i mean to be fair there were strong "literal socialist" factions in early natsoc germany

Look you're the one standing out here. Either everyone here is being wrong about this or you're just being an autistic retard

like Strasser and the SA under rohm

I mean I guess nazis and commies were both socialists but to say that they are the same because of it is dumb they are far from the same

Which got purged by Hitler @Galahad

@Galahad remind me what happened to those guys?

i know

im not exactly agreeing with the lolbert

Socialism in one country, imagine if they had a word for that....

> I mean I guess nazis and commies were both socialists but to say that they are the same because of it is dumb they are far from the same
@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156
They are economically socialist yes, I never said they are the same, that's just what people don't get

"if you violate peoples property rights there will be a rebellion and that regime will be overthrown"

Look at the conditions the American revolution took place under and compare it to today. People are pacified

The nazis had a mixed economy which is totally different to how the Soviets ran theirs

advanced technology makes counter-insurgency very potent

If you call both socialist the term loses any value

socialist is anyone not libertarian.

Literally his view

The nazi failure of collectivozing too slow, is your argument they weren't socialists?

That's called government failure

They weren't planning on collectivizing the whole economy

They were

dude

Read Mein Kampf

Hitler purged the Strasserites

They were not planning to go for a genuine socialist state

They were

For racial aryans only

Collectivization was a red thing not a natsoc thing

It always was and was goign to be a corporatist state

the deepest level of analysis that is allowed in popular discourse is "nazis = socialists = collectivists --> all collectivism bad and we love freedom"

literal jordan peterson tier

It was also a natsoc thing

No it wasn’t lol

It was

Watch the Tik vid

So you're just going to assert they were going to collectivize I.G Farben and all these other industrial concerns which were already collaborating with the government

Because you need evidence for that

liberal dream is for people to have virtually no overarching goverment that unifies people
and for people to be atomised within their own heavily guarded property
too bad this already happened
the american indians had their tribal fiefdoms
heavily armed
free
not bothered by a bigger state
when they tried to unify they failed spectacularly
The state is much more efficient at developing technology,building armies,infrastructure,spreading its religion. etc
what wil inevtiably happen is that states with smaller goverments will be crushed by bigger states because they wont give a shit about your petty liberties. I still find it funny that after each world war the US goverment grew.not decreased. Its out of necessety.you cant win against enemy big states by decreasing the power of your own state.

its almost like natsoc germany was closer to the fascist model of politieconomy than to muh commies

> So you're just going to assert they were going to collectivize I.G Farben and all these other industrial concerns which were already collaborating with the government
@Mr. Nessel

Because you don't understand the difference of private and collective ownership of the means of producion

I do, you don't

too bad NATSOC germany had Jingoism as their only foreign policy
you cant win by being at constant war with the world

Regulating a buisness isn't the same as nationalizing it