So supposedly I have the same political position as a NatSoc on the political compass. Does anyone here perhaps consider themselves one? I'd like to see if there are similarities/differences, I've never really looked into NatSoc.

And I'm not a fan of socialism.

@Snoipah there are many NatSocs here

@Snoipah NatSoc isn't socialism as its conceived in the modern world.

It's less Marxian and more Prussian.

Oswald Spengler spoke of this.

I've never met someone with many similarities to my political opinion and I'm curious if NatSoc is.

Socialism under Nazi Germany effectively extended to basic worker rights, unemployment insurance and healthcare for the working poor.

^^^

Hitler privatised MUCH more than he nationalised.

Hitler was actually a good leader

You say that and instinctively I wait for someone to harass you.

National "socialism" effectively extended to ambitious infrastructural investment and very minor welfare allowances for the working poor the injured from WW1 and widows.

Even though I have not heard a explanation as to how Germany turned into such a superpower from being such a weak country while not saying Hitler was a good leader, at least in that aspect.

State control over the economy was significantly narrower than the modern American state.

I'm not a huge history buff but I hear more about how hes gay than how Germany became so strong.

He devoted only four years (1939–43) to full-time activity in the RSHA, for in 1943, in addition to his other jobs, he became a deputy director general in the Reich Ministry of economic affairs.[3] He coordinated plans to rebuild the German economy after the war. Such planning for the post-war time was strictly forbidden, on one side. On the other side, Heinrich Himmler, who detested the state interventionist regime of Albert Speer as "totally bolshevik" and was himself hoping for a career in a militarily defeated Germany, protected the working group around Ohlendorf, Ludwig Erhard and other experts, who planned, e.g., how to introduce the new German currency Deutsche Mark. Ohlendorf himself spoke out for "active and courageous entrepreneurship", which was intended to replace bureaucratic state planning of the economy after the war.

Any significant management or planning of the economy was to be scrapped post-war.

Ohlendorf, Hitler, Himmler were all staunchly pro-market.

It's just their conception of "socialism" and "capitalism" are very different to the modern academic definitions of these concepts.

Kind of like how the germany democratic party today is actually right wing?

That's right.

They were also the first to establish workfare policies. Policies which are advocated by right wing parties today and lambasted by the Left as "slavery".

The only difference is that they didn't believe in financial free markets where Soros can manipulate your currency and economy or foreign nations manipulating your domestic economy through trade.

I've been pretty against most healthcare(save for government providing ems services) but "healthcare for the **working** poor" is pretty brilliant and something I could support if I put thought into it.

They were completely pro-market in terms of their vision of the German economy. Very pro-entrepreneur.

And pro-entrepreneur is how people take risks with their products, which increase innovation ect.

>Germany Democratic Party

You mean National Democratic Party?

One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.[47] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[48] Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.[49] There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. [50] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” [51] Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.” [52]

I try to avoid learning too much about Germany because I don't like getting depressed,.

From what I can tell

They actually meant "socialism" in a "caring for one another" sense

yet somehow they don't seem to really care for one another that much either

@[Lex] Um, No Sweetie

Healthcare for the working poor really seems to make the most sense. Poor can't really afford health care and are at risk for injury due to working.

The Nazis were Leftists

I suggest you watch "Birth of the Nation" by the great conservative inetellectual Dinesh D'Souza

Now, I think I have a pretty good question, Nazi Germany made people turn in their guns yeah? Does anyone support that decision here? I feel like that makes them pretty not-right.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/the_medias_latest_poll_dance.html

"

With the midterms less than two months away and the economy firing on all cylinders, the Democrats, and their handlers, also known as the American media, are entering the panic zone. The midterms are the last chance for the left to stop the Trump train.

Robert Mueller's investigation is shooting blanks. Mueller's Deep State cronies in the FBI and DOJ may be facing legal troubles of their own. Trump's popularity remains solid despite Hurricane Florence-strength media attacks against him each and every day.

CNN and MSNBC are currently at Category 4 hurricane strength against President Trump. Expect to see this ratchet up to Category 5 in the upcoming weeks before the midterms. Ninety percent of Trump's media coverage is negative. This will increase to approach 100 percent if Mueller can't find or fabricate the smoking gun that will send The Donald slinking back to Trump Tower.

Since Stormy Daniels's pole dances haven't damaged President Trump, big media are using their own "poll dance," specifically opinion polls, to create the narrative that no one likes the president. They hope to dispirit Trump voters, damping the enthusiasm of November 2016, to pick off enough House seats to shift House control to Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

At the least, these polls can further the media fable that everyone is embarrassed by Trump and won't support him, causing some of his supporters to abandon the president so their friends and families stop calling them racist, sexist Nazis."