National Socialism

What EXACTLY is so bad about it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ
archive.org/stream/SchmidtLifeInHitlersGermany/Schmidt-LifeInHitlersGermany_djvu.txt
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Everything.

>muh freedom

Nothing.

I said " What EXACTLY"

Then you have to point out what exactly is bad about it.

"everything" is not a valid argument, muhammed

The socialist part

socialism

>National Socialism
>Socialism

pic unrelated

>muh NS= socialism

No

It's not the same as ordinary socialism since you are able to get rich if you want to.

Shitty economy, and also too radical. Death camps are a bad thing.

Everything.

'ya cuck.

national socialism only works if the nation is of a common stock, that is, all of the same nationality or race.

because the kikes have enforced this whole "multiculturalism" shit upon us, it is nearly impossible to find a homogeneous ethno-state anymore.

t. yisroel hirschbaum

>fascist, so doomed to turn aggressive inwards and outwards
>socialist, so doomed to fail economically
>when put into practice caused the worst war to ever take place

it's one saving grace is that it's not communism

I prefer democratic nationalism

>Implying ww2 started because of National socialism and not because Hitler wanted to save fellow germans who were trapped in poland after ww1

>Implying the germans even wanted war to begin with

>Implying the alies didn't literally force the germans into war


Being this blue pilled

except in Israel.

We could always try undo it. You might be too far gone unless you're willing to accept Hispanics as honorary whites. But most of Europe is still 80-90% white, eastern Europe closer to 100%.

Also, 'socialism' is a broad as fuck term

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,

Writing something off just because of that is dumb.

Ok. Here's what exactly.
youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ

Syria has arguably been national socialist. As was Libya. They were both fine til the US decided 'lel regime change'.

I do think OP, as this thread shows, too many people are still spooked, some think you mean fascism, some think you mean Stalinism.

Proposing we rebrand in Social Nationalism.

It was designed exclusively for Germany and other countries that only have one race and culture, examples:

China
Vietnam
1930s Germany
1930s Europe in general
Mongolia
African countries
etc.

Only these countries COULD have something alike, while countries like:

USA
Mexico
Brazil
Russia
Modern Europe
Latin America
Arab world
etc.


Cannot have NatSoc, because of the simply fact that they are multiracial communities, what could be applied is some kind of fascism or statism, that encourages nationalism but discards ethnonationlisms like NatSoc

A lot of these countries already had something like that, even Mexico, pic related

We miss u General....

>Implying NS is about hatred towards others

I didn't know that communist propaganda made such an impact on russians even today

Failed economic model. It's unsustainable just like communism

Why not both? You can have aspects of socialism alongside democracy.

I think everybody is getting too caught up on the words used and not thinking enough about the theory behind it. Nationalism offers defense against globalism. Socialism offers defense against automation. Only the edgiest of ayncaps take issue with this, and they are internationalist kike shills so fuck em.

Hitler was a control freak without a skill to delegate and he let identity politics play a major role in his policy making rather than using them as political tool.

It also amuses me to no end that term is misused so vehemently - hitler run a fascist state not a nat soc one. If you want a true nat soc state look no further than USSR. Altho we believed that all nations should become part of ours.

Nothing
Loving your country makes you a """""""""racist""""""""" and """""""""fascist"""""""""
However if you dress up as a woman and let shitskins take turns on your wife, it's progressive, open minded and democratic
That's why we need National Socialism

For every cuck that says National Socialism is bad:
archive.org/stream/SchmidtLifeInHitlersGermany/Schmidt-LifeInHitlersGermany_djvu.txt

This is what we can't enjoy today

While I think there is value to ethno-nationalism, a strictly enforced, value based form of civic nationalism would allow it to work. Obviously, capped immigration is a given.

>if you want to

not really, you had to have govt permission to have a REALLY successful business.

where do you get your false information?

How about if we were 'socialist' in the same way China is? Well, not entirely the same way. But their model of state ownership has made them one of the richest nations on earth with world-beating growth.

Yeah but who gives a fuck about Hitler?

failed to finish the job.

Electricity bills were high with Uber-Elektrizitätsgesellschaft

>USSR
>Anything but a communist shithole that ruined Eastern Europe

Right.

It's pretty fucking stupid to begin with.

The NSDAP scared away many jewish scientists who would otherwise have helped them improve their society and academia. Prior to NSDAP siezure of power, Germany was at the forefront of (amongst other things) biochemistry. Albert Einstein was a german jew who, among many other, fled Germany in fear of what was to come.

Later, german physicists would dismiss Einstein's theory of relativity and attempt to come up with their own theory that would replace it. They named it "Deutsche Physik" in an attempt to pit it against regular physics, which they named "Jewish Physics" for reasons that escaped everyone else. In the end they had to accept that they were fucking retarded and that the Theory of Relativity held sound.

Even military education faltered at schools such as the NAPOLA schools, where education focused so much on physical activity and doctrine that all other fields - including most of the academics - left subpar graduaties which even high ranking SS leaders felt were simply not bright enough to assume military leadership.

So to answer your question... National Socialism, in it's only applied example, regressed into a pretty retarded society.

It was a form of government.

It's the best way to achieve socialism. But socialism itself is too fragile a government system.
Nationalism requires a very strong cohesion between the members of a society to push for a goal in common not everybody is willing to do. We're too self-absorbed for national socialism to work this day.

But China is going to crumble soon, and Chinese know it. That's why they want so desperately to take their money out from that country.

>Organisation of the state : each section of German society is heavily controlled by a Minister, unlike democracy these ministers are for life and often financially own these area IE Trade Unions: Robert Ley; Film making and Propaganda: Goebbels.

Thus the state is designed essentially into different autocrats with the assumed heir to the supreme Fuerher simply being the richest man on the cabinet; Himmler controlled the SS labour camps and the interior police force making him the richest man in Germany.

This means upon the death of the leader German society is destined for a power grab; and more often that not it would be the most subversive forces that win over; it's be ascension of Roman emporers on crack.

China is pretty capitalist.
Do not fall for the "protecting your key industries is socialism" meme.
Nazi Germany's economy was crappy because it was entirely based on debt and the assumption that winning the war would cancel this debt

Who says? Why are you fixating on the failed old models? New century, new twist on NatSoc.

For me the 'socialist' part need extend no further than UBI, free medical care and education and state ownership of (at least one company) in each strategic sector (power, steelworks etc)

Socialism
duh?

No one said it worked well. If you want a more efficient example of the same model being utilised - China. Stalin was an incomeptent control freak too after his wife died and trotsky tried to undermine him too.

I like it.

>Second: Totalitarianism

This is alright if you have a fetish for blonde men in tight leather uniforms but for the rest of us, kangaroo courts and a supreme unaccountable state is pretty shitty; although the gestapo has its benefits of being able to root out insurgents, it is only the fact these ideas are forced underground through a totalitarian state that it is necessary.

Lack of open Political discourse, state controlled indoctrination and unaccoutable officials is a big no for me; some nations require a Authoritarian state by nature due to their culture like Russia and China but as a Briton who enjoys his ancient liberties and Magna Carta liberatum I'll pass on that lot.

>NS is about hatred towards others
Are you an idiot?

>China is pretty capitalist.

So you concede that it is not entirely capitalist? So not all socialism is destined to failre. And if we're going to talk about collapse, lets look at the US. Was it socialism that bankrupted their nation, or endless war? Sticking to comparisons for now, Saudi is 'socialist' by some metrics (generous bennies, state ownership), and they are without question the richest nation on earth.

My point. Black and white views of 'socialism all that is bad, capitalism all that is good' are dumb and only really help shit down conversation.

>But China is going to crumble soon, and Chinese know it. That's why they want so desperately to take their money out from that country.

Maybe so. Well, crumble I suspect is a bit strong. Their currency will have to be drastically revalued and their housing bubble is gonna go pop, but china needs to begin the move to a more consumer driven economy anyway. Well, I say need to. I don't suppose they 'need' to, but I also doubt the people much fancy eternal slavery, working on trinkets for the developed world.

when will you learn

>Who says? Why are you fixating on the failed old models?

> state ownership of (at least one company) in each strategic sector (power, steelworks etc)

incidentally, that's exactly how shit was organized back in the days of good ol' Adolf. One couldn't run a successful company selling iron when confronted with competition from another company which had the entire Bund backing it.

socialist governtments almost never restrict themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a state-controlled dragon dildo shop

it doesn't work, m8. the prices are way too high, the system way too inefficient.

Google it. 'Social Nationalism' redirects to 'left wing nationalism' and mentions the SNP. Just note, this is not what we have in mind. But at least the brand isn't toxic.

I don't support socialism
I don't support impinging on personal freedoms

Social Nationalism more accurately reflects what it was in reality too. The more socialist part of the Nazi party was killed off with the SA.

nothing
more like freedom to do things that are not degenerate imo

National 'Socialism' uses Spengler's definition not Marx's; Marx's definition was: Social ownership of the means of production

' For a slogan’s sake to buy up enterprises immoderately and purposelessly and to turn them over to public administration in the place of the initiative and responsibility of their owners, who must eventually lose all power of supervision—that means the destruction of socialism. The old Prussian idea was to bring under legislative control the formal structure of the whole national productive force, at the same time carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and leaving scope for the kind of personal enterprise, talent, energy, and intellect displayed by an experienced chess player, playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords….Socialization means the slow transformation—taking centuries to complete—of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official'

Its a form of coperatism. The fact all you NatSocs are LARPing and haven't even read Prussiandom and Socialism or Decline of the West is very fucking telling. You're as bad as the Marxists who haven't read Das Kapital.

>Lack of open Political discourse, state controlled indoctrination and unaccoutable officials is a big no for me;
Seen US in recent years? You guys just passed a bill that makes their, or, for that matter, ours, surveillance state seem downright unintrusive.
>China is pretty capitalist.
Do not confuse communism and socialism. One is economic policy another is a social one. Regulated market is something that can exist in a state with no social policies what-so-ever, or vice versa.

The subversion of individual rights and liberties.

It's too far removed from the Social Contract.

self-amplified lethal group stupidity

much like /pol

now why don't you go read some history, imbecile

The perception that "kill 6 million Jews" is an underlying economic principle.

If you go by the simple definition of a socialist state with a semi planned economy that doesn't wish to impose socialism on other states, Bernie Sanders is a national socialist.

>Seen US in recent years? You guys just passed a bill that makes their, or, for that matter, ours, surveillance state seem downright unintrusive.

Minor political supression isn't the same as state sponsered indoctrination and execution or imprisonment of Political subversives; the fact we're having a conversation on a public board about the Pros and Cons of National Socialism should tell you something.

this is what they teach them in schools

muh socialism is good

This is true though. National Socialism was something that developed in a specific time and place for specific people. Applying this universalist copy paste approach to everywhere is retarded. A nationalist America and a nationalist Denmark will have different economic and political systems by virtue of the fact they are different NATIONS with different histories and cultures.

The other bad thing about NatSoc was the gay Aryan master race bullshit and biological materialism. Not all Nazis really subscribed to this but it was still influential.

>One couldn't run a successful company selling iron when confronted with competition from another company which had the entire Bund backing it.

So you're saying the state is more efficient? Cause productivity in angry Germany was amazing.

>socialist governtments almost never restrict themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a state-controlled dragon dildo shop

The same is true of all government. Every bit of legislation passed I find myself wondering 'well how will this be used in ten years time?'

Given the alternative is more neo-liberalsim, I'd give it a try. What do you propose? We just sit here and let the kikes integrate and dilute the world? Fuck that.

Don't you have a form of national socialism?

The socialism part. Also, killing people for their race is a little bit harsh. Just deport the fuckers.

>Do not confuse communism and socialism. One is economic policy another is a social one. Regulated market is something that can exist in a state with no social policies what-so-ever, or vice versa.

This isn't True, Communism by Marxism an anarchistic form of socialism and is the objective of Marxian socialism.

The reason China isn't sSocialist is because of Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping.

This post tells all.

social post.

Where?
There's already tons of non whites born in white countries, what do you do with them?

horrible economics piled with nationalism

the two most counter-productive, autistic philosophies out there.

What if race mixing was done across the board and everyone was a mix of everything, could natsoc work then?

>National
My country can go fuck itself for all I care
>Socialism
Oh fuck what are you even doing?

>There's already tons of non whites born in white countries, what do you do with them?

Blacks to Africa
Half-castes to the West indies
Pakistanis and Arabs back home or to South Georgia.
East Asians to their respective nations.
Everyone else to their home nations.

In UK state sponsored indoctrination is in early stages, true. In US tho? CNN and FOX literally look like they are reporting on parallel realities, so far detached from truth that we have more informative channels in Russia.
Yeah, I agree that we are far from a totalitarian regimes, just that we are all collectively sliding towards them, which is an interesting and disturbing tendency.

Marxist defenitions are quite obsolete, given we have a clear socialist states like Sweden that have nothing to do with a rule of proletariat prescribed by him.

dummy, it had capitalism too

>LARPing

Nigger I don't give a shit about your 'theory'. I am proposing a system that I thin is in my own and the nation's interest. What we are discussing here needen't look like anything tried in the past, and likely shouldn't given the string of failured states leading up to today. EVERY system tried fails in the end. Full free-marketism may be the exception, but it is INHERENTLY internationalist. In case you hadn't noticed, YOU are the global minority. The majority are souless Asians and fucking muslims. I will support ANY system that offers long term chances of defense against these.

>So you're saying the state is more efficient? Cause productivity in angry Germany was amazing.

I'm saying quite the opposite, that when a company has no competition or when the market is distorted (as when one company is backed by the entire Bund) then shit is inefficient.

as for the amazing production - yeah, it's great to have an Autobahn, too bad there were no cars the drive on it :^)

>Given the alternative is more neo-liberalsim, I'd give it a try. What do you propose? We just sit here and let the kikes integrate and dilute the world? Fuck that.

I'm a lolbertarian, so...

>regressive because it got rid of the jews

> just that we are all collectively sliding towards them, which is an interesting and disturbing tendency.


Not at all, Public political discourse isn't severly repressed and where it is is generally through social not state means; like I said the fact we're having this conversation disproves your assertion.

>Marxist defenitions are quite obsolete, given we have a clear socialist states like Sweden that have nothing to do with a rule of proletariat prescribed by him.

Sweden isn't Socialist. Social democracy is a form of Interventionism capitalism and generally sits centre left; they're not the same.

>It's too far removed from the Social Contract.

How's that working out for you? Do you feel the corporations are fulfilling their responsibility to you as they sell out your kids futures?

>jewish scientists
>help to improve
wew lad

The fact that you're willing to ignore Political theories that have fallen on their arse and the reason why is what also makes you comparable to a Marxist.

nuffin

hitler were a good boi, goin da church n sheit
bout to get dat reich on track

>as for the amazing production - yeah, it's great to have an Autobahn, too bad there were no cars the drive on it :^)

Are you serious? This woefully inefficient system built up over a few years an armed force that crushed yourselves in a day, the Poles in two and the French in a week. A force that took on the US and the USSR and gave them a good run for their money. How is this inefficient?

>I'm a lolbertarian, so...

Ah. There we go. How do you feel about the inevitable demise of your nation and culture? Worth it?

if you got all the answers why do you make a thread about this?

The point you make about all systems failing is why I find nat-soc to be a less than great system. All governments fail at some point, so i think it's preferable to live in a society that emphasizes individual liberties and rights over the might of the government.

We're not looking to repeat history. We're looking to try something new. Your obsession with theory over real life would ironically put you in good company over on left/pol/.

Out of interest, what ideology do you follow?

>Public political discourse isn't severly repressed
A lot of modern day public discourse happens on social media. Just a few days ago twitter axed alt-right from twitter.

>Sweden isn't Socialist. Social democracy is a form of Interventionism capitalism and generally sits centre left; they're not the same.
So you are saying that Social Democracy isn't socialist? Eh... I disagree. But this is a semantics argument and I think it's kinda pointless, tho I appreciate your point of view.

>what is German engineering

the problem with it mostly lies in the spergs who follow it rather than the ideology itself

>socialism for the nation
There you go.

Violence as a means to an end would seem the main issue.

Nazi Germany was less socialist then the Netherlands is.

But that has never existed. Ever. The two are always in balance.

An aside. For all those who say 'anything the government does is socialism, and socialism is bad', do you consider ancient rome to have been 'socialist'? I mean they had dole and taxes?

Now we have to fear nuclear weapons.

>autistic jew makes the most destructive weapon ever
It really makes you think...

>But this is a semantics argument and I think it's kinda pointless

This could be said of half this thread.

checked

I'd buy some of that for a dollar.

Also less cucked, which explains alot

Hey JIDF thread

>That image
>What is bad about it
Are you fucking uneducated Sven?

Hey chaim

Yes, and given that this is a thread discussing nazies on Sup Forums no doubt another half is trolling. But alas there is some interesting viewpoints to be glimpsed in between.