I'm saying fascism is a form of socialism

In economic values

there is but they're a form of each other

National Socialism isn'f the same thing with Fascism either.

i know

National socialism is a form of socialism

and a form of fascism

read what I wrote

Yeah, saying Fascism is left winged because of hitler's actions doesn't work

I mean, as a statement.

Jesus it's huge

No I mean read what I wrote

Oh

National Socialism is more like Socialism + Nationalism.

Obviously Authoritarian, but not 100% Fascist.

I mean, some say it wasn't even fascist.

thats why it's a form of socialism

not a copy

Look, you said Fascism is left winged.

Thus, we're talking about Fascism and not National Socialism.

And since Fascism =/= National Socialism, I can't see what you want to prove.

I didn't say fascism is left wing

i said it's a form of socialism

Same thing, wrong again.

If you want to see if Fascism is left or right winged, you need to read the Fascist manifesto, not to investigate Hitler's economic moves.

I did

as I wrote

Capitalism is an individualist system, that's not something anyone can argue with and since socialism is collectivist and that Nazi Germany was a collectivist movement, there's no question that Hitler was a socialist. You can't say NAZI Germany wasn't collectivist but deny that Hitler was not using a form of socialism

-All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

-The tax rates were extremely high, high as 80% I believe.

-"As Ludwig Von Mises once correctly observed, the German economy under Hitler was not capitalist at all….

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
"

-Privatisation was just in name as the state really owned the companies due to their regulation and such. The business "owners" would be told what to make, when to make and how much to make.

-Hitler Nationalised healthcare, churches, automobile industry, the press so he could control what people heard and watched.

-Hitler created trade unions such as the German Labour front.

@Koninos That was his economic values

and i've seen the doctorine

I am *not* going to read that.

It is terribly huge.

And I'm terribly lazy.

And yeah, that was his economic beliefs, but how can you use that as an argument, since Hitler wasn't considered Fascist (by many)?

Also taxes of 80%?

National socialism would be a form of socialism

yes

as high as 80%

National Socialism is indeed a form of Socialism, but not Fascism.

80% taxes lmao.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ "fascism is a form of socialism"

I use to think that way, but need be a distinction between socialism of the communists and Socialism of the fascists

A distinction between fascism and national Socialism must be made as well

They are not kin

They are separate

lol, national socialism isn't marxist socialism though

Obviously not.

obv

If you read on Fascism, you'll discover Mussolini implemented TONS of free market policies

^

indeed, it was basically corporatism

No

Corporatism is government control BY corporations

it's not

The state was supreme in this case

@Vilhelmsson idk much about corporatism, going off what wiki says

it isn't necessarily

historically that's not what it refers to

*Daddy Anon exposes his sources*

it usually refers to the exact opposite

Angry BowmanToday at 19:21
lol, national socialism isn't marxist socialism though

Of course

thats why it's a form

@Bowman

Mhm.

Pretty obvious tbh.

I'll reply back in a second

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ National Socialism isn't Marxist, you can argue it's socialist

But __marxist__?

Yeah, no.

@Doctor Anon We need a bot similar to @BibleBot but with the Qur'an.

And the Satanic Bible, of course.

Lol no

Yes it's a form of socialism

not marxist

it rejects that

thats why it's a form

That's a bliss.

not a copy

Hitler was more capitalisistic than socialist

We can all agree Russia never really had full communism. It was actually socialism.

^

Yes let's ignore the rampant privatization of previously government run businesses

@Doctor Anon No he wasn't

Obviously.

and let me adress the privitisation

"What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
"

"Privatisation" was only in name

I mean, almost no nations have been completely communist.

It can't work.

Well also most fascists say they are third position, opposing both communism and capitalism

And if socialism causes all this genocide disease etc imagine going to the full step communism. Itd be worse.

Yeah docile they can say that

Economically they're a form of socialism

Hitler was designated to serve as a catalyst to ramp up capitalist production. All of the German industrial tycoons of the time supported him, including many in the U.S. like Henry Ford.

Now tell me, why would Henry Ford give $20 million to a ‘socialist’. That’s the equivalent of Rupert Murdoch today donating $1 billion to a communist party.

I mean it's hard to imagine a third system, since we're used to our 1d axis in economics

Yes and they were over regulated

look what Mises said

"What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
"

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Hitler was designated to serve as a catalyst to ramp up capitalist production. All of the German industrial tycoons of the time supported him, including many in the U.S. like Henry Ford.

Now tell me, why would Henry Ford give $20 million to a ‘socialist’. That’s the equivalent of Rupert Murdoch today donating $1 billion to a communist party.

All of Germany’s rich industrialists stood firmly behind Hitler and his attempts to revive stagnating capitalism through a war economy. Socialists are anti-war because socialists do not believe in borders

Read what I said

idk why they supported him, that was their policies

doesn't matter

you need to see the policies

in no way was it capitalist

"doesn't matter"

yes

"""""doesn't matter""'" yes let's ignore the capitalist riches earned when the Nazis were in power, let's ignore the rampant support of capitalists to a supposed socialist party

National Socialism is only socialist in name

By this logic, the DPRK is fully democratic

Welfare is a capitalist invention

i just trolled someone sos hard

@Doctor Anon

lol

@Doctor Anon 1sec

Ill reply in a sec

Controlled forest fires are helpful I hear

At least from my science teacher last year

""""""doesn't matter""'" yes let's ignore the capitalist riches earned when the Nazis were in power, let's ignore the rampant support of capitalists to a supposed socialist party
National Socialism is only socialist in name
By this logic, the DPRK is fully democratic
Welfare is a capitalist invention
"

So first of all

You have to read the thing I wrote on why national socialism was a form of socialism

can we get the proto-nazbol to weigh in

where is he

he usually shows up in these debates

Nazbol gang

nazbOL

rise up

HAH LOL

Rise up

epic

Ok

Capitalism is an individualist system, that's not something anyone can argue with and since socialism is collectivist and that Nazi Germany was a collectivist movement, there's no question that Hitler was a socialist. You can't say NAZI Germany wasn't collectivist but deny that Hitler was not using a form of socialism

-All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

-The tax rates were extremely high, high as 80% I believe.

-"As Ludwig Von Mises once correctly observed, the German economy under Hitler was not capitalist at all….

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
"

-Privatisation was just in name as the state really owned the companies due to their regulation and such. The business "owners" would be told what to make, when to make and how much to make.

-Hitler Nationalised healthcare, churches, automobile industry, the press so he could control what people heard and watched.

-Hitler created trade unions such as the German Labour front.

^^** Why national socialism is a form of socialism**

Regulations are a capitalist invention, go on.

🎄 Daddy Anon 🎄Today at 19:52
Regulations are a capitalist invention, go on.

🎄 Daddy Anon 🎄Today at 19:52
Regulations are a capitalist invention, go on.

LOOL

BRO

And this is what one person observed

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION

They are

Lmao

OF CAPITALISM

The definition of capitalism is the free market

They were invented by capitalists...

free of state intervention

Wrong

And it's not what capitalism is

no thats the definition

That's one form of capitalism

no that is the form

of capitalism

Free market capitalism

there is no "forms"

of capitalism

correct and the free market is capitalism

There is regulatory capitalism

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ No, they really are

Regulatory capitalism

is not capitalism

There is state capitalism

State capitalism

Yes it is

is an oxymoron

Regulation is a product of capitalism

Define state capitalism

Regulation is socialist

No it isn't

Yes it is

REGULATIONS ARE INHERITLY CAPITALIST

^

regulation is purely socialist

No it's not

free market is capitalism

We're going in circles

free of state intervention

In order for there to be regulation, you need private property

Legendary economists like Friedman and Mises agree with me

???

Mises was a fag

Mises

lmao

Private property can exist without regulation

You're conflating ownership with regulation

yes it can

no I'm saying regulation is socialist

nobody said anything to the contrary

@Doctor Anon Define state capitalism

oh this guy did

Regulations are not capitalist

nor is "state capitalism" a thing

That's not contradictory to what you just said @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

How so?

Something being a product of capitalism does not mean he thinks capitalism can't exist without it

it can

Regulations are a capitalist invention <:unequal:473954748517842954> regulations are capitalist

And he even made the distinction

It is not a product of capitalism

it is a product of socialism

Okay, why is it not? We're going in circles

regulations ARE socialist

those are socialist policies

Let's first distinguish regulation from ownership

Yes

regulation existing where property is privately owned

I know I'm not saying ownership is regulation

okay

I'm saying regulation is a product of socialism

A capitalist economy is a free market economy

You therefore need private property to implement regulation

Thats why a capitalist economy has never existed

Protecting people from lies from corporations isn't socialism lmao

lies?

ok you're not understanding

Regulations are inherently socialist

Corporations are inheritly self interested

That's fact

Where is the nazbol when you need him, he's actually well informed on this @Doctor Anon

@el pebble

and they need to act in the consumers interests to get profit

They will take any opportunity to trick consumers

they can't if they're chained

in fierce competition

and to please the consumer

That never happens

It doesd

all the time

Alright, let me ask you this @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

Monopoly always arises

but again, there is no capitalist society

monopolies are created by the state

Without regulations

lol

the myth of a natural monopoly

What about regulation that is meant to be pro-consumer, which is often what regulation is

is that socialism?

the STATE creates monopolies

Yes that is

"monopolies are created by the state"

socialism

it's meant to create healthy competition

Alright I'll take my leave

how?