>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. >Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” -- Adolf Hitler 1938
Hitler was a kike killing his competitors. What you're describing is fundamentally unchristian. Taking from another without their permission is theft, and that's against the law of god.
Socialists are arrogant, idiotic, idiocentric, populist, conformist, kikes, and all of them need to be gassed.
Pic related is how i think of any man who is willing to die fighting socialism. Better dead than red.
Lucas King
>look at polling data from the 1934 election in Weimar Germany >Nazis make huge gains (Sup Forums's mirin') >literally every party that loses is center-left or far-left >Nazis consistently campaign on a platform that is solidly left-wing for Germans
Gavin Jackson
>Nazis consistently campaign on a platform that is solidly left-wing pic related
Also, the Bourgeoisie and the Capitalist Industrialists overwhelmingly supported Hitler; these are the same classes that get sent to Gulags under Communism: >Hitler had a lot of support from the conservative right who had dominated Germany politically since 1929.
>Hitler seemed to appeal to each class and sector within the electorate by making specific pledges to suit each group.
>The middle classes made up the largest single proportion of Nazi support. It is thought that the reason for this is something to do with the Great Depression. They felt that they would not be able to cope with a second economic crisis so they moved to the more radical fringe. By middle class I mean artisans, small retailers, peasant farmers, civil servants and teachers.
>The upper classes-landowners, businessmen and industrialists-saw that Hitler would protect them from trade unions and the threat of communism and socialism on the left.
>The unemployed, peasants and young people supported Hitler but the party was weak in the south and in industrial cities.
Can't you read? He used the word, but changed the definition of "socilism": >“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. >Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” -- Adolf Hitler 1938
Jackson Butler
Cant you read? He didn't change any definitions. There is no such thing as partial theft, or moral theft.
Leave my country, communist. The day of rope comes soon.
Julian Morris
>There is no such thing as partial theft What did he steal?
Evan Lee
>social equity
AKA feminism and other bullshit.
Asher James
thats retarded ruskie, hitler was just trying to use propaganda to increase reproduction rates that would allow germany to krieg for a longer amount of time
Adam Morgan
That would explain why National Socialism actually worked.
Carter Clark
lel are you the same Russian that calls everything feminism?
Samuel Bailey
>NatSoc will never be revived >you will never have the pleasure of sending AnCap autists to the camps, or preferably crush their skulls under your military boot
Leo Wright
I feel you, my Germanic friend
Kevin Gomez
>that Hitler quote
Holy fuck, thats a choice quote
thanks for making this thread, stop the hurr durr Bernie-Trump national socialism shilling
Lucas Cooper
Literally all socialist countries have a means for private enterprise to exist, you just make enough to cover costs and labor, and the rest is taxed away.
Communists didn't, until they realized the concept of economic warfare, i.e. Russia and China. Russian communism couldn't function, let alone keep pace with the west. That's why China has socialism with Chinese characteristics.
There is no such thing as communism when more than 150 people are involved.
Connor Rogers
>use propaganda to increase reproduction rates
Yeah, that's what the image says. He needed more men as cannon fodder. Typical socialist attitude.
What's the connection to feminism? I always see you calling Hitler a feminist, but you never explain. I'm curious. How does natsoc = feminism?
He wrote much fiercer shit about Marxists: >Soon the Jew became the leader of the battle against himself. I am speaking figuratively when I say “against himself” because the “great master of lies” always succeeds in making himself seem innocent and throwing the blame on others. Since he had the audacity to lead the masses himself, it never occurred to the people that this could be the most legendary fraud of all time... >Without being aware of it, the laborer is put to work for the very power that he believes he is fighting against. He is led to believe he is acting against capitalism, and therefore he is easily made to fight for capitalism. The cry is heard against international capital, but the real target is the national economy. The current economy must be destroyed so that the international stock exchange can replace it on the corpse-strewn battlefield, with Jewish financial world interests.
>To achieve his goal, the Jew proceeds as follows: he creeps up on the workers in order to win their confidence, pretending to have compassion for their poverty and circumstances or even anger at their miserable lot in life. He is careful to study all the real or even their imagined problems. Then he arouses the desire for change. With infinite shrewdness, he stirs up the urge for (((SOCIAL JUSTICE))), an innate desire that is sleeping within every Aryan. Once the fire is burning, the Jew turns it into hatred toward those more fortunate and puts the stamp of a very special World-Concept on the battle; he builds a philosophy designed to correct social injustice. He founds the Marxist doctrine.
i don't see why you have to stay in this left-right, capitalist-communist, nazi-zionist phase. you don't need to be a radical you know, and the less radical parties in power the better imo
James Myers
Oh yeah I know, the video just included classic Sup Forums lines like
>declaring war on marxism 3.26 >eradicating the marxist party 5:40
and some others I think
Aaron Walker
Nazi's were basically Keynesians in terms of economic policy
They did have a good amount of state-owned industries though
Leo Hill
only neolib kike shills think Hitler or Keynesianism was bad.
It's easy to tell who they are.
low
Germany didn't even go into a "war time" economy until 1943 when the war was already basically over and they were all doomed.
Yes, It's called Fascism, and It is not Socialism but It also doesn't fall on the left-right paradigm very well.
>Welfare state >Heavy infrastructure spending by the state >Private ownership of businesses >People aren't necessarily coerced into doing things but the state creates a culture that stigmatises people who don't do as the state says
It's not 'Socialist', but if you took Nazi Germany, scrubbed any reference to social policies and asked a leftist to evaluate what they thought of this country, It's appeal to them greatly.
Sebastian Rivera
In the US: >in World War II, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944, vastly broadening the tax base and increasing the total intake And I think the average rate was somewhere between 20% and 40% during the war, and never higher than 20% of GDP after the war.
>USSR There were too many taxes on too many things to get an accurate figure (like the childlessness rate, which was 8%), but the maximum rate on the wages of production workers and clerical and professional employees was 13 percent. Party bosses and people with higher than the min wage had variable rates, some as high as 60%. It changed in the 1970s to be easier on the lowest earners.
Nicholas Campbell
>post war 90% white era
the depression was all white too and was post WW1
>what is post POZZED 1965 beaner/nig era?
>blaming social problems on the economy
Kayden Long
Compare what you just described to liberal societies, and then compare it to monarchies, or ancient republics. I'm not sure what's significantly different or unique in that respect. All the things you listed are true of most societies today and past.
I think it's hyperbole to consider the NSDAP radically different from most nations, but it is expedient to modern propaganda (to stigmatize it, etc). The only models that were significantly different were the communist states. They required massive social engineering, on the scale of organized genocides, ethnocides, theocides. That's what makes the Left so unique. It must wipe out society to save it. From the French revolution to Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Colton Walker
thanks so basically what you're saying is National Socialists had a similar tax rate to the Soviet Republics, and the tax rates you are complaining about today (and calling communist) are actually eternal anglo rates.
did you know the bulgarian communist party deported turks and those who stayed had to change their names. and ofc the boarders were actually protected
Jaxon Kelly
wait so you're implying hitler didn't want to annex poland, didn't consider them inferior, and didn't want to genocide gypsies, gays and disabled? (not even going to bother with the X trillion jews)
doesn't seem so unique to me. the imeprialist anglos genocided as well. also didn't hitler ban all other parties just like .. the communists did
Robert Watson
>o basically what you're saying is National Socialists had a similar tax rate to the Soviet Republics No, that's what you were trying to bait out me, so I added the addendum. You can try to "checkmate" anyway, but only if you ignore my whole reply.
Try again.
>going full Shlomo is that really worth anyone's time, user?
Ian Lopez
>'no' at last i truly see
Alexander Lopez
Do you?
John White
kek
Jackson Mitchell
no, because you're clearly ignoring how similar the two ideologies are (and many others)
if i am talking to a self declared communist about it he'd call me a nazi, just like you call me a jew
there is no logic in pretending any totalitarian form of government is good. the main reason anglos like you care about nazis so much is because of the race issues.
Mason Rogers
Good Lord, i love pol, good to see that imgs keept that i helped posting them reached people =]
Jonathan Allen
Living in your parents' basement without paying rent past age 35 is theft too you fuckin' neet. I like capitalism and all but this is probably the cringiest post I've seen in a while.
Jacob Roberts
you sure showed that straw man who's boss
Brandon Morales
No, you're just trying to shoehorn rhetorical nonsense into "checkmate" posts, without making a solid case. Tax rates aren't central to communism or any other model of political economy. You tried to say the USSR had a low rate like Germany, but it was higher, and only nominally lower than the UK, who wasn't natsoc or communist.
You weren't making a point, you were fedora tipping. Are you sure you want to tell me >"Natsoc = communism because taxes" or were you more interested in talking about >muh 6 gorillion lolohoax
??
Justin Phillips
>taxation isn't central to socialism so then you admit National "Socialism" is like saying "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea
Luke Anderson
Not quite. Did you read the quote in the OP? Socialism was redefined by the NSDAP to have a purely societal, not economic, meaning. The Marxist class critique and dogmas were removed, and the opposite notions of social organization inserted.
I really have no idea why that's so hard for anyone but rabid ANTIFA leftist types to comprehend. Maybe because they have no reason to accept natsoc as a variant of fascism, or fascism as a variant of right-wing thinking. Only libtards and lolbertarians seem obsessed with exorcizing fascism/natsoc from the right, to protect their own appearance as righteous anti-leftists. The only people who that nonsense works on are people who never studied either Marxism or Right-wing thought.
Basically, if you never read, it's easy to believe that meme.
