Who was objectively worse? Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?

>respect muh 63 genders of communism
>capitalism is literally fucking fascism

Looting Jews off their property and distributing it to loyal capitalists so they can forge monopolies is not Socialism.

Not one company was nationalized during Nazis. Not a single one.
>So what economic theory are you trying to say Hitler practiced
Capitalism.

Fascism is capitalism with fangs.

>Looting Jews off their property and distributing it to loyal capitalists so they can forge monopolies is not Socialism.
Reducing the size of the competitive market to further my aryan/germanic goals is okay as long as the Jews are negatively effected. I swear it's capitalism!!!

You don't even have a basic understanding of economics do you?

not that guy but there is nothing capitalistic about only rewarding industries and industrialists that give you their political loyalty

Neither is it capitalism since there is no free market and the state can just take your shit away if it feels like it.

Hell, Nazi Germany was closer to tons of Cold War socialist countries than any capitalist country since Adam Smith.

Capitalism naturally leads to monopolies, muh competition is bullshit. When capitalists get out-competed they just beg the state to bail them out.
>muh real capitalism has never been tried

>Redistribution of the wealth isn't socialist
Things Wehraboos say

Literally never said that in my entire post.

Nazi Germany acted more similar to Cold War socialist countries then any capitalist state in history.

>Not one company was nationalized during Nazis. Not a single one.
Literally bullshit.

>capitalism naturally leads to monopolies
Which is the point of a mixed economy that puts regulations on monopolies, but does not out right ban people from practicing business.

>muh competition is bullshit
Tell that to every successful nation in modern history

>When capitalists get out-competed they just beg the state to bail them out.
What the fuck doe that have to do with anything?

That's because both were state capitalist.

>Not one company was nationalized during Nazis. Not a single one
>what is the aircraft industry

This has to be bait

Hitler did not put regulations on monopolies, he encouraged them to further his war economy.

>Large sections of the mining, banking, and shipping industries either became dependent on government money or were placed entirely under care of the Weimar Republic in the wake of the Great Depression; these were later reprivatized between 1934-1937 by the Nazi regime.[7]

Bel, Germà (February 2010). "Against the Mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany". The Economic History Review. 63 (1): 35–36. Retrieved 21 December 2016.

How does that contradict what that user said?

Now your moving goalposts from "not one industry was nationalized" to "some were nationalized but these were privatized"

Still haven't answered how Nazi Germany was capitalist when they could literally steal your shit for being 1% Jewish

I never said he did dumbass

>Still haven't answered how Nazi Germany was capitalist when they could literally steal your shit for being 1% Jewish

Answer his question OP

Aircraft industry wasn't nationalized. In fact people like Willy Messerschmidt, Ernst Heinkel stood firmly in charge of their companies for supporting the regime.
I'm not. Nazi larpers here live in their phantasy land where Hitler was a socialist and i'm debunking this.

>Not true gommunism =^)

Also you are assuming that Hitler only targeted rich Jews, capitalists and bankers, which is absolutely not true. Anti-Jewish laws included every Jew in Germany and occupied territories, from rich ones to piss-poor ones. Richer ones were useful for loot and requisition.

>you get to keep your business if you support me
I bet you also believe North Korea and Vietnam weren't puppets during the Cold War

both were pretty similar in some aspect.

>What was distinctive about the aircraft producers was that, unlike shipbuilders, gun or tank makers, the aircraft producers had no significant civilian production. The military aircraft they were producing by the late 1930s had little or no value as commercial products. There was thus no alternative civilian employment for the vast specialist manufacturing capacity that the Air Ministry had brought into existence. Though all of the firms except Junkers were nominally in private ownership, they were all creatures of the Reich Air Ministry and its director, Secretary of State Erhard Milch. Fundamentally, therefore, Germany's largest new manufacturing sector was not merely state controlled. It was a product of state initiative, state funding and state direction. It was founded indeed on one of the most blatant acts of coercion applied to any non-Jewish business in the history of the Third Reich. Early in the morning of 17 October 1933 Dr Hugo Junkers was arrested at his vacation home in Bayrischzell on charges of treason. Junkers was Germany's leading aviation pioneer, a celebrated engineer who at his plant at Dessau had constructed the world's first full-metal aircraft. Junkers's factory, though modest in size, was by far the largest aircraft factory in Germany. It has sometimes been suggested that Hugo Junkers's expropriation was due to his interest in internationalist politics and pacifism. But Junkers was in fact a conservative nationalist, who eagerly embraced the cause of rearmament. His difficulty was simply that he owned the largest aircraft plant in Germany and that Goering and his Secretary of State Erhard Milch were determined to have control of it. In the 1920s Junkers had squabbled with the German military about the future direction of aerial rearmament. The new holders of power were not willing to argue. After twenty-four hours in police detention, Junkers agreed to sign away his firm to the Reich.
Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction, page 126

more like "you get to expand your business and get even richer if you support me".

Junkers didn't hide that he disliked Nazis, they ousted him for purely ideological reasons.

Are you retarded?
>It has sometimes been suggested that Hugo Junkers's expropriation was due to his interest in internationalist politics and pacifism. But Junkers was in fact a conservative nationalist, who eagerly embraced the cause of rearmament. His difficulty was simply that he owned the largest aircraft plant in Germany and that Goering and his Secretary of State Erhard Milch were determined to have control of it.

It doesn't seem very capitalistic to confiscate someone's enterprise because they don't agree with you politically.
It still doesn't negate the role the government played in expanding the aircraft industry.

Goering had a personal grudge with Junkers because he didn't accept him as a test pilot back in 1920s.
>It doesn't seem very capitalistic to confiscate someone's enterprise because they don't agree with you politically
Protip, government initiative isn't socialism. And Nazi Germany was a dictatorship that ousted any voice of oppositon, whether it be rich or poor.

Now you change it from "disliking Nazis" to "Göring having a grudge a decade ago"? Do you have any sources?
>Protip, government initiative isn't socialism
How is it capitalist then? The business was not placed under private ownership.

>None of the contemporary economic analyses of privatization takes into account
an important, earlier case: the privatization policy implemented by the National
Socialist (Nazi) Party in Germany. Nonetheless, there were a number of studies on
German privatization in the mid- and late 1930s and in the early 1940s, when
many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization policies
in Germany. International interest was reflected in a change in the English
language: in 1936 the German term ‘ reprivatisierung’, and the associated concept,
were brought into English in the term ‘reprivatization’, and soon the term ‘priva-
tization’ began to be used in the literature.
Surprisingly, modern literature on
privatization, and recent literature on the twentieth-century German economy
and the history of Germany’s publicly owned enterprises, all ignore this early
privatization experience. Some authors occasionally mention the privatization of banks, but offer no further comment or analysis.
Other works mention the sale of state ownership in Nazi Germany, but only to support the idea that the Nazi
government opposed widespread state ownership of firms, and no analysis of these
privatizations is undertaken.

Fucked up the quoting. Oh well

It is a fact that the Nazi government sold off public ownership in several
state-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of
sectors; for example, steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways. It
must be pointed out that, whereas modern privatization has run parallel to liber-
alization policies, in Nazi Germany privatization was applied within a framework
of increasing state control of the whole economy through regulation and political
interference.
Most of the enterprises transferred to the private sector at the Federal level had
come into public hands in response to the economic consequences of the Great
Depression. In this way, in 1932 the state took over the Gelsenkirchener Bergwerks
(Gelsenkirchen Mining Company), the controlling group of the second-largest
industrial concern in Germany, Vereignite Stahlwerke AG (United Steelworks), because of the financial distress caused by the Great Depression

libcom.org/files/Nazi Privatisation.pdf

excellent strawman

well meme'd my friend

>source machine broke

understandable have a nice day

nazis were slightly worse because they were more efficient

>>muh real capitalism has never been tried

I dont recall saying that

Stalinism is comie fascism

>Nazi larpers here live in their phantasy land where Hitler was a socialist and i'm debunking this
What? Naziboos will be the first ones to jump on you if you call Hitler socialist.

Soviet Union, because there are no social consequences for supporting it's policies thanks to modern day adherents to it's dogma holding power at all levels of our society.

>He was not fucking Capitlist this is seen most obviously as to how he completely banned certain people from owning businesses, thus removing them from the competitive market.

Capitalism and Anarcho-Capitalism aren't the same thing, there's nothing within capitalism that says there must be no restrictions of business owners.

lol you're retarded

Marxism-Leninism as writ by Stalin was an internationalist social democracy, where nearly all capital was held by the state and the old social hierarchies are replaced by new modes of organization justified through Marxist ideology.

Fascism is an expressly nationalist social democracy in which the state intervenes but does not dominate. Private property is protected by the state and worker organization is suppressed. Social hierarchies are upheld through force and justified through nationalist ideology.

Yeah, it was great when private property was expropriated and the market system was abolished.

The state has played a critical role in supporting capitalism from the very beginning.

>Yeah, it was great when private property was expropriated and the market system was abolished.

What on earth you talking about Red?
I didn't say that your kind had attained their goals, I said that there are people in power who would support the exproporiation of private property and the abolition of the market system but are only held back by the checks and balances within our governments.

Let's play a game.
Which revelation do you believe would be more damaging to a politician's career?
A). The politician belonged to a Marxist organization college.
B). The politician belonged to neo-nazi organization in college

Nazi Germany was literally supported by international bankers. The state conflated bankers with Jews and persecuted the Jews, while simultaneously empowering all non-Jewish bankers whose dicks they could wrap their mouths around.

JP Morgan and Chase Bank were especially important in the economic development of Nazi Germany well into the war years.

Gorsuch was literally in a fascism club in high school

A). Not a poltician ( I take semantics seriously)
B). wrong
snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/

Goddamn I wish the "we're secretly ruled by communists" meme was true.

The bitter reality is that since the early '80s, the developed world has undergone a radical redistribution of wealth from the many to the few. The liberal politicians who you guys think are secret communists are in reality stooges of capital who hide behind progressivism.

>The liberal politicians who you guys think are secret communists are in reality stooges of capital who hide behind progressivism.
Yes, yes I've heard it a thousand times before.
No TRUE communist would do X!
Meanwhile these totally not communists prioritize the welfare of foreign workers over that of the native citizens who have grown complacent under the bonanza of capitalism and proved an unreliable source of support for Marxist revolution.

Sorry red, I'm not going back to sleep.

Bill fucking Clinton is not a communist no matter how many hours you spend listening to the Daily Shoah. The full-throated supported of capitalism is a necessary requisite of liberal ideology, and completely at odds with any understanding of communism.

The myth of cultural Marxism is simply an attempt to connect modern progressive liberals to the spooky scary socialists of the 20th century.

>Meanwhile these totally not communists prioritize the welfare of foreign workers over that of the native citizens
Because you can pay them less for the same work you dolt, it's in open opposition to all leftist thought since the 19th century. Maybe if you didn't kill your trade unions powers for wanting higher wages and better conditions you wouldn't have this problem

Unions have never been anything more than a foot in the door for communism. They don't help workers, economic development and protectionist policies do.

You don't know a lot about unionism do you? It's always been protectionist, it's sort of the whole fucking point to keep workers employed

If not for unions you wouldn't have a fucking weekend

Playing the game:

It depends on the circumstances. Right now, u.s. capitalism finds fascism and the far-right far more threatening to its rule then marxism. The far-right threatens the fragile, multi-cultural neo-colonial consensus erected by imperialism / capitalism after the liberation struggles of the 1960s (remember that the Pentagon Papers said that they couldn't send too many more troops to Indochina because they might need them at home; remember that there were bombings at govt. and corporate institutions every day the summer of 69, and the Black Liberation Army was steadily sniping off coppers in inner cities). The only way that capitalism can keep their white settler base loyal to "America" is by warding off any far-right actors that might vie for their loyalty. Why do you think that capitalism makes anti-antisemitism so taboo? Because if it was allowed to go unchecked, it would spread like wildfire among non-Jewish whites. Compared to the far-right and neo-nazis, what is a a few hundred marxist-leninists and neutered postmodern / critical theorist / poststructuralist marxists who don't have any concrete plans for revolution or relevance to the u.s. situation at large?

>Because you can pay them less for the same work you dolt, it's in open opposition to all leftist thought since the 19th century.
You're so fucking naive.
The fact they can pay them for less is just how they get the non-red politicians to go along with it, as Lenin said "the bourgeoisie will sell us the rope we hang them with". Here's the part your missing though.

Leftism is an international movement not a national one, workers exist without borders therefore a communist doesn't give a shit that the soft proletariat of the West (who may as well be bourgeoisie when compared to the workers of the third world) have to suffer to raise the status of the proletariat on a global scale.

Remember how they always say that workers have more in common with each other than their "ruling classes"? The unstated corollary of that is since culture doesn't matter then workers are interchangeable on a global scale. If workers are interchangeable on a global scale then there's no reason workers who resist "class consciousness" shouldn't be sacrificed if it leads to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, since the working class as whole comes out "ahead". The best part is as the living standards of the Western proletariat decline, the Reds are free to shriek at the top of their lungs "Look what capitalism did to you!", meanwhile they were one of the driving forces behind it the whole time.

building on this, yeah, there is waco and ruby ridge for u.s. govt attacks on the far-right, but that's still nothing to when revolutionary left wing groups threaten u.s. capitalist hegemony. see the COINTELPRO assassinations of Black Panthers and American Indian Movement fighters in Pine Ridge, and dropping a fucking bomb on the MOVE building in Philadelphia. and those were all on purpose, not accidents like Ruby Ridge or Waco.

What the hell does an auto man in Ohio have in common with an a illiterate shit farmer in India

Huh?

Both were trash, but Soviet Russia 100 times more.

Gonna piggyback by saying this is far more blatant in the third world. Our government has invaded or undermined essentially every major leftwing movement on the planet, while eagerly collaborating with or installing right-wing dictators.

Ask Marx.

I'm talking about unions (who varied in their adherence to Internationalism), not the fucking communist party of America

So the nazis were a bunch of hypocrites all this time? they always preached against the connection of the jews and the international bankers and how this ruined Germany.

Same shit literally

Unions are irrelevant, they're either stalking horses for Red subverison or fronts for the mob.

>I support foreign workers taking all the jobs
>Fuck unions
Seems like it was the anti-unionists that were cucks all along to me

But stalinism heavily promoted nationalism. they not cared about expand the class consciousness very much.

There was a war on, they also invited the Orthodox Church back into government and other shit that ran entirely counter to his own statements and actions before the war

Nazi's had better uniforms, cuter girls, and inspire dominatrix art like OP

Communist girls are kawaii uguu pigtail shit.

Nazi's win, communism shit

I don't see many diferences then.

Sanders is a moderate social democrat. Did you look at his platform?

>The myth of cultural Marxism is simply an attempt to connect modern progressive liberals to the spooky scary socialists of the 20th century.

But cultural marxism has its basis in critical theory and Antonio Gramsci - developing the idea of cultural hegemony as a new way to attack the same bourgeoisie and reactionaries that Marx did. By attacking culture, such as traditionalism, whiteness, capitalism or religion - you are attacking the same concepts that "reactionaries" have always preferenced above class struggle. This is especially important because we are in such a late stage of capitalism that poverty has been eradicated in western societies, and so the traditional classical Marxist critic of capitalism is horribly outdated and obviously wrong.

That's the beauty of capitalism. Regardless of differences in culture, language, or potentially even income, we're all getting fucked by the exact same dick.

Your fundamental problem is thinking that liberals who push for free trade and weaker unions are somehow allied with the radical left.

They're bitter enemies. Every day another centrist ghoul writes an article bashing the left and explaining why Hillary Clinton had the perfect platform.

Soviet patriotism isn't the same as nationalism. The Soviet government saw itself as providing for dozens of nations within the former Russian Empire, and tried to create a national identity divorced from the nationalism of prior decades. Children were raised not to be proud of being Russian or Chechen or Yakut, but to be proud of being a Soviet Citizen.

The closest thing you saw to Russian nationalism within the USSR was the state promotion of cultural traditions, including Russian folk music and architecture. But this was meant to highlight the contributions of one specific national community within the USSR, rather than place one nation over others and stamp out all non-Russian cultural practices as the Tsarists had tried.

Hillary didn't lose because of her platforms, she lost because she has a black-hole where a human beings soul used to be.

Soviet Union was just Russian Empire dressed in red.

Gramsci's attitude was not that we should just focus on "the ideologies of reactionaries", but that certain social phenomena help capitalism indirectly. This is only an elaboration on the earlier Marxist idea of the base and superstructure, and many Marxists reject Gramsci because he mistakenly believed that addressing phenomena caused by capitalism (for instance, the idea that workers are stupid) would harm capitalism itself.

And millions of Americans suffer under bitter poverty, they just aren't starving to death because we have food stamps and charities. The Orthodox Marxist critique of capitalism certainly isn't outdated. In fact, it is now applicable for everywhere on the planet, because precapitalist societies don't really exist anymore. The most brutal exploitation still exists but has moved to Asia and Africa. Western workers are more comfortable thanks to access to a huge resource market, but still suffer from the same phenomena Marx described.

Nationalism and patriotism are two sides of the same coin, both show the historical relationship of an individual towards his or her nation. what soviet did was cultural asimilate all other nacionalistic fellings in the territory or even banning them (especially religeous identity), so integrate all these paople in to the system.

Soviet patriotism was pretty severe and controlling, Under Stalin a law was passed forbidding marriages between Soviet citizens and any foreigners; while this law has been repealed, such marriages remained notoriously difficult, though this is surely in conflict with the characteristic ‘internationalism’ of the marxism.

>there's nothing within capitalism that says there must be no restrictions of business owners.
That's the core of capitalism.

technically thats the core of free market capitalism

has the atomic age really made anything better

Statistically there is less war and killing now than ever.

Nazi Germany
At least soviet was capable of being less autistic

I want to lick soviet chan cute feet!

I would rather live in Nazi Germany

>"A is not B"
>HURR DURR A IS B GED REGD WEFTY

Both were the basically same shit especially if you compared nazism with stalinism.