"National Socialism" is still capitalist, natsocs don't like to admit it

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/245083066266025984/363710937808502794/sryfam.png

in what way

good night

define 'national socialism' then

>it says socialism so it must be socialist

I guess the DPRK is a democratic people's republic then

so then two feet means three feet?

National socialism supports people as a community, as cogs in a machine. It isn't 100% comparable to actual socialism, but it's against this idea that corporations can shit all over everyone

Iirc there were some socialistic measures

Earlier guy mentioned pregnant women and so forth

They support their people, they don't just let them starve, etc

>they still think socialism is the government doing stuff

Can't read German

By this logic socialists may as well bow to the feet of FDR.

Don't know that image, don't know who drew it, don't know if it's legitimate, don't know how it's even remotely relevant

It's a political cartoon showcasing what national socialism really was.

Also

"National socialism thinks that corporations shouldn't shit all over people"

This is basically the nazbol approach

That's why they shut down every independent union am I right?

>DON'T MENTION THE CAPITALISTIC JEWS MAAAN

>literally whatabout duh jews

i mean thats kind of another fallacy u have to actually research it first before dismissing it like that

Nah just mentioning that it's the nazbol approach

I do my research.

Because you were raging about it earlier

That's why I became a socialist, literally.

"1. The right to employment

The foundation for solving the social question is the realization of the right to employment, which can only happen through our job creation program. A law on employment will lay down the rights of the worker. Freedom for creative labor will be assured, freedom for capitalist exploitation abolished."

from the nsdap economic program

If you did your research you wouldn't be a communist

if communism worked in any case but a utopian society where it is an arbitrary concept in that regard id be a communist

Nobody says it's going to be utopian

@styles That was a program in many capitalist nations at the time. They name drop capitalists and exploitation in there but it's pretty much a bastardization of the term.

Exploitation refers to the extraction of surplus value.

This argument is really just a bunch of semantics

@olev good because it wouldn't be

Lol

thats not only definition i think

It isn't a bunch of semantics.

It's literally "what is socialism" in a different context.

Socialism has a scientific definition in relation to economics, not some idealist bullshit.

Marxists will define it differently than NS, in the end they're all just words.

'scientfic definition'

what do you mean by this

National Socialists have their own special snowflake definition because they're not actually socialists.

These arguments never really achieve anything, because we have completely different worldivews, not just political differences.

Didn't USSR shut down the unions too

They approve of private property, private ownership, capitalists, surplus value extraction, capital accumulation, etc.

socialistic economics is a measure i would take it

They aren't socialists.

@National Trotskyist Yeah.

For different reasons though.

High taxes, universal healthcare, welfare, isn't socialism

You heard it right here folks

welfare is socialistic

1950's america was literally socialism.

It isn't

taxes is not on the basis of socialism

Welfalre is not socialist

@styles Socialism is about ownership.

An effective argument, wouldn't focus on the material differences and policies of past states, but rather on the worldviews that these ideas belong to

Welfare is not ownership, it's a way to make being poor less shitty.

Rather forever poor

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.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More

'welfarism'

freikorps a correct argument is about using objective reasoning so therefore subjective interest is fallacious in any argument

"the principles or policies associated with a welfare state."

>google definition

"means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

The means of production is not owned in a welfare state.

owned by who

By the community or society, or specifically in Marxism, the working-class

Meanwhile in the news

Would maket socialsim be socialist then?

the means of production just means the production industry i take it and that would be owned by specific individuals

but the welfare system is controlled by the government

which is voted in by the people in a democracy

ultimately being socialistic

Styles, I have a pretty good article about social democracy and democratic socialism you could read.

lets see it

Welfare isn't a means of production

https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/21/tackling-wealth-inequality-like-a-swede/

Also that's public ownership, which is very loosely even socialist

It was a proposed system that expressed ownership over welfare, and was resisted by the employer class of Sweden.

You see, in the Swedish welfare state, the working-class had a much more equal distribution of wealth and had benefits, but this failed to address the underlying problem of ownership and in this specific case *who was still accumulating the most capital?*

Despite the working-class creating that through their labor.

but that goes under the idea of putting in place a full 100% socialistic society

where everything is equally owned by everyone

but we all know that doesnt work (unless in a utopian society)

Everything, no. The economic decisions, yes.

What do you mean it doesn't work?

As we can see through this swedish case, the biggest hurdle against it working was actually the resistance from the capitalists.

Resistance from capital in general, really.

because 1: it is a primary human instinct to put themselves above everything else

and 2: most of them are smart enough to get in such economic power in the first place they know it wouldnt work

you cant just 'equally' give the wealth of the economy to everyone

I disagree. Read the article, it's actually very interesting.

there is too much exploitation involved