economic freedom doesnt mean much

Extremely supportive

Hi

Except they were extremely regulated

a mutualist society would have high levels of economic freedom

yet would be socialist

Nope

The privatised steel industry was massive for Hitler

^

It appears one doesn’t understand economic freedom

he mass privatized and supported krupp and all

And he over controlled it though state intervention

state/socialism

so it was only privatisation in name

free market can still exist in socialist societies

State socialism is socialism

What the fuck are you talking about

LOL

it can

mutualism for example

free market can still exist in socialist societies

Complete contradiction

@Diode over regulated by the state

Price controls etc

that’s socialist

read up on mutualism friend

1 sec lemme quote

means of production are completely owned by the workers

For a start you haven’t actually said any evidence of this so called overregulation

however, a free market is omnipresent

You’ve said things that aren’t indicative of capitalism or socialism

You’ve said things that are generally authoritarian

That’s not how that works

The regulation was all applied to the workers

“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.”

thats a misrepresentation tho because mutualism is market-neutral

@ritasuma

@ritasuma there would be no free market then

lol

To reduce worker power was massively important