"Hitler was a Socialist"

...

More proof the better, It's definitely a good way to show incentives.
Both added

The nazis killed all the socialists or sent them to camps. Why would you need more "arguments".

Yeah also this

Yeah I got that.
Because "muh in socialists nature to be authoritarian and sectarian"

Thoughts?
pastebin.com/LUCBbcxy
pastebin.com/LUCBbcxy
pastebin.com/LUCBbcxy

The pdfs will be lost when this thread sages off the board

Find somewhere more permanent for them?

>>>/freedu/

Lookin' pretty good

Good idea, do this.

...

Alright, changed to scribd
New version:
pastebin.com/q6AfHbMR
pastebin.com/q6AfHbMR
pastebin.com/q6AfHbMR

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser
Ctrl f business, Hitler was in bed with corporations
Is two times on there (13. and 29.)

Thanks comrade

btw I'll probably post this on sister board /freedu/ after I'm done

pastebin.com/tBeYgmMn
pastebin.com/tBeYgmMn
pastebin.com/tBeYgmMn

hopefully last version, unless someone comes along with more info

Post the actual pdfs and images there, its nicer and easier to look at for people browsing

I'm afraid Idk how to do that

…You don't know how to post a pdf or image?

Not in a pastebin. I'm sorry.

I meant into the thread.

ehh I think I already posted it

New Version:
Appeal to authority edition
pastebin.com/3Lbj176a

This argument is so tired and old.

It's like libertarians arguing that criticism of capitalism is without merit because taxes, welfare and a lack of pure laissez-faire competition.

Get over your orthodoxy. It was a form of socialism. Just like Stalins Russia was a form of socialism, though most sane people would abhor choosing either as an example to be replicated.

Please, I'm fucking begging you. Either read up on some theory or get out of here. The last thing this board needs is more morons tarnishing it's image.

Like every masochist, you skillfully play the role of the unwilling victim

Ok. The Nazis still weren't socialists though unless you think socialism just means a party-dictatorship where the government does a lot of stuff in the economy.

USSR was socialist in a few things, like guaranteed housing, education, healthcare, etc. Those are things common to social democratic countries, but production for utility with central planning is socialist. The majoritty of production in the economy (I think, someone prove me wrong if I'm wrong) however was for sale on the market for profit, i.e. not socialist

Public housing, education and healthcare are not socialist.

kommunalka.colgate.edu/cfm/essays.cfm?ClipID=376

You can sell things on a market for profit; that doesn't make it capitalist. Socialism is control over the means of production, which was all but absent in the Soviet economy after the last collectivized farms were uprooted in the '40s/'50s.

...

Off the top of my head, Spain only managed to be anarchist for three years and Venezuela didn't do so well under Chavez.

Please stop posting this. It's artifacted JPEG levels of shit.

Tito is probably the best example on there, though.

At least post the updated version.

WTF? Useful Idiot made that quote? Everyone tries to attribute it to Hitler.

Did you have a point to that post, besides being wrong on half of your points and the other half being irrelevant?

It's countering the "all socialism is Stalinism in practice" meme.

I know, I just think it's a terrible example of 'working' socialism, as two of the leaders didn't even establish self management and two more had their reforms crushed in less than a year. I see it often posted outside of here to argue against 'but socialism doesn't work!' rather than 'socialism always leads to stalinism, you don't want to kill 600 GORILLION, DO YOU?!', which makes my balls hurt.