Why do people claim that Hitler's Germany was socialist? The "socialist" aspect of National Socialism was practically eliminated by Hitler when he took full control over the party after 1933. National Socialism died with Gregor Strasser. Hitler betrayed the Party's founding principles and ideals and sold out to the military aristocracy and industrialists.
Pic related, how can people claim Hitler was a left-wing socialist when they read this kind of quote from him?
Hitler's Germany and the Fascist manifesto are to the left economically than the modern day right. Hence, relatively speaking, they aren't wrong
Strasser should have won.
The government was heavily involved in economic life. Granted it wasn't "le true marxist socialism", it was some sort of what we would call today "democratic socialism" or "nordic model"
Hitler's Germany didn't have much more direct intervention in the economy than FDR's America, 2bh.
They were similar, indeed.
FDR was also a socialist.
Spoken like a true Ameritard. FDR allied himself with major industrialists from the start of the New Deal, in the same way that Hitler allied himself with major industrialists in Germany. Neither were "socialists," aside from their make-work public works projects they were very much corporatist/capitalist in their economic affairs.
You've made this exact thread before. Fuck off.
Not an argument.
>FDR was also a socialist.
:^)
How many times does it need to be stated that large government spending and public works projects are not socialism. Collective industry, cooperatives, and everybody getting an equal, or near equal, share in the business is socialism. FDR never collectivized business, and he most certainly didn't go against the capitalist class. He may have pissed off some businessmen to the point where some wanted to overthrow him, but he never was even going to think about dissolving private industry in the United States.
National SOCIALIST party
Holy shit you stormfront fags are retarded
>le not true socialism meme
The tendencies of the nazi policies were socialist. Why do you deny this?
It's pretty similar to socialist country ideologies.
...
Hitler pretty much admitted that he is controlled by the Jews, in Mein kampf, he said that capitalism is Jewish, and when he got to power, he adopted shitload of capitalist policies, realy makes you think.
Idi Amin, KING OF SCOTLAND
>I-it's not REAL socialism because he privatized some industry that one time!
Goddamn are socialists pathetic
>It's another lefty/pol/ nazbol autism thread
...
Define socialism user
...
I said define socialism user.
He's right, though
It's just Americans being politically illiterate again.
incoherent party program =/= nazism in practice
Here you go pal
Good proof of history's most famous antisemite was controlled by jews
>socialism = state intervention
Americans are fucking retarded,
And no, Hitler did not practice nationalization, in fact he was the one who privatized most of the industry and businesses. If i'm not mistaken the only major nationalization Nazis did was that one of Junkers, which the state has taken over after Hugo Junkers was kicked out and arrested for his anti-Nazi views.
Most of the state intervention in Germany happened from 1930 to 1932, when Weimar republic undertook a major nationalization program to help battle the Depression.
>private ownership of the means of production
>"socialism"
hmm...legit man.
The workers seizing the means of production, which they did through electing the Nazi party to take control of the means of production.
>private after intervening
The tendencies are there. They are more similar to socialists that other kind of policies at the time.
>workers own the means of production through the state
>private
>Alternative definitions of socialism cannot exist because I said so
Hitler appropriated the term socialism you mad?
>workers own the means of production through the state
>through the state
State capitalism is still capitalism
tell that to all the Bernie bros on this website
FDR extremely expanded government control over production and commerce. I don't care if you don't think that's "true socialism".
(When you can't grow wheat in your backyard for personal consumption because the Sec. of Ag. says it would hurt the national economy to do so.... that's socialism. See: Wickard v Filburn, Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture)
>a government elected by the workers seizing the means of production is capitalism
This is your brain on leftism
>government regulation is socialism
You're a fucking dumbass, there's a word for theregulation of markets by the government, it's called "regulation", and if you're pissed off at the mere idea of regulation of the markets, look how quickly societies had to ban false advertising, the goal of a company is to make money, regardless of the ethical impact of it's descisions.
...
>means of production belonging to government is socialism
>seizing
Yeah, controlling production informally through economic measures is totally the same as direct control.
>What is Marxism-Leninism
>What is a Four-year plan
this is different from the NOT TRUE COMMUNISM MEME because you can actually do this, socialism and state capitalism are different things. government control and socialism are different things. what you are thinking of is social democracy and that is highly different.
>socialism and state capitalism are different things
State capitalism is literally a term made up by the Frankfurt school to describe the USSR as "not real gommunism"
and honestly at times the soviet union was a failure of a socialist state, yeah they gave everyone shares of resources but they also failed to bring shared ownership into the game.
>Why do people claim that Hitler's Germany was socialist?
Not people, Americans, the same ones who think they won the Vietnam War.
>liebknecht and lenin are from the frankfurt school
Are you retarded?
Also, saying "this term was coined by people I dislike" is not even remotely an argument.
So you actually think government criminalizing the production of food for your own consumption is not socialism? Really?
What exactly is your basis to say it is?
>Socialism=the means of production are in the hands of the workers.
>Capitalism=the means of production are in private hands.
Do you have any knowledge of political theory?
>socialism is any market regulation i don't like
ace.
that Hitler quote could apply perfectly to the heads of any communist revolution. Nazism and communism are not that different
>Nazism and communism are not that different
Guys, it's all the same I watched a 5 minute youtube video on a libertarian channel and now I understand everything, no need for boring books xD
This image confuses me. Are they saying it's good that autismos are communists?
Capitalism - the means of production are in private control
Communism - the means of production are controlled by the workers
Socialism - an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism where the means of production usually remain nominally under private control, but the state, on behalf of the people, dictates key aspects of the production process, including, but not limited to: how many hours employees may work, how much money employees are required to be paid, who is permitted to be an employee, who is allowed to purchase the product, who is allowed to supply raw materials, the price of goods sold, and the level of profit margin the nominal owners are permitted to earn.
State Capitalism is a subset of Socialism
>they failed to bring shared ownership
>what is a kolkhoz
This user gets it. It is not a binary choice. It is a question of degree to which government intervenes in the private economic affairs of people. Also as far as regulation goes not all are the same. I think there isca qualitative distinction between regulations aimed at limiting or controlling common negative externalities produced by a company say regarding pollution and those aimed at making a business more "moral", like permissible hiring criteria, wage requirements, controls regarding products made or services offered, work culture regulations etc.
As the control exercised over businesses increases it becomes more and more socialist. Albeit perhaps not in regard to some pollution restrictions.
political illiteracy : the post
Socialism IS the means of production are controlled by the workers, communism is just the late stage of it at which point the state is abolished as it no longer serves any purpose (since the state has always been a means for a class to subjugate another), you can't just define a word however you like it and call anyone who disagrees with you as using the "no true scottsfag" fallacy, user.
That's actually a Marxist analysis of autism, it sounds hilarious but the youtube lecture is quite nice
No serious historian actually says this. Retards and unknowledgable e-celebs do. Also fuck off with your stupid bait thread.
How is this a bait thread when people on this board unironically believe Hitler was a socialist?
FDR actually outlawed Socialists under the Smith Act. If you don't know basic history then don't shut up a history board.
It's mostly /pol/ crossposters, how many night of the long knives threads do we need to have before this stops
Actual historians don't say that. This board is full of idiots who get their history knowledge from e-celebs and the history channel. If they think that they're idiots and these threads aren't going to change their idiotic POV.
>Actual historians
A.k.a. Marxist historians
>how many night of the long knives threads do we need to have before this stops
I've never seen one on this board, so probably a few more.
xDxDXd
Good one.
so what, is meritocracy incompatible with socialism?
Socialists main criticism of capitalism is that it is not a meritocracy
Actual Socialists wouldn't say that factory owners and industrialists got to where they are through merit.
You're looking at it very superficially, without defining ownership. An integral part of ownership is control. If someone loses control, they effectively have lost ownership. In the case we're talking about, they have lost control to the government. The government, of course, claims that control on behalf of the people. You can call it state capitalism or social democracy - the difference is only whether prices are set high enough so that there is a surplus that can be directed into other state services, or not. But there is no getting around the fact that the means of production are under the control of a group claiming to act on behalf of the workers.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his merit?
>to each according to his merit?
that's racist
I'm not the "state capitalism" guy, he's probably another armchair leftcom still butthurt about Lenin, I do think that a worker state council owning the means of production and voicing workers concerns is socialism, however that is simply not what your definition stand for (it's not what social democracy nor what the NSDAP stood for).
When you say things like
>how many hours employees may work, how much money employees are required to be paid, who is permitted to be an employee, who is allowed to purchase the product, who is allowed to supply raw materials, the price of goods sold, and the level of profit margin the nominal owners are permitted to earn.
First you need to understand that none of these things are practiced under social democracy, those decisions are still decided by the owners of industries since the economy is still a market one with private property, just because you nationalized some industries doesn't mean your whole system is now functioning from a socialist standpoint, and when you say "the level of profit margin the nominal owners are permitted to earn", that is antithetical in it's core to socialism, which whole premise is that the workers own what they produce, "profit" doesn't exist under socialism, if it exists then even if the state owns the industries it's still not socialism.
capitalism is seen as a mode of production under marxist theory, when profit exists that means someone is being exploited, it doesn't matter if it's the state or private entities that are exploiting the worker, as long as that is happening it is capitalism in it's core, which is why you don't see leftists very fond of fascists in general (even if you take away the racial autism of the nazis and just go with whatever Mussolini rolled with).
Class collaboration =/= Socialism
Considering the people who did conceive and critique meritocracy were socialists, no.
Helping those in need still does not mean socialism is against meritocracy, a socialist would argue in case of what Hitler said that, let's take a hospital for example, that the owner of it doesn't do any work other than owning it and receiving profits from it, had it been another economic system the owner would be of no use at all, a skilled doctor who was chosen by his peers to be the lead surgeon however does deserve his own position since he is qualified to do that job and it's value would still be the same under any form of economic societal organization.
>First you need to understand that none of these things are practiced under social democracy, those decisions are still decided by the owners of industries
>how many hours employees may work
I don't know about under Hitler. I was referring more to FDR. In the US, there are laws that say a company can't call in a worker for less than so many hours, laws that say if a part time worker works more than so many hours in a week for so many weeks, he must be made a full time employee, laws governing some industries which prohibit working more so many hours in a week...
>how much money employees are required to be paid
Minimum wage laws, overtime laws
>who is permitted to be an employee
A business can't just hire anyone. They need to be citizens, over a certain age in most cases, or at least have a permit from the government
>who is allowed to purchase the product
The government restricts this all the time, including restricting who can buy weapons or dual use products, restrictions on the age of customers, restrictions on selling drugs (both the legal and illegal kind), it restricted the purchase of gold for decades, and there was a near blanket ban on exporting oil for a long time
>who is allowed to supply raw materials
The government enforces import quotas and bans, and it back-doors it with import taxes
>the price of goods sold
Government dictates this to utility and insurance companies in most states, it frequently interferes in the price of drugs, it dictates the price of goods on government owned land, like at rest stops, it dictated the prices to AT&T for decades while it was enforcing AT&T's phone monopoly
>the level of profit margin the nominal owners are permitted to earn
Again, utility and insurance companies, Carter's Windfall Profits Tax, a progressive income tax
>just because you nationalized some industries doesn't mean your whole system is now functioning from a socialist standpoint
There are degrees. It's not all or nothing.
>minimum wage laws
>minimum wage
>WAGE
You do realize socialists seek to abolish wage labor all together right?
>A business can't just hire anyone
under socialism there is no such thing as "a business"
>The government restricts this all the time
regulations are not socialism
>The government enforces import quotas and bans
Taxes and tariffs are not socialism for christ sake, why does a government impose those tariffs on imports ? to protect local industries in the meantime they become more competitive, so in essence it is just helping the capitalists grow to withstand market competition, how is that even remotely socialism.
>There are degrees. It's not all or nothing.
none of which you cited are degrees of "socialism", your understanding of politics is burgerland tier, you can't just call whatever the state does "socialism", that's not how things work user
so when the public acting through their elected representatives use the violence of government to control what you do and don't produce, that is not socialism?
Is Venezuela real socialism?
Please explain, comrade central planner
70% of Venezuela's economy is privately owned, how is that "central planning"
This is true autism
...
It's "privately owned" in the same way North Korea is a democratic republic
>how is this x
The more state control over the economy, the more it tends to be a leftist government.
> the private sector still controls two-thirds of Venezuela's economy — the same as when Chavez was elected in 1998, according to estimates by the Central Bank.
>>>/PragerU/
You are arguing with Americans who scream "socialism" or "freedom" every five minutes. You are objectively right but don't waste your breath on them.
Just no.
No.
So if we're being entirely objective, does left-wing simply mean someone who focuses more on social issues rather than industrial, and a right-wing mean someone who focuses more on industrial and regulation issues? Or would it be better to use the older French political system, where the monarchists were right-wingers and democrats were left-wingers? Genuinely curious.
I agree with your post mate. He was a closet Marxist and would've easily gone total Stalin if his request to expand the Supreme Court would've succeeded
t. triggered leftists
If you are talking about left versus right in regards to economics the right tends to values economic freedom more where as the left values government control of economic activity.
>The workers seizing the means of production
that's communism, a single variation of socialism
or rather the end goal of socialism*
>Why do people claim that Hitler's Germany was socialist?
THE BETTER QUESTION IS: WHY DO YOU INSIST ON SPAMMING THREADS REGARDING STRASSERISM IN THIS BOARD?
>a single variation of socialism is not real socialism
Really makes you think
Nobody claims that other than retarded american "conservatives" who think that government intervention in the economy is the same as socialism
>Is Venezuela real socialism?
It's pure capitalism.