Actually, NatSoc is much more kinder to the "lumpen proletariat" (so long as they are apart of the volk) than commies are. Consider many of the Nazi leadership, many were literal lumpen proletarians like Goebbels and the like, purposeless or unemployed thanks to the results of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles and were NEETs and everything else you name it. NatSocs wanted to solve problems like unemployment and the economy (which it did) and give them hope and purpose. Under communism, the unemployed and the like aka the lumpen proletariat would be murdered as they would be useless and a threat to achieving communism. Only the already working working class would be allowed, the miners and tradesmen and the like. The rest like the NEETs on Holla Forums would be condemned to death.
Do we really believe the same things?
Yes and no on unification of the classes.
Fascists generally have a militarist worldview. It's hierarchical by nature but merit based. You rise or fall based on ability with a high level of class mobility.
Coupled with the idea of social responsibility for all. Meaning your relationship with your fellow countrymen is more important than your relative social positions and you need to look out for each others interests.
Now commies and efficiency.
The commie is obsessed with it but that does not mean he knows how to achieve it. Or has the same sort of standards that we do.
He's more concerned with organisational/bureaucratic efficiency. For which consistency is king making the inconsistency of man an eternal pain for the commie. To him a man must be as a cog in a machine, he must meet the minimum spec and perform to spec and only to spec.
Efficiency is something communists never achieve, not even on the political level. Capitalism is the one that forces efficiency because efficiency means greater capital, however it's inhumane in its means to achieve said efficiency even at the cost of the worker and society itself to the point of all manners of decay such as social and nation. This is seen is every single socialist state ever relative to capitalist ones in every way. At the capital level, they are vastly inefficient because exactly like you say, they perform "to spec", they do the bare minimum because everyone gets equal pay. Lines are long and they cannot achieve what Henry Ford did. At the political level, it is a clusterfuck of corrupt and ideological limbo where they are inefficiently stuck at the socialist stage never ever EVER reach true communism and this is despite having more attempts at it than any fail ideology in human history ever, look at the list en.wikipedia.org
…and all the former and failed.
Saged for "Muh Horseshoe Theory" - The Thread.
Fuck off, Sargon.
FAKE
Stalin and Hitler never met dambass!
FAKE
Stalin and Hitler never met dambass!
No. Get out.
Oh nonononon user they don't all get equal pay.
It's not so simple as that.
You get perks, better conditions and so on. But those are tied more to your position in the party than what you do unless it's something very relevant to the current interests of the party.
So the factory worker lives in much shittier conditions than the doctor who enjoys a lifestyle vastly inferior to the senior party official.
Class still exists in any communist society we've seen yet.
The efficiency the commie seeks is the efficiency of the machine. For all people to be exactly the same within their category. For every person to be able to take solace in the fact that their entire life has been lived countless times before. For every person within the same category (class) to be so similar they can be freely moved about and used where and as needed without any considerations for individuals.
To the gommie the world of Psycho Pass is a utopia. It is the dream in so many ways.
A world where there is always a substitute for any one individual and any relationship can be replaced.
But we're digressing as we ultimately agree they're failures.
You're right to invoke Ford. He is the fascist ideal of the good industrialist. A man whose reaction to increased profits is to go "lets expand production, reduce prices, hire more workers and pay them all more!" and do so without crashing the company.
Capitalism has its uses but it must be kept in line. The bull must not run rampant but bear the burden of the plow.
Well they're going to whine about "not true communism" and they're technically correct. Communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society) is their goal but they keep trying to bake a cake with sand, rocks, and wood ash by following Marx and others instead of milk, eggs, and flour so they never ever achieve true communism because it literally is impossible in such a large scale. None of them are ever intelligent (despite fancying themselves otherwise) enough to understand that communism as an ideology will always suffer dieconomies of scale and they will never reach or achieve it. It's a problem of civilisation, they cannot achieve it and the stage after capitalism will never be communism either. It will most likely be something related to and strongly tied to our technological and scientific progress. But it's true that your conditions are better than the more you show you dedicate yourself to "the revolution" aka the party. And I used the Henry Ford example for a reason as well beyond Hitler's and so many entrepreneurs, authors, and businessman's idealisation of him. Just ask how many people who lived in the Eastern side of Europe how many people owned cars under communism and who mostly owned them. It is an intellectual bankrupt ideology, held up by pseudointellectuals who made it through the long march through the institutions.
We don't have communists in 2017, we have gentiles educated by Jews and Jewish globalists.