What are the economic policies of national socialism...

another newfag ropeberg thinking national socialism is marxist socialism when it was more free market than post depression zogmerica. its pretty much (((capitalism))) with the state allowed authority to intervene to prevent corporate kikery from occurring unlike in america where the corporations are more powerful than the government. "free riders" didnt exist.

The Russian Revolution was led by jewish bolsheviks who accomplished exactly what they sought to – overthrow a government that enforced anti-jewish policies.

The goal is a white ethnostate, this is not a hard concept. If there is a kike/nigger/shitskin/etc they must be removed. That is where it stops.

We've been "planning" for the past 70 years with zero to show for it. If it's a kike-run government then it's not "centered around whites".

Surely you're not suggesting that Natsoc Germany's failure was attributable to it's economic policies, and not being ganged up on by virtually every nation in the world. The current German government is very much a proponent of "free market capitalism" and importing shitskins to perform menial tasks leaving true Germans unemployed, but their current ineptitude is due to spurning the successful policies Germany implemented in the 1930's.

ok please explain to me the difference between communists giving to the proletariat and national socialists giving to their volk? That is a VERY subjective idea you are acting like is very easy to differentiate.

You have done nothing to explain why socialism works for whites.

Boy you know not who you talk to. So if national socialism is basically capitalism why the fuck are you using marxist terms to describe your movement? And just to be clear i define "capitalism" as free market without state intervention. If you have a fucking welfare system how would you maintain that everybody on the system actually needs the welfare?

This.
It was state capitalism when kikery was a foot but pretty much laisses fare emphasis when things went well.
The reason why some think it central planning is becouse most of the time Germany was at war which means more of the economy has to be directed towards war by the government.

oh look the one reply commie strikes once again.
wanted to bump it but as your are in the thread sage goes in all fields

National Socialism isn't an economic theory, it's a social movement. The USSR did nothing to enact pro-white or anti-jewish policies, and their failure and collapse was a natural consequence. Any shitskin could enter the country and join the "proletariat" as long as they preached hated of more successful people. Natsoc German cultivated fraternity and social obligation amongst its people, and divided them not by superficial categories such as class and wealth, but by biologically-defined race.

I was under the impression you already understood racal differences, social tendency( generosity but respectable and demanding of personal bounds of intrusion), religious tendency (autruistic, inspirational). That alone would already answer your question. Our primary focus is on social and racial issues, economic issues are secondary and adaptable, nothing is set in stone when the goal of the economy is the preservation of race and prosperity.

Now let me ask you a question:

Who would do better socialy-wise in regards to a livable pleasant society. A group of africans with acces to natural resources and almost no intervention from the government? Or a group of whites with acces to few resources and moderate/high government intervention and/or oversight?

Both situations exist in the present world we live in. You know the answer, dont you?

A difference in defining "socialism" really, which has always been a word that's been all over the place.Hitler was against free market totally unregulated capitalism, but there are different ways of regulating the economy based on different principles. You can regulate it based on dysgenic principles and do things like give massive amounts of welfare and handouts, or you can regulate it based on eugenic principles and confiscate Jewish property, make sure the banks and large scale industry operate in the interests of the nation, and support hard working families so they can have healthy children and benefit the race. Really terms like "national socialism" and "national capitalist" lead to more confusion than insight, and REAL nationalism wouldn't abitrarily divide things into social and economic issues. Nationalism would inherently apply to the economy because it should apply to everything being a bedrock principle for a healthy society. People trying to smuggle in other ideological concerns are suspect. Of course, Hitler was just trying to rescue nationalism from the Jewey free market capitalist patriotism of the day that was fundamentally creating a kike vs kike situation with the Bolsheviks where we lose either way and the most Jewey Jew with the biggest back of materialist ideological tricks climbs to the top of the pile of goyim, so applying the term socialism to represent an ancient Aryan institution made sense at the time and re-introduced Germans to an idea they'd (((forgotten))). Nowadays we have to adapt to new tricks, so I'd suggest that nationalism properly applied is inherently economic because it's an entire worldview and not some haphazard policy of border control like civic cucks want.

Nationalism should be our racial policy.
Nationalism should be our social policy.
Nationalism should be our economic policy.
End.

perhaps if any of you natsocs understood those policies you may be able to counter my point that yes infact i do think Germanys economics policies lead to its collapse. If the socialist system was so strong as to be able to defend against any threat than Hitler would not have had to invade Poland to stop the communists. Germany would have been able to stand on its own against any threat and if they we perceived as the victims of communist incursion rather than the aggressors perhaps the rest of the world would have been on Germany's side.

I think that the economic policies of a failed artist and his war buddies probably we not the most thoroughly analyzed and vetted policies. Take for example The child policy to incentivize breeding (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_loan). Germany just started giving out loans to every couple that would remove the wife from the work force and have children. The loans were forgiven progressively as the family's worked. by 1939 42% of couples were receiving these loans. Now i know you guys don't believe in "interest rates" or "usery" but for those things to become irreverent you need zero inflation which Germany obviously didn't have. So all that money is being printed and given out and then the loans are forgiven. You would need to have an absolutely incredible growth rate to keep up with that kind of money printing. I don't think Germany had the industrial base or agricultural space to keep up with such demands and i most likely came to the point that more living space was needed to keep up with those loans. This Germany was compelled to expand its boarders and by doing that raise the ire of the rest of europe eventually leading to its downfall.