Holla Forums tell me a reason why Hitler wasn't a socialist

Okay bro

Since the outbreak of the French Revolution, the world has been moving with ever increasing speed toward a new conflict, the most extreme solution of which is called Bolshevism, whose essence and aim, however, are solely the elimination of those strata of mankind which have hitherto provided the leadership and their replacement by worldwide Illuminati Patriarchy. No state will be able to withdraw or even remain at a distance from this historical conflict…It is not the aim of this memorandum to prophesy the time when the untenable situation in Europe will become an open crisis. I only want, in these lines, to set down my conviction that this crisis cannot and will not fail to arrive and that it is Germany's duty to secure her own existence by every means in face of this catastrophe, and to protect herself against it, and that from this compulsion there arises a series of conclusions relating to the most important tasks that our people have ever been set. For a victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versailles treaty, but to the final destruction, indeed the annihilation of the German people…I consider it necessary for the Reichstag to pass the following two laws: 1) A law providing the death penalty for economic sabotage and 2) A law making the whole of Illuminati Patriarchy liable for all damage inflicted by individual specimens of this community of criminals upon the German economy, and thus upon the German people.[44]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

TL;DR: Hitler was basically a Nationalist, who opposed capitalist exploitation of the German working class, but was in no way a Socialist.

planned economy =/= socialism

Because he was a capitalist.

Rude sage.

Nazi Germany and its other Fascist countries ran capitalism. They were all anti-liberals but they're economy still operated under the capitalist framework. It was very regulated by the state though.

how so? that doesn't mean was for it.

If he ws for it then why did they diminished? doesn't make sense?

so because he didn't liked bolshevishm?

Almost all socialist says that Bolshevism is not true socialism :^)

Damn it user.

Everything, all the socioeconomic implementations you just described isn't socialism and for the same reasons social democracy and social liberalism aren't socialist. Socialism != free shit by big government. Giving more rights and welfare programs to workers isn't socialist. Who owned the industries? The workers? No, they didn't. That's why it isn't socialist. I wish you would just fucking lurk more and read some fucking books about socialism before deciding on your own account that Hitler was a socialist. Useful Idiot, despite his shitty nationalistic ideas, was arguably a socialist. He wanted to shift the ownership of the means of production from the capitalist to the workers. Do you know what it means to be a politician? Hitler is full of rhetoric trying to appease the workers in order to get to power. He wasn't a socialist.

Useful idiot = S t a s s e r

ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Here you go OP

Hitler wasn't a liberal cuck, so i guess eh wasn't

embarrasing

embarrasing

Define socialism

Laughing every time.

You guys forget one thing. You guys act like anarcho-socialism is the only way, but a lot of you guys admit that it's viable/strategic/morally good to take over the goverment and adopt socialist policies through the state.

Now if you consider that socialism can exist outside of anarchism -> state socialism
And that a single or accumulation of state socialist policies, equal state socialsm, then can you really argue anymore that Hitler wasn't a socialist?

Because he certainly had a lot of socialist policies.

Actually no. The state and big business worked close together. In fact it can be compared to the Soviet Style Revolution with the only difference that instead of killing & disposing the previous owners, Hitler allowed them to keep it.

Actually this is no longer part of my argument, but I think that is interesting. After the first generation of people who rose up during a relatively free market died off, what would they be replaced with? People more similar to Soviet style bureaucrats?

In nazi germany, the workers didn't own the means of producton, and hitler never advocated for such a thing.

Fucking hell. Go read a book. I'm not even arguing for a specific school of socialism. What you just said, was just an empty accusation. Nazi Germany's work places were not run and owned by the workers themselves. That's why it wasn't socialist. There isn't, as you seem to wish an implication that "my special type of socialism" wasn't put into practice. Worker ownership of the mop is the very essence of socialism. It's the fucking definition. Go read.

No. I'm an anarchist, but I recognize other socialist schools as socialist too including state socialism as long as the workers own the mpo. It's that simple. Capitalism never had a free market except maybe in the third-world countries where it was forced upon the people by other powers. Learn its history. The state was always involved, and it's job is maintain the class structure. It can play cute with the people it rules and give them rights and free shit, but that is what the state is for. Although a capitalist free-market system is capitalist, corporatism is as well. There is private property, markets, exploitation of workers through wages, profit etc. All of that in unison does not exist under a socialist society.

There can be no socialism while property rights remain.

Nobody said that
Revisionist socdems have a lot of socialist policies as well, yet they prefer "capitalism with a human face"
Socialism is not "a lot of pro-worker policies", refer to the second pic in
So he wasn't even trying to create socialism, lol

lets use this definition to settle it

but lets not look Hitler's model superficially

muh means of production

We don't.

No, we don't.

Yes. And Hitler didn't do that. Hitler engaged in some of the first historically recorded efforts to privatize industry as hard as possible and destroy any and all actually socialist movements like trade unions and actual socialists. Even individuals and organizations that advocated what could actually be considered nationalist and socialistic, like the Useful Idiot brothers, for fuck's sake, were purged.

We do.

Yes, because Hitler didn't utilize state power to enforce any socialistic policies. At all.

Like what? If he has any, he sure is missing the most important one: giving workers the ownership over the means of production. He did the entire opposite, actually: he privatized everything and used the state as an apparatus to have a final say over all private industry, making sure it fit his spooky anti-degenerate quotas.

Actually, yes. This is recorded history. I know you have a tendency to prefer Stormfront posts, Holla Forums jpegs and Metapedia anecdotes over peer-reviewed studies that reported on what the German economy looked like under Hitler, but still.

Yeah.

The Soviet worker's councils operated by themselves. There was no capitalistic owner-worker function, and goods were not produced for market exchange, but rather planned and distributed according to need. This is socialism; the opposite of capitalism.

Haha. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Yes, Hitler liked private industry so long as it followed his every quota and orders.

An economy based on worker ownership. You know, socialism. The actual kind.

Holla Forums tell me how this baseball player isn't playing soccer.

...

Then you are a hardliner with a narrow definition of socialism. Who think that anarcho-socialism is the only socialism. But if there is anarcho socialism, there should logically be also state socialism.

But again by definition you expect state socialism to act different from anarch socialism.

the guy above you said it

That is just the pep talk of politicans. You guys have the same kind of politicans.

But adovators and tolerators of state socialism cite these as goals.

No one knows exactly what he wanted. He definetly was extremely authoritarian. But if you call social democrats socialist, then there is 0% doubt that Hitler was a socialist.

the other guy did

No he didn't.

Jesus, just because you don't like capitalists, means that you can just use capitalist sounding terminologie to describe what he did!

He did not create a free market! Authoritarian policies are the opposite of a free market.

look above where I talk about state socialism, bae

wrong

wrong

Not only did the Nazis benefit early in the regime's existence from the first post-Depression economic upswing, their public works projects, job-procurement program, and subsidized home repair program reduced unemployment by as much as 40 percent in one year,

:^)

Social democrat aren't socialists. They were in the beginning, but then they turned into people trying to give capitalism a cute makeover.
Wiki"
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century."

Sanders also isn't a socialist. He's a social democrat. That's why he and his stupid Millennial followers piss me off. Democratic socialism actually is a socialist school of thought but Sanders isn't one of its followers.

I can't tell what's more pathetic; the Tweet-style "that le awkward moment when xD" image, or the fact that you're so historically illiterate you don't see how Hitler vocally despised democracy, disavowed it and destroyed the prior democratic representative apparatus as soon as he came to power. Just lol.

Ah, yes. The ol' "socialism is when the gubermand does stuff in the economy". See pic related.

MUH SPESHUL SNOWFLAKE

Never gets old.

the Volkswagen was also one of the most laughable scams the nazis did. take money and not deliver. ever.

...

the Autobahn also was started years before the nazis had any relevant appearance in the parliament, they only used it to a) prepare war mobilisation and b) pretend it would help with unemployment rates (which it didn't).

Wow, you just found out what corporatism is

state socialism involved nationalisation not privitisation, you mental midget

I don't deny corporatism, friend. :3

You are completly right and I didn't say anything otherwise and if I did then I was definetly temporally insane when I wrote it.

You are still rude though, but I forgive you, since you probably mistook me for someone else.

then how were the nazis socialist

He's just shitposting. Fascist like to pretend theyre socialist because they acknowledge Capitalism is "unethical" but don't want to actually be socialist because that's antithetical to everything they stand for.

but you just admitted that they nationalized the industry?

Nationalization is the opposite of free market. It's authoritarian.

On standard political theory the economically authoritarian to liberal axis:
Socialism is on the left axis and nationalization is a standard economically authoritarian action.

Now you properly disagree with this. But we libertarians also disagree with calling corporatism capitalism or the current status quo neoliberalism, so what the hell.
You don't care about either feelings!

I am a nice friendly neighbourhood libertarian.

the nazis made 6.150.000 Reichsmark every year from the coal industry alone since 1927.

he said PRIVATIZED you fucking idiot, learn to read

Okay. You're still shitposting because Hitler wasn't a socialist. Rather than asking us to prove to you how he wasn't a socialist, I'd like you to give me an example of where he gave workers autonomy over their work place. And no, that does not mean nationalize it. Prove to me he was a socialist.

All right libertarians are just closet fascists anyway, look at melonyu

This. Almost every Libertarian I've ever met said they'd prefer Fascism if it came between a choice of that and some sort of non-capitalist stateless society.

Then you don't have an argument, since private property still exists under corporatism.

Okay whatever.

Hitler was economically authoritarian, not socialist.

Can I get you guys to stop using the term "neoliberalism" and don't confuse capitalism with other terms which have capitalism in the name, but aren't economically right wing?

No? You don't care about my feelings, you jerks!

I am not a right libertarian. I can see why some peopel go down that route, but I really hate bigoted people (or low iq violent rabble as I sometimes call them). And it's not only, because I am sexually libertarian.
I just really strongly dislike small-minded people.

...

...

btw do you mean right libertarian as in socially right-wing or do you mean "right" libertarian as opposed to socialist libertarians?

probably the latter now that I think about it

So you are okay with bigotry?

What's wrong, did I use a trigger word when I insulted those bullies?

Yes. Hitler was not a socialist. Thank you for starting this useless thread. I'm disappointed in my comrades for not saging.

We know what neoliberalism is. Where is originally came from. We understand how capitalism would function cut off from the state. There is no issue with that, the issue is we things like the NAP are nonsensical, and only serve to enforce your arbitrary property rights.

The issue is not with the terms we use, or a specific type of capitalism we are opposed to, but all types of capitalism.

Neoliberalism actually makes sense. It's about privatizing industries. Liberalism, after the French Revolution, became the right-wing ideology. We didn't come up with neoliberalism.

I hate that term. Only you guys use it to describe something.

It comes from the left and it's extremely loaded.

Basically whenever I see it, I can't help myself, but just think:
"Hello, I am a leftist".

We usually associate it with the Reganesque reforms he put enacted. Or "supply side" economics. Regardless, we are opposed to the property rights in a capitalist system. So getting triggered by that is dumb.

I am giving you a tip here.

Don't use that word if you want to get closer to me and not put my defenses up.

You can't believe how many articles I read about leftists mainstream journalists who use that word constantly.
Arrrrgghghgh

Okay? So, getting antsy about us using the term neoliberalism is dumb. Better?

It's used ironically on this board to mock the thin skin of right wingers

Don't call me right-wing. I may be economically, but not socially. I don't want to be mistaken for conservative retards.

wat?

He might have been a socialist and definitely adopted the trappings and some of the techniques of contemporary socialists, but his social policy and belief in social-darwinism is at odds with most socialists and most people who feel the need to point out that Hitler was a socialist are only using it to say that Socialism is evil because Hitler was evil.

Even if he was a full on socialist, his racial and war policy are still absolutely abhorrent and wouldn't make up for his economic policy.

No.

If you're economically right-wing, then you're a right-winger.

You are both retarded

He joined a party with "socialist" in the name, wore simple military dress, and wanted to be seen as a hero of the working class. I don't think he was a socialist, but he sure tried to act like one. My point was that even if you called him and National-Socialism socialist, he'd still be a bad person and you can't blame socialism itself for that.

What if I don't believe in any kind of wings, except angel wings? I think the polticial wing system sucks donkey balls.

I was just about to post my comment, my friend.

My only political philosophy is that people should be allowed to do things, if they aren't hurting other people in the progress.
God, I am so fucking compassionate. Hnnnnggg.

Well, liberals are to the right of most of us.
Although, as far as people on the right are concerned, I have a much higher tolerance for liberals even if they do tend to stab us in the back on occasion.

People need to accept that humanity and it's beliefs are too complicated to put into neat little categories, and not every country abides by the same categories that other countries do. There are goddamn -Islamic- communists out there.

Satan, please listen to this user:

he is wise

Liberals are by definition right-wingers. I'm tired of this stupid American use of the word and the thinking that social liberals are leftists. Liberals include social liberals, conservative liberals and neoliberals/classic liberals. They're all right-wing. Socialists are left-wing. Stop using words ahistorically.

It is getting annoying, I agree.

you as well, listen to that user

If every single philosophy is right wing except socialism and communism, then what's the point of even having "wings"?

...

...

Feudalism was the right wing and liberalism was the left-wing during the feudal days. Right represents status-quo whereas left represents change. Liberalism had a revolution and became dominant. Now socialism is the left-wing whereas liberalism is the right-wing. We need our revolution.

ISHYGDDT

where is this from?

I like this

t. liberty fag here

Some Michael Parenti talk. Don't know exact source.

where can I find his stuff?

michaelparenti.org/articles.html
youtube.com/results?search_query=michael parenti

Listen to this guy

thanks

Definitions change over time. The liberals of the french revolution are not left wingers in a contemporary sense. But they are left wing when you compare it to what the right was in that day.

I understand the historical context, but I find it difficult to explain it to someone who has grown up their whole life believing they are on the left.
I rather explain to them why we are currently to left of them, then ease them in to why we are also historically on the left.
I want to make sure they can at least accept that they are to the right of use before I decide to go more in depth.
Either way, I agree.

No, a classical liberal would be right-wing now because liberalism took over as the established ideology. Liberalism had an extreme evolution, this is true and it is also true that calling yourself a liberal these days is meaningless because almost everybody is a liberal these days.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

That's what I said. I said definitions change over time. What was left wing then, is the status quo now. Why did you contradict me when there was no contradiction?

No. The definition didn't change. It was leftist because it was the radical idea that would replace the feudal economy. Leftism is still the same thing. So is liberalism, but it's category changed. I said the same thing in an earlier post. All liberals still adhere to liberal principles (at least they're supposed to) such as separation of Church and state, private property, free speech, markets, rule of law, equality before the law, social contract etc.

I didn't mean liberalism. I meant leftism. The definition of what is leftist changes over time.

No. Its the same. It's just that what can be categorized as leftist changes because society changes. Leftism means the same today and then.

Are you retarded? Why are you being so hard to be contrarian? My point was that what is considered to be "leftist" changes over time and that liberalism is not leftist in a contemporary sense but was "leftist" when it was first formulated. Back then, liberalism was "defined" as a leftist ideology. No one who sat on the right side was a liberal. Please stop being a retard.

trying*

Holla Forums tell me a reason why you have to inflitrate Holla Forums. Are you that afraid of us?

This is just semantics you son of a bitch. You and I agree. Leftism is the same but what can be considered leftist changes. Probably a problem with the way I explained it since I'm working.

I know. That's why I'm asking why you are contradicting me.

If you are a comrade, I apologize.

Not a quote by Hitler. That was by Useful Idiot.

He didn't put the MoP in collective hands. There you go, done.

I have a pastebin with all the evidence somewhere but I'm lazy.

I am a comrade you filthy bitch! Usually only leftists make historical distinctions and write off all liberals as right-wing because we tend to know more background.

Calm down comrade.

"No true Scotsman" refers to a defense in which some arbitrary qualifier is applied in order to defend a previous position.

IE - "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge"
"Angus puts sugar in his porridge"
"Well. no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge"

This is not the argument we're making when we say something isn't socialist. It's more like
"Angus isn't a Scotsman"
"Well, Angus has a Scottish sounding name and he identifies as a Scotsman"
"Angus doesn't have Scottish citizenship or nationality, nor has he lived in Scotland at any time in his life. Having a Scottish sounding name and identifying as a Scotsman isn't enough to actually make you a Scotsman."

Don't take it personally. I'm not serious.

kok

capped

I heard his dick was fucked up. He was a loser and committed suicide. He couldn't strategize for shit. He thought starting another war with the world after recovering World War I, which they also started. was a plausibly good idea. On top of that he added a deliberate systematic genocide.

I'm not saying whether or not he was a socialist, he was definitely a fucking idiot.

calm down, angry-anfem-san

Maybe the fact that he put socialists to death?

Check your cisnational muh privilege bro
T R I G G E R E D

Not an argument.

that's a gr3g0r str@$$3r quote you fucking retard

OP that quote is by Useful Idiot, an actual leftist that wanted a socialist economy to go along with the racial spookiness.

Hitler betrayed him and privatized most of the economy.

There is so much contradiction between what he said and did because he was an imbecile that only got into power through mass hysteria. He could have done in the fucking Soviets if he actually knew how to lead, but like most fascists he was more concerned with aesthetics than practicality.

this.

Well put comrade.

Hitler never wanted true socialism he just wanted jews out of banking and industry so everything could be run fairly. Allowing private industry to be freed of the jew plague meant a huge boon in production, wealth and technology.

Any liberal can be a socialist. It's not a very impressive accomplishment.

And that's what he was. A charismatic, yet hysterical liberal. That's what all fascists are, and more so when they attempt to add socialism to the mix.

What the hell did you just say?
Liberalism is counter to socialism.
Fascism is anti-liberal.
What the fuck are you talking about it?

Socialism doesn't come packaged in one inherently revolutionary way, it can be implemented entirely liberally, as fascism. Plenty of fascists are liberals, this goes doubly in this time period.

That's a load of bull. Read history.
Socialists want to move beyond liberalism. We're all anti-liberal. Fascism also rejects liberalism. There was nothing liberal about Mussolini. Are you talking in standard terms or in ahistorical Burgerland jargon?

Socialism is not inherently revolutionary.

And yet they are so easily viced.

Naivety

Figure heads mean nothing. Your base is what you believe.

What exactly "standard terms". You seem to think we implement socialism and everything in the world works forever with butterflies. It's not. There are needs to be met beyond that, that state socialism for a single nation cannot account for.

Tell me what you think liberalism is.

I also never said it was inherently revolutionary.

Liberalism is classical liberalism applied in ideological ways, various arguments and appeals. There is nothing without liberalism in fascism, it relies on it in part to get its message across. Much is liberal.

Implied. "Liberalism is counter to socialism." This doesn't make sense because there are liberal ways of implementing socialism. On top of that, I know you think liberalism is counter, so do we all. It's just subtextual.

No. Evolution is not "liberal". Also, the road to socialism isn't socialism. Liberalism is about equality before the law, rule of law, balance of powers, (property) rights, markets and free speech. You can go read up on fascism because it emerged as an opposition to liberalism in Italy. No socialist is a liberal. The socialists the strongest influenced by liberalism would be market socialists.

...

Chart is bogus. Using screencaps as arguments, equally bogus. I don't argue with people too lazy to formulate their own arguments and resort to screencaps.

What socialist is a "liberal"?