ThE nAzIs WeReN't SoCiAlIsT!

>USSR killed people
>so did the Nazis!
>That's called Socialism

t. americans

No, brainlet, the point is that USSR also purged socialists so the "they weren't socialists because they purged socialists" explaination is a meme unless you think USSR wasn't socialist.

I'm not an American, nice ad hominem though. Go back to /leftypol/, retard.

I was mocking him.
The Socialists in the USSR were purged by other Socialists, you idiot.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them.[11

The Socialists in Germany were purged by people who defended private control of the means of production and private property. If you don't know the difference you don't belong on the history board.

This is a retarded definition because it argues that marxist socialism is the only form of socialism. Workers don't have to control the means of production, see Bismarck's Staatssozialismus or other forms of socialism that don't have marxist origin.

Those forms of "Socialism" fall under capitalism actually.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

>Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3]

Except that in Nazi Germany he economy had to function as the totalitarian regime deemed appropriate. And except that in USSR state bureaucrats commanded the means of production. In other words, you are a lefty retard (kind of redundant, actually) arguing semantics and the notion of a lefty retard talking about anyone's knowledge of history is ludicrous. Go back to your leftist shithole of a board.

>fall under capitalism
Only according to Marx.

You do know that "totalitarian regime" doesn't make something communist? The Kings of England controlled their nation with an iron fist but that doesn't make them communists. Once more, pls. read basic history.

Except that article quotes Adam Smith not Marx.

>cuckpedia

This is true socialism?

And North Korea is democratic. And popular.

>The Kings of England controlled their nation with an iron fist
This is what socialists actually believe

Nice strawman, or perhaps your inherent leftist poor grasp at history is accompanied by poor reading comprehension.
The control of the economy, both in Nazi Germany and the USSR, ultimately was in the hands of bureucrats of each regime, so what one refers to as private property in one regime what one refers to as worker control in the other are arbitrary notions.

No, it wasn't. Everything in the USSR was public. This was Krupp's private house in Nazi Germany.

>Using cuck unironically

...

Why even argue with them? The kind of retard fuck that thinks Nazis were socialists either won't undertand or won't be able to understand what you mean.

I was agreeing with you though. By "Socialists in Germany" I was referring to Strasser and those who dies on Night of the Long Knives.

Nothing says 'public control of the means of production' like millions of the public of people starving to death, comrade.
What's your point with that picture? Do you think the high echelons of the Communist Party lived in apartments as that of a machine of a factory worker?

Bolsheviks were financed by bankers and they gave concessions to companies in the USSR. To claim that USSR was socialist but Germany wasn't is arbitrary.

>Retarded fuck can't properly argue with objective standards why one regime was socialist while the other wasn't
>T-they just won't understand
Really activates the almonds.

USSR's property was all public.Tsars dachas were used to house peasants and many generals and politicians (Sergei Alliluyev and his family) lived alongside others. This is even a main theme in Rand's We the Living. Germany had private property. Poor and homeless lived in the streets. I genuinely don't think you've opened a book on either country.

>all these butthurt socialists trying to distance themselves from their fellow socialists

>Cherrypicked examples prove anything.
You could put the classic meme that retarded leftists spew so much in practice and read a book yourself. Bureaucrats lived better, had more power than your regular Soviet citizen.
Also, poverty was more widespread in USSR than in Germany so if you believe "private property = poverty" and "USSR: public property , Germany: private property", you clearly lack in basic knowledge about these countries. Millions starved in USSR during peacetime, not in Nazi Germany.

>Bolsheviks were financed by bankers and they gave concessions to companies in the USSR.

How is this relevant to the pic?

>they actually deleted Hugo Chávez

Not a socialist, it's just annoying to see right-wingers engaging in obscene historic revisionism to deny a widely accepted fact by historians and political scientists: Nazis were far right, and Hitler opposed any form of leftism, from social democrats to socialists and communists.

I never claimed beaurecrats didn't live better or there was no starvation in the USSR. I was talking about private property, trade and control of the means of production and how that related to determining if a nation is socialist. In fact I agree the Germans had a much beyter standard of living. I'll level with you. I'm not going to spend all day arguing nor tell you what to do but I will recommend this book to you with the hopes you learn about the Soviet Union and what made it Socialist.

Socialism means what the infographic said, and what Marx wanted was socialism without the government and currency.

Because the point of the image is basically "dude there were companies and they made money lmao" as indicative of nazism not being socialist?

By no objective, accepted standard was Nazi Germany's economy socialist

>revolutionary socialists are far right

But it's the other guys who are revisionists, sure.

No, the point of the pic was that the Nazis started a mass wave of privatization, just after the elimination of leftist elements during the Night of the Long Knives, that the Nazis gave even more power to business owners than before, and that the Nazis were against the mainstream of the time, which was to expand the public sector. By no means the Nazi economy resembled leftism.

...

Historical revisionism is pretty much by definition going against the scholarly consensus. So yes, anyone who insists the Nazis were leftists or "socialists" in the commonly understood sense is by definition a revisionist.

most of the alt-right/nazi types will screech at you if you call nazis socialist and bring up that "we are not marxists" quote by hitler, it mostly seems to be libertarians and neocons calling nazis socialist

I know, it's the usual Mises institute cultists that insist the Nazis were leftists.

So just like the Bolsheviks?

>Making companies richer and purging other socialists means they weren't socialist
Again, Bolsheviks were funded by bankers and USSR gave concessions to companies. Not to mention the power in the hands of bureaucrats. Not to metion the purges of other socialists. If taking all that into account, you think USSR was socialist but don't deem Nazi Germany socialist, it just seems like you have double standards regarding what constitutes socialism.

Who do you think controlled trade and production in each state?

>>Making companies richer and purging other socialists means they weren't socialist

Who are you quoting?
Redo your post

I wouldn't consider your leftist meme of trying to disassociate nazis from socialism and calling them far-right a "widely accepted fact", comrade. Socialists have a knack for purging other socialists, so that's not really proof of them not being socialists.

It's not a leftist meme, it's literally the orthodox view among scholars. Not my problem you reject a widely attested fact.

What non-leftist scholar claims so?

He's right though.

>X claims to be Y, therefore he is Y
>X has Y in the name, therefore Y is one of its attributes
I'm amazed that people that believe this is logically valid are able to feed themselves without help.

Roger Griffin

>USSR gave concessions to companies
Care enlighting us on this one?

...

Your argument is ridiculous. If we were to accept that neither fit the definition of socialism the conclusion would be that neither were socialists, not that both were. But pretending that the status of private companies in nazi germany and the ussr was similar is retarded anyway.

>any of these
>worked

What do libtards hope to gain by lumping nazis and commies together anyway? We all know you consider anyone who doesn't subscribe to you retardation to be tyrannical statists who need to be purged. Why bother discussing it?

It's a totalitarian commonplace to group anyone you dislike together as part of the same.

>Hey guys I'm right wing too but don't you hate how hitler marx stalin and Kim jong un were all far right? Yeah let's all vote for leftist parties next election!

>making up retarded imaginary quotes avoids me having to reassess my beliefs!

>debating on teh intuhnetz
>on a Vietnamese Water Buffalo Rider Forum of all places

What the fuck

You might want to re-read the conversation.
>Ask how Soviets doing X is relevant
>Answer that the point of the image is that nazis doing X makes them not socialist
>No, the point is actually Y (which just seems to me like a more precise version of X)
>Reply by pointing out that Soviets did things that fit the definition of Y anyway

What do statecucks hope to gain by lumping liberals and anarchists together anyway? We all know you consider anyone who doesn't subscribe to you retardation to be degenerate dissidents who need to be purged. Why bother discussing it?

The Soviets did none of the things I listed. Try again.

>Privatization
They gave concessions to da ebul capitalists they ranted about. Not to mention how the revolution was financed. Also, "mass wave"? How many privatizations took place?
>elimination of leftist elements
Ever heard of the Soviet purges?
>more power to business owners
Yeah, pretty sure giving them concessions makes them more powerful.
>expand the public sector, going against the mainstream
Lol, they went against their own ideology by giving contracts to the capitalists they preached against. Not surprising tho, commie hypocrisy is well known. Also, private sector was subject to what the state deemed acceptable in Nazi Germany.
USSR expanded the public sector into an overarching state tyranny and managed to still give companies concessions.

When did he claim nazis were not socialist?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_concessions_in_the_USSR

Indeed both were socialists. The thing is that some hypocrites think making some companies get money and purging leftists makes nazis not socialists yet don't apply this reasoning with the USSR.

Oh that track again.

>Why the Nazis weren't socialists - higher education feat. Americunts are self centered dumb cunts

>1: The actual Socialist wing of the party (the Strasserists) left the party. They even made a little pamphlet called : Socialists leave the NSDAP. So there were some early Nazis who where Socialists (at least you could categorize them that way). But they lost inner party power struggles pretty early on and they are not what you are talking about.

>2: They were in favour of small business and land owners due to their warped reactionary views. They acted contrary to that though. Despite preaching about the evils of modern malls intheircampaignstheygaveastruggling chain of malls a big loan very early after the Machtergreifung. Apart from that the party had a very strong pro free market wing ( Himmler for example) that was influential until 45.

>3: Being right wing populist and protectionist (like Trump on crack he isn't a socialist either) and corporatist (mainly to squash working class resistance) doesn't make you a commie.

>4: REPEAT AFTER ME : Not everyone who is for some degree of state owned industries and protectionism is a socialist.

>Hitler: “The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”

>Strasser: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?”

>Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”

>Strasser: “But Mister Hitler, if you want to preserve the capitalist system, you don’t have the right to speak of socialism! As the militants are socialists in the first rank, they refer to the program of the party, which expressly demands the socialization of enterprises of national interest.”

>Hitler: “The expression of socialism is faulty in itself, and above all: it doesn’t imply that enterprises must be nationalized, but only that they can be, in the scenario where they operate against the interest of the nation. For a long time that hasn’t been the case, it would be criminal to destroy the economy.”

institutenr.org/2016/12/30/hitler-vs-strasser-the-historic-debate-of-may-21st-and-22nd-1930-otto-strasser/

Hitler betrayed the workers and whored himself to industrialists.

: The actual Socialist wing of the party (the Strasserists) left the party

What was left of them was also purged when Hitler came to power

Why don't capitalists distance themselves from CIA/NSA actions?

>They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race
I'm 100% certain it's not possible to advocate social Darwinism without using circular logic: They're best fit because they're in power and they're in power because they are best fit.

>They gave concessions to da ebul capitalists they ranted about. Not to mention how the revolution was financed.

Concessions during the few first years to attract foreign investment, they did not start shrinking the public sector as the Nazis did.

>Also, "mass wave"? How many privatizations took place?

Plenty. Read the paper on the pic.

>Ever heard of the Soviet purges?

A power struggle. The Nazis, on the other hand, were worried there were socialists infiltrating the party. The even had a term for it, beefsteak nazi. They wanted those elements gone.

>Yeah, pretty sure giving them concessions makes them more powerful.

Compared to the Tsarist era? No.

>Lol, they went against their own ideology by giving contracts to the capitalists they preached against.

What's your point here? How is this relevant to the Nazis?

>Also, private sector was subject to what the state deemed acceptable in Nazi Germany.

Not a leftist view.

>give companies concessions.

Again, only during the first few years. Nowhere comparable to Nazi Germany.

He explicitly labels them as right wing in "Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West"

>Also, private sector was subject to what the state deemed acceptable in Nazi Germany.

>Not a leftist view.#

This. Its the same in the modernwest dumbass. You can't just dump your nuclear waste in thenextriver. The Nazis certainly were more in favour of intervention than todays standard western society but thats no point to argue for socialism.

Hitler knew very little about logic, philosophy, or economics. Strasser rips him apart in that debate.