What is the difference?

Seems all different sides of the same coin

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They all fall under "democrat strategies 2016"

Communism=Socialism without borders

Nazism=Socialism with borders

Fascism=Keynesian tryhards

Seems to you with you're meta argument graphic made by some commie university professor.
It totally ignores the whole "National Socialist" 25 points designed to make Germany free of Jewish control, and you use the Zionist "Nazi" meme.

The names and the aesthetics.
It's a different tranny with a different wig and cock size. Still gonna fuck your ass tho.

Nazism - Volk above all, Free Market
Fascism - State above all, Free Market
Communism - State above all, No Market

>Nazism=Socialism
American Education

GOTCHA
Sup Forums IS OVER

>national socialism
>not real socialism
???

well okay, is more like Keynesian-ism with a different label. (Keynes was a homosexual and the nazi's did not want their economic policy associated with that so they changed the name to "National Socialism')

>Nazism
>volk above all
>had a totalitarian ruler which wasn't elected democratically by the volk

Volk doesn't mean democracy. Nazism means acting in favor of your race above all.
Hitler despised Mussolini for his attack on Ethiopia because that would mean a black washing of Italian blood.

>Nazism
>free market
???

He was elected actually. After the election he staged an attack on his country from what I remember was communists. This is when he took emergency powers and became the Fuhrer.

>National Socialism not Socialsm

>black washing of Italian blood
>implying Ethiopians at that time became Italians, after it was conquered, and were able to immigrate to Italy in masses like the refugee crisis today to breed with them

>the same behavior

Why do you Americans always talk in absolutes? It was a free Market which was watched by the government to ensure that people were paid right. Its basically modern European free Market with more focus on people.

What I mentioned was merely to point out the difference between Nazism and Fascism. Tell Hitler what you think about it.

>three sided coin
this is why poles are replacing your dumb ass, nigel

>dude horseshoe LMAO

there are differences, but ultimately just a different flavour of boot to lick

>muh horseshoe theory

Fuck off Sargoy of Cuckadd

>He was elected actually
no, he lost to hindernburg and was appointed chancellor by him due to societal pressure. The people didnt vote him to become chancellor

Most accurate description.

thx

Yea just looked it up you're right. It was a close race and became the leader after Hindenburg died. It also wasn't Hitler that took the power but Hindenburg. Hitler advised him to, but wasn't the leader at the time. So when Hitler became leader he walked into a dictatorship that was waiting for him. Interesting.

>It was a free Market which was watched by the government to ensure that people were paid right.
You stupid Kraut. The whole idea of a free-market is where there's not central authority that governs the prices. That's what's a central economy (aka communism aka socialism is called).
You're a fucking disgrace to krauts.

hahaha WHAT he was elected you retard

>Nazi "murders"
>The whole war death toll, even people killed by commies

>Commies
>Just 110 Million

That's what commies did, they set prices based on a 5 year plan. Telling companies to pay people right is not the same thing.
What do you people call modern European Market then?

>3 things
>different sides of the same coin
>3
>sides of coin

10/10 I'm MAD

>Why do you Americans always talk in absolutes? It was a free Market which was watched by the government to ensure that people were paid right. Its basically modern European free Market with more focus on people.


Are you fricking delusional?
Factories may have been still owned by their original owners but they were run by the socialist party i.e. the German government.

Anyone who disagreed got his property nationalized and his family sent of to Ausschwitz.

What's worse is that this is the only part you Germs see as positive and try to implement it today.

Fuck it. Third time's the charm. There will be no Germany after that.

Having the government funnel money into private enterprise is not free market

its literally national socialism - its in the fucking name, you god damn leftist crybaby.

>muh socialist freedom fighter :) :) :)

fucking stupid asshole, grow up

>Seems all different sides of the same coin

Except no.

There's a lot I could write but it's sometimes best to keep it simple.

What your school defines as communism, fascism and national socialism is not actually communism, fascism and national socialism.
Streamlined history = horse shit.

You gotta read the primary sources.

Mein Kampf. The Doctrime of Fascism and the Communist Manifesto, and Das Kapital.
It helps to maybe at least listen to some lectures by communists. They write a lot and the shit they write will give you invaluable insights into what they really think.

It's sometimes hard to find good books that streamline this information into factual bite size chunks and there's lots of political agendas at work. So you need to unfortunately need to go and do a bunch of leg work.

What if they're the same sides of a different coin?

>What do you people call modern European Market then?
A failure.

Nigger it was a honest question

Too econocentric.

Fascism is civic national. National Socialism is ethnic/racial national and also racialist.
Both are radical traditionalist in a sense and are a coalition of different classes and conservative, religious elements under the state.

Communism has the pseudo science of dialectical materialism as it's main tool for understanding human behaviour. It also is diametrically opposed to religion and desires to complete abolish class.
While fascism and national socialism have great respect for tradition (within reason), communism is immensely anti-tradition.

>There will be no Germany after that.
That will be a sad day. The kraut genes must be harvested before this happens. The Franks and the Anglo-Saxons have died out. Only the Alemani remain. Need to get them before they die out too.

Fascism: State is means and end, freer market
Communism: State is means and end, no market
NationalSocialism: State is a means TO AN END, with the end being the preservation of blood and race, freer market

>Says Communism, Fascism and Socialism are not the same
>There's a lot I could write but it's sometimes best to keep it simple.
>Says nothing of value afterwards.
Seems like you don't know shit either.

good points

people are always arguing over political ideologies that are not clearly defined

>leaf
>not knowing history
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Get raked

>Nigger it was a honest question
I gave you an honest answer. EU with all its regulations is a failure. A free-market requires minimal participation from an overseeing entity, why? Because free-markets are the closest economic equivalents to evolution. Companies die and new companies are born. There are no external directives that guide the market.

Is this the best form of a market? Yes, because free-markets encourage the use of local information to make optimal decisions.

Is any european market a free market? No. It puts too much emphasis on worker rights through regulations. If it was truly a free market, then the market would automatically ascertain that most European cultures give emphasis to family life and thus it is in the interests of companies who want to hire top talents to give amenities to their workers.

Kraut, you're just living the age where Germany's products are being consumer throughout Europe and that's why you think Germany and other markets are free. You are headed for a collapse, and when it comes, it will become painfully obvious to everyone that the only real manufacturer in Europe were Germany and France. Everyone else is a cuck.

>ALL DA SAME!!!

You still didn't say how to call the failure.

The Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag after this election though, which prompted Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. It might not be that Hitler was elected, but a huge chunk of Germany wanted the National Socialists and their policies.

>You still didn't say how to call the failure.
What do you mean? I just told you why it's a failure. Over regulating a market leads to its failure. Weren't you born during the credit crisis? When people were trying to restructure Greece's debt?

Actually after its initial years communism chenged culturally towards traditionalism and patriotism culturally.Even the Russians had to fall back on nationalism,religion and heroes of the old when the war was at its hardest.
Most of the other european communist countries also were very patriotic and traditionalist.
The major difference between ns/fascism and communism its in their economics and the difference in view of equality.

So the name is regulated market? Thanks.

>The major difference between ns/fascism and communism its in their economics and the difference in view of equality.
Some commies are more equal than other commies.

So, when is Socialism socialism, then? Retard

Well thats true communists claimed that it would be a classles society yet we had at least 3 classes the communist party and their families,the army,security and militia(police) and finally your average pleb.
Not much of a difference tbhq.

When you stop throwing communism/marxism into same basket as socialism.

>The Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag after this election though,
They still never got the majority of seats and the communists were still strong until they got banned

Communism and marxism is just socialism taken to extreme though....

>So the name is regulated market? Thanks.
Ok, you were asking for a specific term. My bad.

>Not much of a difference tbhq.
And yet some commies were in power and had access to more information and resources than other commies.

>When you stop throwing communism/marxism into same basket as socialism.
This guy
>Communism and marxism is just socialism taken to extreme though....
Is spot on. There is no difference, economically, between socialism and communism. Both advocate for the means of production to be controlled by the collective/state. Communism is an extreme form of socialism where a political ideology (classless society) is also imposed on the state.

>there's no difference between paying taxes to help own people and replacing personal income with universal gibs
Do you see what I mean?

>>there's no difference between paying taxes to help own people and replacing personal income with universal gibs
I know what you're trying to say. If socialism had been continued under Nazi Germany, people would have been virtuous and all taxes would have been used for public benefit. In addition, history has shown us that communism failed economically, and eventually it just became a system where the state would take goods produced by hard working people and redistribute it to people who weren't working at all.

What you ignore, is that socialism was never given a chance in Nazi Germany to proceed. However, it was given a chance in Venezuela. Where do you think Venezuela is now?

The problem is that when you put in a central body to govern the market, it invariable becomes corrupt. Why? Because for the central body to operate, it receives information about the whole economy. Thus a few people who are supposed to be civil servants have a huge leverage (they understand what is what). A free market balances this by distributing information within the market - no single entity has all the information and thus is not in a position to use the entire market to its benefit.

>It was a free Market which was watched by the government
A fucking kraut

But the means of production were privatized in Nazi Germany, the government paid private companies to build infrastructure for instance. What it had power over was the payment of people like minimum wage and tax amount if I remember right. Does that fall into the corrupt central body already?

>What can we do?

>One axis political spectrum

Like I said, socialism was never given a real chance in Nazi Germany because they lost the war. You would have seen the adverse effects after the war.
>But the means of production were privatized in Nazi Germany, the government paid private companies to build infrastructure for instance.
Yes, they had to break free from the yoke of Versailles. The fastest way to achieve this was to allow the private companies to stay and get them to work for the government.
>What it had power over was the payment of people like minimum wage and tax amount if I remember right.
Defining a minimum wage is when the free market ceases to exist. That's when a market becomes planned.
>Does that fall into the corrupt central body already?
No. Now hypothesize what would have happened after the war assuming Germany won the war. Would the government allow private companies to exist? Yes, then it's a capitalistic economic where the means of production are controlled by private interests (owners of companies). Would the government have allowed the companies to exist but regulated them for the sake of the public? Yes? Then this becomes a socialistic economy where the government acts on behalf of the people. Thus, to corrupt the system, you only need corrupt officials in the government who seek their own interests and what has human history shown us? Humans in power almost always become corrupt. Why? Because the human brain is not wired to understand the power of authority. When people come to power, they tend to confuse authority with their innate abilities. Thus, their brain begins to believe the reason why the nation runs is because they say so. In addition, the human brain is not genuinely wired to care for others. We care for others because it is in our interests to do so.

>Seems all different sides of the same coin

A coin has 4 sides, not three
> front + back
> edge + inside

So your image is incorrect. [pic unrelated]

Oh so Sup Forums is a communist board
How did I not realised it all those years?

Now I get why Socialism has a different meaning here. Saved
>the human brain is not genuinely wired to care for others. We care for others because it is in our interests to do so.
That sounds like autism. A normal person cares for the people around him: family, friends, people. Only a rootless person would not care for his people.
I do agree that people in power will get corrupt at some point but I don't see how a führerless country should work in the long term.

They are really different from each other.
Your approach to politics is the same approach Diablo III had to grinding RPGs: Washed up and dumbed down.

>IT'S CALLED SOCIALISM SO IT MUST BE SOCIALISM

>LIBS BTFO

How care you capable of being this retarded. This may be the kick I need to finally leave Sup Forums and move on with my life. I can't use the same site the same site as these utter mongs.

>That sounds like autism. A normal person cares for the people around him: family, friends, people.
We all evolved from single cellular organisms Kraut. I'm not saying people don't care for others. I'm saying from an evolutionary perspective, humans who found it easy to naturally care for others survived. Do you not see that all people in a tribe care for each other? Is this a coincidence? Is all life like this? No, there are many creatures that work solo (tigers for instance). Over our long history, humans who naturally stuck together, survived. It is the best evolutionary strategy so far. Cultures and civilizations are not a coincidence. They're a product of evolution.
>Only a rootless person would not care for his people.
Do you see rootless people reproducing? No? That means evolution marks them for extinction. Evolution keeps trying to change peoples' behavior to see if there's a better way to survive, and time and again rootless people have been wiped out because on an average, no one wants to have kids with them.
>but I don't see how a führerless country should work in the long term.
It doesn't. All systems are corruptible. It's an illusion to think humans need states to survive. Humans have been around even before the formation of states and nations. Indeed, states are recent phenomena.

There may come a time when technology as progressed enough to allow the existence of city states - a city surrounded by agrarian land. But now is not that time.

fascism and national socialism arent totalitarian

>totalitarianism
>of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
>Nazi germany and Italy didn't have dictators that didn't ban any other opposing parties
>totally not totalitarian

Kill yourself jew see

...