe

>it is what it is called

You realize that people can just name their party whatever they want you fucking autistic nerd.

>Socialism is defined by government ownership of the means of production

Completely untrue.

Socialism is defined by community ownership of the means of production.

The Nazi state did not represent the German community as a whole.

Now please, go away. I don't like having people as shocking ignorant and utterly stupid as yourself on my board.

How about instead of no dont you give me a reason as to why he was NOT a socialist?

>gun control
>ownership of the means of production
>state media
>mass censorship
>literally called National SOCIALIST

This privatization was actually a lease. The government could at any point turn any factory into something else.

The government hires a company to take care of public transportation. It doesnt mean that the government is not in charge of public transportation.

stormfags are utter retards
your beloved leader was a socialist, just not an international one

>gun control
>ownership of the means of production
>state media
>mass censorship

But none of those policies are inherently socialist.

Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Its the literal dictionary, use it idiots.

>gun control
Not inherently a socialist idea, mostly pushed by ""progressives""" who have socialist ideas, but that doesn't make it socialist.

>ownership of the means of production
Germany privatized many industries.

>state media
Maybe socialist, but also exists in many non-socialist states.

>mass censorship
Again, not really a socialist idea. It has existed in socialist states and non-socialists states.

>literally called National SOCIALIST
Just because something is named socialist doesn't make it socialist. You can name your party whatever you want for publicity purposes.

>advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

But collective ownership and governmental ownership are two entirely separate things.

Their privatization happened after government control. They leased it. They allowed a company to be in charge of something that the government provides.

Say the government provides free healthcare.

The government cannot build a hospital in every single city.

The government hires he already built hospitals.

The government has absolute control over all of the process.

Therefore the government controls it.

The only entity that can represent the collective of a society is the government. Otherwise it only represents part of it and therefore it is not the collective society as a whole.

The*

If the government has no stake in the company after they "lease it" its effectively privatized. Just because everyone would listen to Hitler doesn't mean he owns everything. Many dictators have had indirect control of companies like you describe.

>gun control

More relaxed than the Weimar Republic t b h
>state media
As opposed to a few individuals owning the media using for their own purposes under the guise of "freedom" since it is private?

>The only entity that can represent the collective of a society is the government

That may be. But the Nazi government did not represent the collective society and made no attempt to do so.

Yeah they did.
On the other hand, the Bolsheviks did not. Nor did the American government.

They have a contract with the state that dictates how much the government is going to subside the company and how much the government will profit out of this.

The only difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Hitler allowed the companies to exist as entities, however they tied them to the state completely.

He saw the benefit of keeping the skill of the private workers and the private structure of the company, but it is all owned by the government ultimately because it held the power to convert any establishment and to revoke any contract.

If the government wanted a company to exist it would create a private company and it would subside it as well as profit from it and the company would be private only in name.

It is not clearly elected by the party as leadership to the company but it remains the same effectively.

Yea and Stalin represented the factory worker not the farmer. Same damn thing senpai. You can always say they had opposition when you are out of it.

Jews, women, gays, socialists, and Jehovah's Witnesses were all members of the collective society as well, user.

>Yea and Stalin represented the factory worker not the farmer. Same damn thing senpai. You can always say they had opposition when you are out of it

So what? Stalin wasn't a socialist either.

No. They formed their own collectives within the state seeking their own ends.

Then that's not collective society then, is it?

It's like saying Louis XVI was a socialist, because he formed his own collective within the state seeking its own ends.

AGAIN

Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

STALIN, WAS, A, SOCIALIST.

That`s why its ''National''. They are Socializing the Nation to the people of said Nation.
As in any society that requires equality there must be some people who are the "average" and the people who are not will find themselves dead.

That is why surprisingly every socialist commits genocide of one kind or another at some point. Even democratic socialists such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea under Democratic Socialism.

Now I know you're just trolling. No one is this retarded.

I'm sorry user, I thought you meant a homogenous collective. Wait, that is redundant-

col·lec·tive
kəˈlektiv/
adjective
1.
done by people acting as a group.
"a collective protest"
noun
1.
a cooperative enterprise.
Feedback

See, people occupying a land or even a government but having opposing ideologies or ethnicities isn't a collective. That is the antithesis of a collective since they are operating under their own goals either politically or socially. Even if they fit inside the definition of a collective they would be the weakest links.

How exactly is anything i said wrong?

We've been over your definition, it's stupid.

Look, it's very simple.

Socialism advocates the collective society own the means of production.

The Nazis believed that the Nazis should control of the means of production. Hence, they were not socialists.

Stalin believed that Stalin should own the means of production. Hence, he was not a socialist.

>I would be stupid if I would spend my war resources
Nazis are not known for the efficient use of their resources.

Yes, someone manipulated Germany into annexing all those territories and invading Poland.

Alright, most Nordic countries have had socialist-democratic governments at some point. Please do provide a source telling all their genocides.

Socialism relies on government intervention to distribute the wealth and goods of a society.

THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO CAN REPRESENT SOCIETY BUT THE GOVERNMENT.

Of course the government is going to turn tyrannical once you allow it to control everything but that doesnt mean this system didnt come to be this way because of socialism.

And this Tyranny is by design. If the government represents the people, and the people are collectively owning all means of production in a society, therefore the government controls all means of production in society.

Socialism is literally all about removing the individual and giving it to the collective. And the widest collective you can possibly have is a state.

The Nazis represented the people. They were elected and they were cheered on by the population.

I dont know how i can explain this to you more clearly. You are being disingenuous on purpose at this point.

Also the definition is from a literal dictionary. it isnt my definition.

Yes.

But the Nazi state did not represent German society, and made no attempt to do so.

The Nazis were never even elected into government.

They are in process. They havent got to the dictator phase. For now they are only suppressing freedom of speech and controlling population influx. People are being jailed for speaking the truth.

To tell you the truth in germany 40% of the children under 5 years of age are muslim.
Genocide in countries that have been even more affected than Germany such as Sweden will come in the shape of islamist control over democratic socialist nations most likely.

They need to get past and through to the dictator phase which they will by 2050.

>Also the definition is from a literal dictionary

Yeah, a shit one.

Hitler`s speeches about giving to your neighbor and helping german workers doesnt seem to tell that he didnt represent the majority.

Nazi Germany saw itself as a representative of the majority. Just as Stalin saw himself as the representative of the majority while only controlling the factory workers.

Nice reddit pill there, /pol/shitter.

>>gun control
Not inherently socialist
People were allowed to own guns in the 3rd Reich, but Germany has never had very liberal gun laws like the U.S

>>ownership of the means of production
The government own it, not the people

>>state media
Not inherently socialist

>>mass censorship
Not inherently socialist

>>literally called National SOCIALIST
North Korea is also known as the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea but it's neither democratic nor a republic.
Strasserism is basically national socialism if it was actually socialist.

Its not a pill though its just... true?

breitbart.com/london/2016/09/21/germany-40-percent-migrant-background/

>The government own it, not the people

The only entity able to represent the people of an entire country is the government.

>Hitler`s speeches about giving to your neighbor and helping german workers doesnt seem to tell that he didnt represent the majority.
Words don't mean shit. Actions do.

If he did represent the majority he wouldn't have conscripted the entire male workforce and sent them off to die in a foreign country

Hitler's speeches are not representative of what Hitler actually thought or what Hitler actually did. Just because the Nazis adopted the mantle of socialists and liked to portray themselves as representing the German community to win populist support does not mean they actual socialists or that they genuinely represented the German community. This is evidenced by the large swathes of the German community, including many genuine socialists, that they had to imprison and murder.

Stalin was just a gangster, he didn't give jack shit about anyone of anything outside what it took for him to hold on to power, except maybe his daughter.

>Breitbart

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They are democratic because they vote as a democracy, everyone gets a vote but they are also a republic because it is representative as well to other degrees. Only thing is, there is only one party to vote for.

Socialism is funny that way.

North Korea is more a hereditary theocracy than anything.

Look he won the vote.

Your confusion is that you are seeing this through american eyes. He doesnt need 50% of the vote to win the election as there were more people running.

Social Democrats won with 37% of the vote after WW1.

As far as anyone can say, Hitler was elected. And he had full support of the parlament that passed Ermächtigungsgesetz allowing him to rule the country unconstitutionally.

Yes, party membership was 20 something % but nowadays Trump is president and the Republican party membership is less than that of the Nazi party.

Hitler was elected fairly and managed to rule the country with a coalition of social democrats and other worker organizations.

Just what the hell do you think the founding fathers were warning us about?

Dont let the government take power or it will become tyrannical to the point of building gods.

>American education

Hitler was given the position of chancellor to keep him appeased. After having done he effectively pulled off a bloodless coup by being awarded sweeping "emergency" powers by President Hindenburg following the burning of Reichstag. Once he was given these powers he never gave them back and following Hindenburg's death a few years later he became a fully autocratic ruler.

The Nazis did well in a few elections, but they were never elected to government, which is what I said in the first place.

look at all these angry teenagers, is this why you turn to stem? because you cant handle the fact your beloved leader was stalin 2.0?

The point were you seem to be falling down, OP, is that while societies CAN be represented by a government that does not mean that all governments genuinely represent their society.

Why do I keep getting banned for asking if it's possible that the figurine on the table was a replica of his erect penis? It appears to have a pee hole (meatus) a little below the glans (head), since it is believed that he had hypospadias. The scrotum also looks a little narrow like it only had one testicle. Please tell me why this is such a ban-worthy speculation? And what else could the sculpture be?

Is this bait?

Idk I like you, you fucking bam.

...

>when you confuse authoritarianism with socialism
You can implement any ideology by authoritarian means you troglodyte. Pinochet even found a way to make authoritarian Liberalism work. Taking guns, censorship, and state control of the media are hallmarks of an authoritarian government, not of any particular ideology.
>literally called National SOCIALIST
“The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property”
-Adolf Hitler, 1933
The word socialist was added because of socialism's popularity in Germany at that time.
>THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO CAN REPRESENT SOCIETY BUT THE GOVERNMENT
>the widest collective you can possibly have is a state
I get that you've been spooked so hard that you actually think the only possible form human society can take is states, but history proves that states are far from the only method of societal organizations, and repeating this in all caps as though it's some profound truth just makes you look stupid.
>Also the definition is from a literal dictionary. it isnt my definition.
It's also an incorrect definition, anyone who's studied socialism in any detail at all would laugh at the idea of state ownership being the end goal. If anything, the complete destruction of the state is socialism's aim.

lel came here to say this

>people could own guns!

>post pic of a state organized and controlled militia force with weapons given to them by the state

really made me think

Propaganda was in full swing, sure, but what you're implying had happened to Poland, not Germany, given that the immediate reason was that the German Reich was running out of hard currencies and had serious problems with liquidity, and not the "need to safeguard" the endangered German minority in Poland.

>people still think the Nazis were legit socialists

And Hitler reformed the Reichswehr (Imperial Defence) to the Wehrmacht (Defence Force) and this "Defence Force" proceeded to conquer most of Europe, even breaking a non-aggression pact in the process. They even tried to conquer the Caucasus and Suez for gods sake!

And the Democratic republic of Korea is a democracy right ?

>To tell you the truth in germany 40% of the children under 5 years of age are muslim.
But that's not true.
The official census only says that 35,9% of children under the age of 5 have a migration background.

Looks like a kneeling, armless guy to me.

Again i have already told the difference between Assad and Hitler. One is an authoritarian, the other is a socialist. Assad doesnt control the means of production, Hitler did. Socialism is government or public ownership of the means of production.

>The word socialist was added because of socialism's popularity in Germany at that time.

The true reason he said this is that he did not want to abolish companies as entities like stalin did. He didnt want people from the party to run the factories. He instead allowed the factories to exist, however, he made them complete subjects of the state.
Again
>Government controls free healthcare
>Government cant build thousands of hospitals in few years
>Government then allows private hospitals to sign a deal with the government to provide healthcare in its name or die
>Government still controls the means of production, but it is organized privately within the entity instead of by the state and if the connection to the state is severed then the business is dead.

>I get that you've been spooked so hard that you actually think the only possible form human society can take is states, but history proves that states are far from the only method of societal organizations, and repeating this in all caps as though it's some profound truth just makes you look stupid.

This is what they were talking about in the manifesto when they say the people will have control. They mean that they will have the power to elect the people in control.

>It's also an incorrect definition, anyone who's studied socialism in any detail at all would laugh at the idea of state ownership being the end goal. If anything, the complete destruction of the state is socialism's aim.

No, you fucking idiot. I have a phd in psychology and my thesis was about cultural subversion. Especially the kind that happened in would be socialist nations so you`d think i had to study this a little bit.

Let me explain it to you. Socialism is the era post revolution when the government would take control of the means of production and be in charge of distributing equally society`s wealth. It can do so as a political party that banishes all other competitors or it can rule from within the subverted system.

This way the state controls fully all and any power. There is no other entity that can do this as they cannot represent a nation if they are not the state. If an organization represents and regulates the entire country then that organization is impossible to exist alongside another that does the same. Power in society is a zero sum game.

If an elector in the electoral college has a vote, then you cannot have two people at the same time possessing the vote

If a president has the power over the military, then you cannot have a dictator who has power over the military at the same time

The new organization becomes the state

Communism, is when said government is done with the distribution and gives up all power over the people who elected it

Hitler's socialism is comparable to current year Nordic socialism. End discussion.

Real talk, I would say that Germany just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the advent of mass media. Suddenly, you could run an incredibly effective smeer campaign and reach just about every first worlder on the globe, and that coupled with public education made it very easy to tell whatever narrative you want.

I'm sure had Napolean failed during that rise, we'd have seen the French people branded as demons as well.