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