Socially conserative

>socially conserative
>fiscally liberal

so a national socialist?

I'd like to know where this meme started that the Nazis were Socialist.

When they called it National SOCIALISM

...

maybe from all the social welfare programs the nazis had, as well as the increased state control of the economy.

Maybe because the Nazi party formed from the Worker's party of Germany and that Hitler continuously derailed Capitalism and wanted a self-sufficient German nation, the whole point of Lebensraum was to acheive this.

from the name itself

nazi =nationaler sozialist - national socialist

Where did the meme start that they were right-wing? They were literally a socialist party. Hitler made their flag red in an attempt to appeal to the socialists in Germany.

>I can't think critically the post.
Maybe look past what they call themselves and read a book? It's common knowledge that the Nazis just picked up the word Socialist to fool workers into supporting them. Hitler even wrote about this.

Google Socialism, then come back. the Nazi party formed from the Worker's party of Germany.

'Formed' is intellectually dishonest. Hitler and his goons hijacked the party for political advantage. Never did they ever speak about giving workers any control over the means of production or abolishing the state.

They were socially far-right and they were pro Capitalism.

>Hitler made their flag red in an attempt to appeal to the socialists in Germany.
Right, Hitler was full of shit. We know that.

>definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

in other words, an economy that is controlled almost entirely by the state, as it was in Nazi Germany.
Hitler may have noted the merits of capitalism, in accordance with his views on eugenics and darwinism, but he also wanted a self sufficient German utopia like said.

>advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
>the community as a whole.
>the community
>in other words, the state 8^)
That's uh, some mighty fine reading comprehension you got going there.

>but he also wanted a self sufficient German utopia.

So Hitler being an isolationist means he was a Socialist. You do realize businesses were by and large privatized, the economy had massive state interference, and the workers still had no control whatsoever right?

government =/= the community.

Can you name some ways in which the government was not socialist?

>Hitler being an isolationist means he was a socialist
international socialism =/= national socialism

the point of socialist policies is that the government controls the wealth and supposedly redistributes it amongst the people. In this case, the state is the community.
Face it stormfag, your one nutted, micro dicked hero was a socialist just like grandpa bernie.

Did the workers democratically decide where the profits of their labor should go to? Did the workers have control over where their own labor value went to?

Nope, that was all decided in the hands of a few elites. Privatization.

Another way is the fact that the state had their hands on everything and not the workers.

These are the most basic red flags of a state not being Socialist.

>the point of socialist policies is that the government controls the wealth and supposedly redistributes it amongst the people.

No, that is Leninism. Most Socialists are borderline anarchist.

>In this case, the state is the community.
Yes, in order to fit your narrative. The government is now the same as a few million workers. Congrats.

>Face it stormfag.
Lol no? I'm a Marxist.

To clarify, what I mean by the "state" is the government. Not the entirety of it's population. I'll just say government from now on to avoid confusion.

Worst of both worlds

>Nope, that was all decided in the hands of a few elites.
>Another way is the fact that the state had their hands on everything and not the workers.


But these are facets of many socialist states.
The state/government IS the people. So if the state owns everything, the people own everything.
I know this is the kind of distinction people make when they say "communism has never been tried" or something like that.... but this is actually one of the practical problems in carrying out a collectivist regime...

It might be a flawed version of socalism but it's definitely socialistic.

Soooooo, the white trash that join the KKK but are on welfare programs themselves?

Not the guy you're arguing with, but I feel you're ignoring how socialism has played out in the real world when you use this as your litmus test.

Look, I get it. "Socialism as described by Marx has never been tried, and therefore us socialists don't have to defend the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc etc." I've heard that argument many, many times, occasionally more eloquently than the way I describe it, but more often just as a knee-jerk response. It's true. Marx and Engels did not envision any of the societies that claimed(or claims in the case of Cuba) to follow their principles.

But that's just it: *Historically*, no socialist revolution, or electoral victory, has abolished the state, they've always just co-opted the existing government to work for their values now. At the same time, there has never been a fully free market with no restrictions whatsoever. So if we are to compare real life socialism to real life capitalism we have to look at the degree of government control vs the degree of open market. NOT a ideological gold standard that has never been tried out.

Nazism fits neatly among those parties who had a high degree of government control of the market.

>The state/government IS the people. So if the state owns everything, the people own everything.

Dude no, just no. You still had a few people controlling the wages of millions of workers. The workers had no say and they had no say politically either, Hitler rigged the elections and expanded his power vastly. And even if the workers did have perfect elections, they still weren't allowed to vote on every decision. Only the people who make them. People in the UK actively protested the Iraq war, and guess what, the UK went in anyway. Governments are not the people. Government have their own agenda, in this case, Hitler's fascism. The workers thought they were getting control over their own labor, they were wrong.

>but this is actually one of the practical problems in carrying out a collectivist regime.
It wasn't a collectivist regime, the government and private corporations controlled everything.

It is just impossible, even in the smallest, more radicalized socialist organizations, such as certain unions during history, they always started with horizontal decision taking but had to forfeit that and elect representatives because nothing was getting done with such democracy, and what was being done, was inefficient because people can't know everything about everything.

So in the end they elect people who take responsibility, and that's exactly what governments are.

>So if we are to compare real life socialism to real life capitalism we have to look at the degree of government control vs the degree of open market.

This. You want to compare socialism to capitalism? Compare a country that does 75% of what capitalism entails vs a country that does 75% of what socialism entails. That should tell you which direction we should head towards.

>But that's just it: *Historically*, no socialist revolution, or electoral victory, has abolished the state.

Spain, Catalonia. While the government itself wasn't officially wiped out, the unions basically controlled and organized everything.

>we have to look at the degree of government control vs the degree of open market.

This is exactly my point, you people equate Socialism with Leninism, the awful plan of taking over industries through government and someday maybe, giving it to the workers. Well, you could not be more wrong. Socialism and Anarchism has always gone hand in hand, this is fact. Your perceptions of Socialism is a product of Imperialist propaganda and this is EASILY proven true when you look at every example of Socialism, why it failed, and why Capitalists attack it, exploit it, and then lie about it. There is no spin going on here, the fact that you don't question American imperialism and why it has profited from slandering Socialism, is highly disturbing. Noam Chomsky is a good start for plebs to despook themselves. Richard D. Wolf is really good too.

Just read a book ffs.

According to socialism's parents, the proletariat would rise and take over the state in order to eliminate capitalistic ideals through force, and after a while state would be abolished and communism would surface.

Funny that the only thing that surfaces after the first steps are taken is misery and communism never surfaces because people become monsters due to scarcity.

Not all socialism = Marx-derived Socialism

Fabian Socialism is and was a thing, for example.

The socialization of many aspects of the means of production is one component of most types of Socialism.

ok guy, in an anarchist society, what's stopping me from simply holding on to the resources and property I own instead of sharing them with my neighbors as socialism asks of me?
If you say that they can take them from me against my will, then this is no longer a free anarchist society, because you have used force against me. The problem with socialism, communism, and all collectivist ideologies is that they require force to be implemented, whereas capitalism simply compliments human nature.

>Spain, Catalonia. While the government itself wasn't officially wiped out, the unions basically controlled and organized everything.

Im Spanish, and taking pride of Catalonia revolution is laughable at best. The unions were incredibly radicalized and violent and Catalonia was a complete shithole during their "rule". So much that they destroyed themselves from within through the incorporation of hordes of violent uneducated poor people to their cause because otherwise they couldn't implement their ideas.

There's no parallel universe where such a situation could have ended in anything other than collapse.

You don't get union benefits and you isolate yourself from society because Capitalism is terrible for workers

1.
Unions were only allowed to reap a greater share of profits once capitalists created a greater volume and share of wealth

2.
Free markets do not limit collective bargaining agreements. They are as perfectly voluntary as contractual Homeowners' Associations.

but if I have enough resources to live more comfortably than the socialist community down the street, don't you think that other socialists will take notice and adopt my way of living so they too can live better lives?

> they destroyed themselves from within through the incorporation of hordes of violent uneducated poor people to their cause because otherwise they couldn't implement their ideas.
>There's no parallel universe where such a situation could have ended in anything other than collapse.

was an interesting history lesson til it turned into a mirror

you are retarded mate

Lol Chomsky. Ok pleb.

>fiscally liberal

so you're a retard

>liberalism
>socialism
Pick one
There's nothing wrong with being socially conservative and economically socialist. It's all wrong when you're socially marxist and economically liberal. Too bad we live in a world full of the second kind of people.

>special snowflake socialist

Off yourself.
We know your tricks, and we know you twist rhetoric so that what's good is your child, and what is bad is of the enemy.

>socially conservative and economically socialist
That's the worst combo tho. Economicaly and socially backwards at the same time.

>Google Socialism, then come back.

Same thing happens with anthropologists a a solid definition of culture. They refuse to give a straight definition.