Was he wrong?

Was he wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lJSBWD-h8Dw
youtube.com/watch?v=qXxkFd3lHaM
pastebin.com/wV97RYQT
scribd.com/doc/311227564/Nazi-Privatisation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-15
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_ownership
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nope, he was too right

he was even more wrong

He was too right.

He was too right for his time. So they had to stop him.

youtube.com/watch?v=lJSBWD-h8Dw

Like this video if you cry everytim.

Actually he was too left for the capitalist agenda.

I'm not a Sup Forumstard by any means and logically i disagree with what Hitler stood for.

But seeing those rows upon rows of brave and loyal German men brings a tear to my eye...

youtube.com/watch?v=qXxkFd3lHaM

HITLER DIDN'T DIE FOR THIS

BRING MY HOMIE BACK

Any socialist is wrong

This.
how many of those men disagreed with the party too, but needed to serve because they believed in their country?

t. Proud capitalist

Traitors to the cause need to be publicly hung.

Hitler was a capitalist.

>tfw you only wanted the best for your country
>everyone remembers you as a monster

>those men disagreed with the party too

Wehrmacht had no clue about what was going on, they were just told to go there and kill those people because they do it for Germany.

SS were the ''evil'' ones

He said a lot of things, was right about some, wrong about others.
Which one are you interested in?

Hitler was a socialist

please give me a (you)

pastebin.com/wV97RYQT

...

The world would be a very different place if the nazis won. i dream of the possibility to visit alternative realities from which would have followed if some events went differently. ww2 won by allies and now the world's economy is based on uk-usa capitalism. if nazis had won and national socialism would have taken over the world, we couldn't even imagine how different the world would be. it wouldn't be necessarily worse, or better, we will never know.

Towards the Germans, yes. He loved his people. But he was no Marxist.

He was both, as long as it suited his interest.

That meme was already disproven tbeh, there were plenty of cunts in the wermacht as well.

While Hitler was a socialist in mind, he was forced to sell state owned businesses and property to fund his military campaigns and bring Germany from the brink of economic collapse.

Just like Greece is selling her islands to the Chinese today to pay debnts.

He was a socialist, with many bank loans, Reich these times was indebtedness

Marx wasn't even a socialist by today's standards.
He'd be called right wing in modern UK.

[CITATION NEEDED]

He never said this.

Its from Strasser, I think.

...

Which part in "national SOCIALISM" you don't understand

where are the proofs

Strasser was literally killed under Hitler's order.

Ok. What the fuck happened with the (You)s.

You don't even know what socialism is you stupid fucking ape.
>conservatives in the uk think workers should own the means of production
kek

Come the fuck on. Names don't mean shit.

Or do you believe in "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

Works on my machine.

scribd.com/doc/311227564/Nazi-Privatisation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-15

"The most precious possession you have in the world, is your own people"

I doubt you'd catch Merkel saying that :^)

the most precious possession is refugees

>a system that turns a 3rd world ruin into a world superpower in a decade and is anti jew is banned
hmmmmmmmm

Marx doesn't own the term "socialism", in case you believe that. There were socialist movements before Marx, in fact there are all kinds of socialism, Marxism just happens to be one of them.

Signs that your country might be socialist:

>rich people pay a higher percentage tax (the rich pay to aid the poor)
>there is a health insurance tax (the healthy pay to aid the sick)
>there is a state ran retirement fund system (the young pay to aid the old)
>there is a state ran education system (guaranteeing that even the poorest are literate)
>there is a state ran welfare system (guaranteeing that the poor won't starve to death)
>there is a state ran business welfare system (guaranteeing major employers don't die due to economic shifts)

And so on.
Basically, if everyone is free to spend their money however they see fit (read: stupidly), its not socialism.
If the state takes some of your money to spend it for you, ensuring its spent in the "correct" way (5% for health, 5% for retirement, etc), then you have socialism.

Socialism is the government spending the individual's money to ensure its spent in the "proper" way.
Most modern states have some socialism, I think all of the rich countries have healthcare, retirement and so on handled by the state, via taxes.
Nazi Germany had a lot of socialism, high taxes and high benefits. People didn't spend their own money, the government spent it for them.

You think I don't know that retard? Hitler wasn't a Marxist socialist or any other kind of socialist.

a system that turns a 3rd world shithole into a little bit more industrialized shithole full of brainwashed workers and is anti capitalist is also banned

>3rd world ruin

Germany was projected to be the world leader within a couple of generations before WWI started.
Most historians agree that had the war not occurred, or if it was over faster, Germany would rule Europe, and the world economy, by now.

and that would be?
hmmmm

>If the state takes some of your money to spend it for you, ensuring its spent in the "correct" way (5% for health, 5% for retirement, etc), then you have socialism.
So almost every country in the world is socialist according to you?

guess

German flags never post in these threads

really makes you think

if its banned then why is it happening as we speak

You have it backwards. It torned a decent state into Russian rape-space and American colony.

>Welfare state=/Socialism
Thats just contemponary use of the word, back in the days socialism meant workers control of the means of production. It also heavily implies egalitarian pacifist society.

theyre all muslims or their mouths are filled with cum

>germans
>on Sup Forums
nope, only greek/turk cockroaches

Why are you so upset though? Did a paki fuck your obese mother or something? Were you touched by your drunk father?...

>Hitler wasn't a Marxist socialist or any other kind of socialist.
That's not an argument. Make a decent point or get the fuck out already. Start reading Goebbels' Nazi-Sozi book.

Fucking Christ, nothing worse than illiterate white trash.

ah yes it was national socialism and not world war 2 that destroyed germany
VERY impressive post

They will probably get arrested if they do.

>So almost every country in the world is socialist according to you?
Yes, almost every country today implements social policies.
Socialism isn't an on/off switch, its a spectrum. Some countries have more, some have less, but in the 21 century almost all have some.
Lately it has had a tendency of growing. We will see if this trend continues, as there is already backlash against it.

>Thats just contemponary use of the word, back in the days socialism meant workers control of the means of production.
No, thats communism. Communism and socialism aren't the same thing, as Marx himself got tired of saying all the time in all his books.

do you mean Cuba?

ackshully, it was tyrone the saurus and a shitload of velociraptors

Preaching to the choir

>Did a paki fuck your obese mother or something? Were you touched by your drunk father?
OHHH ROASTED XDDDD FUKKKKK FIRST WORLD BTFO

>That's not an argument. Make a decent point or get the fuck out already.
scribd.com/doc/311227564/Nazi-Privatisation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-15

>calls me illiterate
>tells me to read Goebbels
>doesn't know the meaning of socialism
kys autistic nigger

Communism is the part where everyone is equal and they share the means of production ownership, which is what you suggested in Socialism simply means the state spending people's money instead of people spending it themselves.

>social policies in a capitalist economy
>socialism

>21st century
and the 20th and the 19th

>We will see if this trend continues, as there is already backlash against it.
Automation.

Implementing social policies means you are doing some socialism, by definition.
You just need to stop treating this as a binary choice. It isn't.

he was a incel neet, read his diary he was literally /rk9/. then he managed to become a warmongering dictator, every fedora neet's ultimate fantasy. his ideas were really confused and he wasn't a good general

>Implementing social policies means you are doing some socialism, by definition.
by whose definition? socialism doesn't equal muh big gibburment jesus you sound like a burger

>You just need to stop treating this as a binary choice. It isn't.
Yes it because those social policies exist in a capitalist economy you stupid fuck.

>Go full Greece
>Run out of liquidity
>Go steal shit
>Get rekt
Nazism=>WW2=>Destroyed Germany

You have pretty American view of world.

>Communism is the part where everyone is equal and they share the means of production ownership
By the strictest definion communism is the final utopian state.

>Socialism simply means the state spending people's money instead of people spending it themselves
That state can not be just any state. Denying people economic freedom does not always mean socialism. If a king increases taxes to raise and army and loot shit, would he be socialist?

Hitler was socialist in a way, and a capitalist in others. Like a Nationalist he did whatever was better for his people in a given situation, not only what was "capitalist" or "socialist". Regardless, he was socialist to an extent. You want it or not bitch.

"We want our full share of what Heaven gave us, and of the returns from our physical and mental labors. And that's Socialism!"
Goebbels.

Stop being so fucking triggered.

>he thinks world war 2 wasn't inevitable regardless of who came into power
you have to be 18+ to post here lad

What did he meant by this?

>Hitler was socialist in a way
In what ways was he a socialist? Privatisation doesn't sound very socialist to me.

>he did whatever was better for his people in a given situation
The working people?

Hitler wasn't a socialist.

Hitler was obviously the ultimate cuck. He put his own people through 5 years of suffering just so he'd have the opportunity to witness Soviet cocks raping German women. He never intended to win the war, his ultimate goal was to see big, vengeful Russians rape and murder his country's women while he jerks his tiny one-balled noodle in his stupid little cave.

>socialism doesn't equal muh big gibburment jesus you sound like a burger
???
You make a statement that I haven't made myself, nor do I support, and then you insult me for that statement (which you just made)?

>Yes it because those social policies exist in a capitalist economy you stupid fuck.
"Capitalist" is also not a binary thing, it is again a spectrum. In reality you have some capitalism, and some socialism. Different governments have more of one or the other.
Again, its not an on/off button. Its not either only capitalism, or only socialism. You use some of each.

>You have pretty American view of world.
You commit the same fallacy as the britposter before you. You assume my views and attack that assumption, instead of reading my posts.

>By the strictest definion communism is the final utopian state.
No, by Marx's definition is is the collective ownership of property.

>That state can not be just any state.
It can be any state. Socialism means employing many socialist policies.

>If a king increases taxes to raise and army and loot shit, would he be socialist?
No, but if he raises taxes to build roads and ensure that every citizen gets a free bowl of grain per day he is socialist.
The army is a tool to ensure policies are enacted, not an actual policy in itself. Of course you want as little as possible army, but you don't go bellow the needed threshold to secure government rule and state independence.

WW1*

The Soviets were seizing control in Eastern Europe, gommunism in China with Japan looking to expand their empire. Was always going to be war except the sides would have been different.

>they don't know about the cabal
hmm yes
i was an inexperienced child too once

You're just wrong.

How does this screenshot of Wikipedia prove me wrong?
It actually shows the necessity of what I say, since people can't agree on what capitalism means, thus it can't be a binary choice. It has to be a spectrum, with different ratios of capitalism/socialism being called different names.

#pakistan_btfo

I think this type of behavior perfectly sums up some modernist thoughts that have been influential in the rise of nazism, namely the Faustian tragedy, which is to say that you must fulfil your desires at all costs, even at the cost of our destruction, and the destruction of the world.

Hitler only wanted to watch German women get their pussies stretched out by big slavic men, and he was willing to go through all of that war stuff just to see it happen. I think that's why modern day nazis see him as a romantic, tragic figure in history. He was a one-balled, tiny dicked aryan man who had the power to change the course of human history just so he could satisfy his sexual desires, and that's solid evidence of the superiority of the Aryan man.

Just read the first line. There isn't a binary choice, It's either private or workers ownership.

Define capitalism.

>he was willing to go through all of that war stuff just to see it happen
But he didn't. He was in his bunker.

>No, by Marx's definition is is the collective ownership of property
Number of communist regimes would drastically expand using your definition.

>It can be any state. Socialism means employing many socialist policies
Thats circular definition.

>No, but if he raises taxes to build roads and ensure that every citizen gets a free bowl of grain per day he is socialist.
He won't be a socialist, as serfs stay serfs, he is not. Policies of Bread and circuses are not socialism.

Soviets were modernizing their army would not be ready to start major shit until the 50s. Japan would

*Japan would start shit, but it won't be enough to start a world war.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-15
you debunked your own claim
>Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system
it still says hitler said that and not strasser

also here's the Nazi's 25 point plan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
>We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
>We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
etc.

also in this
scribd.com/doc/311227564/Nazi-Privatisation
the nazi party was not a private corporation when it was in power, it was funded by public money
if you can call that privatization than anything nationally funded can be considered privatization

just hearing about it wouldve been enough

...

Capitalism is a set of ideas and the policies that arose from implementing these ideas.
When a state has mostly "capitalist" policies, it is said to be a "capitalist" state. This doesn't mean it has no socialist policies.

Similar with socialism. It is an idea, and its implementation.
You will always have some socialist policies, and some capitalist policies, and calling the end result socialism or capitalism is just placing an arbitrary line on the spectrum.

Social policies in a capitalist economy doesn't equal socialism. The reason I posted that link was because Hitler said that he doesn't believe that workers should own the means of production in it which is the very definition of socialism.

scribd.com/doc/311227564/Nazi-Privatisation

>Number of communist regimes would drastically expand using your definition.
It would shrink, if anything, since "communism" these days is mostly used to define actually fascist regimes.

>Thats circular definition.
Not really. Re-read your own post and re-read my response. Don't take the statement out of context.
Any state that employs mostly socialist policies can be called a socialist state, this isn't circular definition.

>He won't be a socialist, as serfs stay serfs, he is not. Policies of Bread and circuses are not socialism.
Bread and circuses is textbook socialism. Add to the bread and circuses some basic healthcare and retirement programs, and you are set.

>The reason I posted that link was because Hitler said that he doesn't believe that workers should own the means of production in it which is the very definition of socialism.

The definition of communism, not socialism.
Socialism doesn't require collective property ownership.

>Capitalism is a set of ideas and the policies that arose from implementing these ideas.
......and those ideas are? (private ownership of the means of production)

social doesn't mean socialist you dipshit

Yes
Godless, insane man
Only a Kaiser can be rightful ruler

Socialism doesn't require collective ownership of factories, as I have stated multiple times. You are making it a binary choice by confusing socialism with communism, and capitalism with everything-that-is-not-communism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

>Socialism doesn't require collective ownership of factories
It literally does. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_ownership

I think user is referring to the contemporary definition of socialism as a compromise between neoliberalism and communism.

What's the contemporary definition of socialism?

It doesn't exist btw

I meant like a colloquial definition of socialism. I don't expect consistency in any academic context from socialists.

What's the colloquial definition of socialism then?