What are the similarities between nazism and communism that make people say that Hitler was a leftist?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
National SOCIALISM
What are the similarities between nazism and communism that make people say that Hitler was a leftist?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>vegetarian
>drug addict
>artist
yep, he was leftie alright
Are conservatives this moronic?
the answer to this question is always yes
Both are collectivized ideologies that result in totalitarian rule. Also, both economies are extremely restricted. Oh and both the Soviet Union and 3rd Reich lost. Get over it, commieshits.
you cant even detect an obvious joke
as they should. freedom is the antithesis of commies and bombs are a great way to spread it. dilate.
>freedom is the antithesis of commies and bombs are a great way to spread it. dilate
Americans man
Yes. It's built in to their ideology.
>filtered by TIK
Yes.
Based TIK destroying socialists in denial as always
Using tax money for anything that helps people is literally communism. Therefore Hitler was a communist. That's why it's good we bear him, otherwise communism might happen to America too.
Per that logic every nation state in history is Communist.
Don't tell fox News that or America might have to freedom bomb literally everyone just to be sure the communism doesn't spread.
Literally the fact his ideology had socialism in the name and the moronic American policy of "left = more gubermint"
being confused by the word ''socialism'' in national socialism is the sure sign of a brainlet and midwit
hitler himself EXPLICITLY laid out the term did not mean the same thing as the bolshevik economic policy conception of the word and was entirely in context related to the term that directly preceded it: ''national''
in reality the nazis were neither conventionally left nor right in economics or social policy. they were an incredibly unique ideology of their own right
All businesses within nazi Germany were not state owned but were very much state run. They were working solely in conjunction with the states orders. In return the state even supplied slave labour
However this comparison falls apart somewhat considering the whole “total war” doctrine most major countries within WW2 had to follow eventually.
The UK for example. I wouldn’t say most would describe it as leftist during the war. But it also had to essentially commandeer all private industry in order to keep the war going
That's a good point. That's why I think it's better to look at the early-mid 30s to compare the two regimes.
During the pre war period Nazi Germany actually privatised industries that were previously state owned.
However. The official policy position was that of autarky. The pursuit of self reliance outside of international trade. And in conjunction with this, private businesses within Germany were given significant advantages by imposing high protectionist tariffs on foreign imports as well as the government essentially partnering with major companies
One interesting example is Volkswagen, a government run company. Created under hitlers direction.
Naturally after building the autobahn he wanted lots of people to have cars to drive on it.
So he created Volkswagen
>In 1934, with many of the above projects still in development or early stages of production, Adolf Hitler became involved, ordering the production of a basic vehicle capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph). He wanted a car every German family would be able to afford. The "People's Car" would be available through a savings plan at RM990 (US$396 in 1938)—about the price of a small motorcycle (the average income being around RM32 a week)
However zero cars were ever actually delivered to said investors
>It soon became apparent that private industry could not turn out a car for only RM990. Thus, Hitler chose to sponsor an all-new, state-owned factory using Ferdinand Porsche's design (with some of Hitler's design suggestions, including an air-cooled engine so nothing could freeze). The intention was that German families could buy the car through a savings scheme ("Fünf Mark die Woche musst du sparen, willst du im eigenen Wagen fahren" – "Five Marks a week you must set aside, if in your own car you wish to ride"), which around 336,000 people eventually paid into. However, the project was not commercially viable, and only government support was able to keep it afloat
Once the war began Volswagen switched solely to military production.
Autarky/entire self reliance as desired by the Nazis was impossible. And their balance of payments showed this. Especially as the price of manufactured goods (Germany’s chief export) was falling during the pre war period. While the price of raw materials (Germany’s chief import) was rising during this period.
Of course. Hitlers belief in lebensraum encompasses the financial component here. Invading and colonising the east was not just a racial component. But an economic one. Once they had invaded Poland. Czechoslovakia. Russia. Etc. They can sell the goods of the conquered. As well as of the undesirables they sent to camps.
Hitler had put Germany in significant debt in order to re-arm on a massive scale. Germany’s economy was good on paper but unsustainable in any way without invading others to steal wealth. In addition the average Germans wages had grown. But not in parity with the much increased hours the average worker worked.
The German aim was always to create a greater Germany where all the resources it would ever need would be within their borders. No need for imports of anything but luxuries, he had no interest in an overseas empire either. Believing “aryans” could not prosper in a hotter climate. So at most I can sea a victorious Germany where most of their imports are stuff like tea and sugar bought from the British.
Also a post WW2 Germany which was victorious would presumably turn to integrate all of Europe into its economic sphere. So they’d probably be high tariffs on America, if not making trade with them illegal. Possibly some on Britain since it would be the only real threat to them, but also possibly not since they would want good relations with them.
France. Spain. Italy and others would be given good trade deals specifically to incentivise them to join the German economic sphere. They couldn’t be self reliant like the UK largely was, and the UK would still be trading with America. While France and Italy etc would be fascist governments in line with Hitler, happy to cut off American trade in exchange for their huge German Neighbor
America should have entered the war on the German side so hitler could have united Europe. A united German Europe and American Aliance would have been a powerful and stable global power block.
Why would America want a Europe united under an ideology that fundamentally hated America and its ideals?
Yeah, those evil nazi communists hated freedom and it sure is good we beat them.
>commies having hundreds of millions of people, the biggest armed forces on earth and nukes is bad
>if only we had that but with nazis instead
???
Nazi Germany was capitalist, catholic, and valued technological innovation and traditional family and cultural values. Sure, they wanted to root out the subversive exploitative financial manipulators, but so did Jesus. And yeah, the Nazis wanted to sterilize the downies and morons, but that's a good thing.
Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist. It was third way. It wasn't Catholic - it was Positive Christianity.
Yeah, they weren't "real christians". And capitalism that's not controlled by the international cabal of zionist bankers isn't "real capitalism".
>Nazi Germany was capitalist, catholic, and valued technological innovation and traditional family and cultural values.
They were commies.
WWII was an internal dispute among far-left powers.
>Nazi Germany actually privatised industries that were previously state owned.
No, that's a far-left lie, moron. That's not privatization.
That's handing things to your socialist pals.
The Nazis sold off state-owned companies when they first came to power because the party and government needed the money. As they became more powerful they began to exert more and more control over private industry, to the point where companies were taking orders from them and were staffed with party elite.
It's like this: In a small town, a powerful gangster is in debt so he sells his car collection for really cheap. You foolishly buy one. Later, he informs you that you have to chauffeur his family members around town whenever he wants and you must take his car to a mechanic of his choosing for repairs and modifications anytime he asks. If you refuse he has a number of punishments available: making sure other mechanics/gas stations refuse to serve you, forcing you to give the car back, stealing it back, having you imprisoned, beaten, or killed. On paper your name is on the car registration, but in reality you don't have exclusive right to its use.
Do you know that one of the main shareholder of A.E.G during the hitlerian era was Warburg, the same guy who was the leading creator of the american fed? Do you know that A.E.G factories in germany went throught the war without a scratch on them? Everything bombed to death and ashes. But the A.E.G factories, perfectly fine. No shit, they belonged the same people owning the bombers.
Muh state involvement in economy management. Typical american or lolbertarian argument.
>were not state owned but were very much state run
I like this argument. The company owners own the company, get all the wealth produced by the company, they have the means to overthrow Hitler through connections and funding of needed people (be it german "resistance" or foreign contacts), they can appoint managers and so on, BUT THE COMPANY IS STATE RUN SOMEHOW
The companies had to obey what Nazi Party wanted otherwise the government would take them over. One example is Junkers Airplane Company, they didn't do what the State wanted so the Nazis forced them to sell all their shares and took over the plant. They used the threat of nationalization to keep the other companies compliant.
>The companies had to obey what Nazi Party wanted otherwise the government would take them over
Do we know any examples of nazis taking over large companies because of disobedience? Not some small time shops, something major.
No, even better, why would they disobey if nazi government would pay them well for their work?
>Junkers Airplane Company, they didn't do what the State wanted
Prior to nazi victory in 1933 Junkers was facing financial difficulties while being one of the top priority plants for national defense. If it would fall apart, lots of people would end up unemployed and Luftwaffles wouldn't be able to recieve many airplanes.
The "Junkers was socialist and pacifist" part on Junkers company page of Wikipedia has no listed sources for the claim.
However, the Talk page featuers an Adam Tooze quote:
>Early in the morning of 17 October 1933 Dr Hugo Junkers was arrested at his vacation home in Bayrischzell on charges of treason.93 Junkers was Germany's leading aviation pioneer, a celebrated engineer who at his plant at Dessau had constructed the world's first full-metal aircraft. Junkers's factory, though modest in size, was by far the largest aircraft factory in Germany. It has sometimes been suggested that Hugo Junkers's expropriation was due to his interest in internationalist politics and pacifism. But Junkers was in fact a conservative nationalist, who eagerly embraced the cause of rearmament. His difficulty was simply that he owned the largest aircraft plant in Germany and that Goering and his Secretary of State Erhard Milch were determined to have control of it. In the 1920s Junkers had squabbled with the German military about the future direction of aerial rearmament. The new holders of power were not willing to argue. After twenty-four hours in police detention, Junkers agreed to sign away his firm to the Reich.
Junkers was a major aircraft manufacturer. I don't know about that claim with no sources which is why I never even mentioned that.
I'm not sure how many companies they actually took over. They usually didn't need to do because most times they could control them through selective threats, firing, and also through rewards (companies only had access to foreign capital by obeying party goals). So even though they kept the formal appearance of private ownership, the companies were under significant control of the State. These selective punishments created a terror that was enough to keep the other companies obedient.
For example, IG Farben was a very powerful chemical and pharmaceutical company, hated by both the left and right for being "globalist-capitalist israelites". One executive disagreed with Hitler and Goring's production ideas for the company, he was interrogated by the Gestapo who threatened him with trial and prison unless he recanted and apologized to the Party. The Nazi's made them fire all the israeli employees and executives. The company later worked at the camp taking advantage of the slave labour and even using prisoners for medical experiments.
Then there's also Gutehoffnungshütte, a mining and engineering company. The CEO was against political interference so the party pressured him to resign. They also took advantage of forced labor of pows, foreigners, and camp workers during the War.
Volkswagen was first told to produce cheap personal vehicles (which weren't economical to the Nazis subsidized them), then were told to switch to producing military vehicles for the war.
>through selective threats, firing, and also through rewards (companies only had access to foreign capital by obeying party goals)
Reminds me of one movie dialogue: "they threatened my life, and I refused. But then they offered money"
Also,
>firing
Firing who?
> they kept the formal appearance of private ownership,
They kept private ownership in its core. The means of "state control" you mention are normal methods of any government to control the quality and quantity of supplied goods.
>he was interrogated by the Gestapo who threatened him
That's perfectly fine and a smart thing to do. You don't want open dissidents to run strategic industries. It's bad for business, bad for management and does a disservice to the image of the state and company.
>made them fire all the israeli employees and executives
That's the general law for the entirety of state, not for specific company. Next time we would say that state standards and military quality control are the means of state to manipulate private business.
>The company later worked at the camp taking advantage of the slave labour
They always could refuse to do so. But they decided not to, because of having to be effective on competitive market.
>The CEO was against political interference so the party pressured him to resign.
The party, the state, or the board? How many members of the board were party members before 1933 and how many joined it after? Were they supporting the party financially before '33?
All those questions matter because we have to find out what was the first - the state pressure or the corporate support of the party ordering it. Many companies and individual businessmen used to fund nazis before, so to a certain degree that was the party that promoted their interests. They could influence the descision making through various means, like bribery. You make it sound like they're victims of nazi regime that took everything from them, but income
>Volkswagen
VW was founded with mixed capital
> it's a privately owned company at its core
> government can hire or fire employees at will and dictate production quotas, prices, R&D, investment, and what products they produce under the threat of force
> That's perfectly fine and a smart thing to do.
> You don't want open dissidents to run strategic industries. It's bad for business
No, it's bad for the government not for business. The CEOs issue with Hitler/Goring wasn't political in nature, he said that their information/calculations were wrong because someone mislead them. So according to you, it's good for business to intentionally use wrong information to come to incorrect conclusions, just because the government told you do. And therefore, in your mind, being a bad businessman is using correct information to come to correct business decisions?
So you're already contradicting yourself by assuming that the goal of private business is to do what the State tells them to, even if it's bad for their product/profit, and if they refuse it's completely reasonable for the government to punish them.
>Nazi Germany
>The company owners get all the wealth produced by the company
Don't tell him
>In return the state even supplied slave labour
So, USA are socialist because state provides private prisons with convicts and allows private companies to produce various goods and services with slave labour?
There are private prisons in America too lol
He was arguing that Nazi Germany much like the US, was not communist.
> No no no, y'see, we raise our hand with an open palm, not with a closed fist like those other guys
Communism and nazism are both totalitarian governments. When a government is totalitarian ideology matters very little because the leaders can bend the rules however they want to whatever suits them. Ideology is irrelevant when a totalitarian regime is in power.
Leftists have yet to refute this. Friendly reminder that all communist governments have been extremely brutal to their ethnic, religious, etc minorities as well
All governments have been extremely brutal to their ethnic, religious, etc. minorities, chud.
Communism is not totalitarian in theory.
>the leaders can bend the rules however they want to whatever suits them
The rules can always be bent by those who possess the most power. Better a leader that represents the people bend the rules than bankers and lobbyists. You actually fell for the "democracy means the people are In power" meme.
He never made judgement on the first worlds concepts of “democracy”.
But to your point, the VOTE is just a ritual of affirmation for first world slaves. “I choose to be ruled and raped this way”.
It’s a crude ritual of consent for those rules to bend and break to the interests of industry and deep pockets.
Ideology is irrelevant most of the time.
It's just an attempt to compare and equalize Stalin and Hitler in every way so most Americans believe that the government that ended the Holocaust is "just as bad" as the one that started it so people with radical ideas become worthless anarchists or "democratic socialists" instead of communists. Have a great weekend.
Stalin was literally a genocidal murderer just like Hitler
>Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Kock and Ford do all your industrialization
>Capitalists hate him
Do leftypol trannies really
Your pic goes against what I was taught as a child of yugonostalgics
>yugoslavia
>eastern europe
you're probably a serb and your family lived a rad life in jugoslavia
*Croat, but yes they did because my grandfather was a military engineer
My grandfather lived in the USSR and had a picture of Stalin in his bedroom
Your grandfather was based af
Nazism can be surprisingly egalitarian. They even tried to force egalitarianism onto the the German wehrmacht cause they didn’t like how it was basically made up of aristocratic officers. This ended up causing confusion during the later part of the war cause the army ended up with too many officers just for the sake that there should be an equal amount of non-aristocratic officers.
The only difference between the two is that nazism restrict their egalitarianism to race while communists are willing to extend it beyond that.
They are both totalitarian in essence, so much so that they frequently use the same schemes and strategies to this very day and share a very similar sentiment about reality, just look at China. They are both essentially brothers from the same inbred family fighting over nothing.
OP, are you moronic?
>Hitler was a communist in 1919
You mean when he was a glowBlack person tasked with infiltrating and reporting on political groups?
NazBol Gang
Fascism is interesting in that it tends to have evolved from socialist movements that seemed to have been corrupted by high degrees of nationalism, irredentism, and militarism. With the exception of Japan which was more a bushido larp sperg than fascism.
>Fascism is interesting in that it tends to have evolved from socialist movements
Hitler wasn't fascist. That's a left-wing meme.
Fascism lived and died with Il Duce.
They are bad and evil and not American
Are you going to believe that your wife isn't fricking Tyrone behind your back because she's still called your "wife"
YouTube pop-history has corrupted your brains
mutt's law
Source to OP's Pic
This is a perfect example of the bankruptcy of the false dichotomy of "left" and "right". How can it be that Hitler, who was extreme "right" was a national socialist, and other types of socialists are considered to be part of the "left"? It's almost as if this absurd binary choice is there to lock fools into believing that the two-party system is an authentic, democratic representation of the political choice available to thinking humans
He was for bigger government so yeah he was a Democrat
this thread is moronic
>Right-wing movements seek the preservation of fixed, hereditary and stratified class distinctions in society with the concomitant privileges attached to them. Left-wing movements seek to abolish these distinctions or reform them to the point of becoming negligible.
Hitler was a leftist.
Hitlerian ideology was different from usual socialist ideologies in that race was front and center. Socialist, and honestly most political movements, usually see economic aspects as the thing that kinda defines how a society will operate, but to Nazis it was essential that it was Aryans in charge.
Hitler was 'socialist' in the sense that he wanted to make sure every German citizen could be decently well-off financially. This is still quite different from Leninist movements, which see socialism as a state between (state) capitalism and communism proper. It probably may have a bit more similarity with social democrat or certain market socialist notions - its focused more on redistributionism and corporatism than any real total remaking of the economic order.
That is all theoretical however, I think practically speaking the Nazis werent particularly ideological when it came to economics, they'd just implement policies that'd benefit the war effort. This could mean they might privatize one sector, but may introduce more 'social' legislation if they thought it was beneficial. Theres really no point assigning left or right to them on a purely economic basis.
Agreed.
Note that Hitler and the Nazis were openly anti welfare…
Except they did quite generous welfare packages when Germans had economic difficulties. As long as they could prove they were ethnic Germans and not a part of an undesirable group
Here are some of the similarities between the Nazi and Soviet regimes:
agriculture
> emphasis on industrial growth while larping as "muh wheat fields" peasant farmers
> centralized control of agriculture, prohibition of land sale, production quotas
> food shortages* (for different reasons)
focus on heavy industry
> quotas on industrial goods
> channeling resources into iron and steel production
> production goals not for public consumption but for militarization
State direction of industry
> Soviet five year plans vs. Nazi four year plans
> reorganizing industry into larger units like cartels/syndicates for easier administration by the State
> restructuring of Unions to serve state interest
> bonuses for managers who met party goals, punishment for disobedience
protectionism & economy
> goal of national self-sufficiency
> closed economy to insulate it from foreign shocks
> price and wage controls
> labour drafts / forced labour to address skilled labor shortages
> limiting consumption levels
Party
> aim to connect Party and State in one system
> restructuring the party to serve the supremacy of the dictator, while allowing for powerful local rulers at lower and regional levels
> pre-dominance of a new white-collar/technocratic elite rather than the proletariat/peasant farmer idealized by the movements
attitudes
> chauvinism and anti-Semitism (anti-Semitism obviously much higher in Germany)
> creation of the New Man
law enforcement
> powerful secret police
> labor camps
foreign policy goals
> expansion for geopolitical goals* (Soviets only did this post-War)
And they both killed israelites, Communists and Gays
>emphasis on industrial growth while larping as "muh wheat fields" peasant farmers
Soviets didn't have to LARP, large share of country was actually peasant.
>centralized control of agriculture
How did nazis control it, to which degee? Soviets used to run everything as their property, since it was pretty much a state-corporation.
>channeling resources into iron and steel production
For soviets it was a necessary mean to survive and be competitive on the market. Germany could keep up with the pressure from the start.
>production goals not for public consumption but for militarization
Germans used to have well-developed consumer market. Soviets under Stalin had cooperative production and distribution to do it for them.
>reorganizing industry into larger units like cartels/syndicates for easier administration by the State
They also produce more goods. You can't expect small companies to operate as smooth and produce as much.
>chauvinism
What kind of state-enforced chauvinism was there in USSR?
>creation of the New Man
Complete rubbish. For germans, they were perfect from ground zero since they're aryans n shit. For soviets, human behavior, views etc were the product of their social environment. Creating "new people" in old environments makes them old people.
>Soviets only did this post-War
They never really did that much of expansion. More like securing of already established friendly regimes. For example, they didn't brought Castro or Kho Chi Mihn in their chairs as it was done with other dictators backed by the West, they made Cuba and Vietnam parts of their hegemony due to them being subjected to foreign pressure.
>Soviets didn't have to LARP, large share of country was actually peasant.
They did have to larp because their industeralization was larger due to foreign investment from American companies and engineers i.g. capitalism.
>How did nazis control it
Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture and through four year planning. Soviets did the same with five year plans.
>For soviets it was a necessary mean to survive and be competitive on the market.
Actually, they couldn't, since the treaty of Versailles ruined their steel industry.
>Soviets under Stalin had cooperative production and distribution to do it for them.
Actually, that's wrong. Most of the USSR's public consumption came from private farms and state owned industry.
>What kind of state-enforced chauvinism was there in USSR?
Russians were favored over non-Russians in pretty much Soviet administration. Even Lenin was critical of Stalin's chauvinism.
>Complete rubbish.
Lmao, you're so stupid you don't even know about Ubermensch concept the Germans based their beliefs off of? You dumb frick.
>hey never really did that much of expansion.
They literally trying Establish communist governments in Germany, Estonia, Spain and Brazil even before the war. The Communist International was calling for armed revolution and overthrow of all capitalist countries before World War II. And none of the post war regimes were friendly. The communists since the tanks to crush resistance against their rule in 1953 (Germany), 1956 (Hungary) and in 1948 launched a coup in Czechoslovak. You commies are so bad at history, and never know what you're talking about. Kim was also another puppet the Soviets set up in North Korea.
>their industeralization was larger due to foreign investment from American companies and engineers i.g. capitalism.
No, it wasn't. The idea of foreign capitals investing in soviet economy has been dealt with by the late 20s. After that it was "you buy our bread and gold and we buy entire factories as well as hire specialists". That's not investment, that's goods and services exchange.
>Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture
What made it different from any other ministry of similar purpose in any other country?
>four year planning
Not sure if one plan which wasn't fulfilled and then had to be prolonged can be considered an established planned economy. We have simliar plans in Russia, but private sector doesn't seem to be willing to comply to the objectives.
>since the treaty of Versailles ruined their steel industry
The factories were up and running undamaged, the french occupation of Ruhr has ended in 1925, and post-WWI investments have been greater than the money Germany had to pay in contribution to the Entente.
> Most of the USSR's public consumption came from private farms and state owned industry
Private farms? Major private land ownership was liquidated, since kulaks used to hoard bread to get higher purchase prices, and collectivised afterwards. I wouldn't call kolkhozes private, neither they can be considered true collective property like cooperatives.
>Russians were favored over non-Russians in pretty much Soviet administration
At the same time russian nationalists today complain that state administration was infested with israelites and national minorities. Who's to believe?
>Ubermensch concept
Nazi perception of Ubermensch is different from Nietzschean concept. For Nietzsche, Ubermensch is a person with superior personal values and capabilities, which can be achieved through individual pursuit of those goals. And maybe with some eugenics on the side.
While nazi version of Ubermensch was about superiority that originates in genes first and foremost
>No, it wasn't. The idea of foreign capitals investing in soviet economy
No, this is just completely wrong. Fricking Ford was making cars in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and Koch was building factories there too. You can't even get basic facts correct. So there's no point in going further. You just lie. You discredited everything you said when you get such a basic fact wrong.
>Not every communist was a Moscow agent
Just pushing goalposts because you can't make an argument.
>Soviets send their people to do regime change
>But but but everyone they used wasn't from Moscow
Gimme a break, moron, if that's the case - the CIA didn't do coups either.
>Anarchists
The thing is, moron, the communists actually did do violent revolution. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Brazil, Afghanistan in 1930 - you're just straight up mis-characterizing what the Soviets did. Be better at shilling. It doesn't work here.
>Nazi perception of Ubermensch is different from Nietzschean concept.
You're pushing goalposts, again. Argument from you was the Nazis had no concept of the new man. They did - the Nietzchean Ubermensch. Their interpretation of it doesn't change what their goal was. Stop being stupid.
>trying Establish communist governments in Germany, Estonia, Spain and Brazil even before the war.
Alright, one by one.
>Germany
Communist movements in Bavaria, Alsace etc were hardly controlled from Moscow. They appeared during the hot stage of Civil War in Russia and had no backing from Moscow mainly because of those reasons.
For example, when indian communists have reached Tashkent, all the preparation offered to them lasted less than a year and was disbanded because soviets had to relocate resources.
>Estonia
Was a part of Russian Empire. Before October Revolution there already were many Councils where bolsheviks used to play a major role. Establishment of new soviet republics after the fall of Provisional Government and failure of Constituent Assembly was a question of time. There were republics declared in Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Moldavia, etc.
Or you're talking about 1939?
>Spain
Soviets were defending Spanish Republic with pretty moderate government from a coup. As the war went on, most of the moderates have broke off.
>Brazil
Not every communist was a Moscow agent. Soviets always used to try and bet on the winning horse, especially in 30s. They picked Ataturk over kurdish communists, they picked INC over CPI, they picked one of the general as well as Kuomintang over Mao Zedong in the beginning.
>The Communist International was calling for armed revolution and overthrow of all capitalist countries before World War II.
And so do modern anarchists and whoever else. But it doesn't mean that they have means to do so, right?
>And none of the post war regimes were friendly
Well, they were friendly, mostly. There was lot of resistance from pro-western Resistance and many people expected pre-war order to come back.
>1953 (Germany
That wasn't that much of resistance, that was violent supression of riots. Resistance was happening in Poland, Estonia, Ukraine. Hungarian revolution may be considered a serious resistance.
>Was a part of Russian Empire.
Holy frick - you really used this argument? Imperialism was okay, for the Soviet Union, because the Imperial Empire of Russia used to to terrorize and absorb colonies. Ridiculous non-sense. No one buys such a stupid fricking argument. Christ, commies are stupidest people. have a nice day.
"It's ok when we do it". Very common argument.
> How did nazis control it, to which degee? Soviets used to run everything as their property, since it was pretty much a state-corporation.
To a lesser degree than Soviets. The Nazis controlled agriculture a few ways. They prohibited the private sale of agricultural land. They encouraged farmers join marketing boards (cartels) that had mandatory production quotas for farmers. Then the Nazis began to directly set agricultural prices with price controls. They claimed this was only temporary, but since the regime didn't last very long, we'll never know. Unlike the Soviets they did not completely abolish private property, but even the Soviets allowed for some small plots of private agricultural land in which farmers could sell those crops, so we have to look at it as a spectrum rather than two distinct points. Different methods and different degrees, but the trend of further control over agriculture is similar in both regimes.
> channeling resources into iron and steel production
> For soviets it was a necessary mean to survive and be competitive on the market. Germany could keep up with the pressure from the start.
I don't think iron/steel production was about competitiveness in the market, it was about military competition. A lot of that steel was going to military use. Domestic consumption actually decreased in both regimes and that's what they wanted. So the purpose of heavy industry production was not for economic or domestic purposes, but for military ones.
this more or less looks like china lol
My grandfather lived in Spain and had a picture of Franco in his bedroom
Communism is a more command economy compared to National Socialism where there is much more emphasis and prevalence towards: nationalization of industry, corvee system, economic quotas and embargos (embargos like the grain for Kulaks), and public enterprise. National Socialism has these elements but nowhere as much as Communism ideology. National Socialism is less economic and more social, socialism was a buzzword that helped unite both political sides in Weimar Germany, the welfare was not economic reasons but for the German ethnicity and their heritage if that makes sense.
They know nationals, ethnocentrism, and socialism is a powerful and popular mix of ideologies so they're trying hard to demonize it by conflating it with communism.its pathetic and intellectually dishonest, not to mention obviously fallacious.
>nationals
Nationalism*
>the only interpretation of socialism is marxian and that’s thats
Hiter was such a "socialist" that he was funded by British intelligence, owned by the Keppler Circle and had a portrait of that degenerate Henry Ford in his office like some kind of fanboy. Hitler was a sensitive basedboy vegan artist. You could call Hitler a "socialist" in terms of the New Left but not the traditional Old Left.
Furthermore, the first victims of the Hitlerite regime were the Communists (Kommunistiche Partei Deuscheland) followed by the Trade Unionists and Social Democrats (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland).
Hitler merely continued most of the public works projects of the Weimar Republic but even then privatized key aspects of the economy such as shipping and banking. Plus wages as a whole decreased under the NSDAP and capitalist profits soared.
In conclusion, Hitler was a capitalist degenerate neice fricker from Wien who should've killed himself in the 20s.
^basedboy
>Furthermore, the first victims of the Hitlerite regime were the Communists
Hitler's first and only elected office was as a Communist.
The NAZI's won because the communists voted for him en masse.
They then persecuted communists for not being socialist enough.
Which is something communists do all the time.
Happening in China right now.
nazis:
>we're socialists
twitter commies decades later:
>UHHHH ACKSHUALLY THEY WEREN'T REAL SOCIALISTS!1
http://pastebin.com/wV97RYQT
Proof Hitler was a Capitalist
https://www.scribd.com/doc/311227564/Nazi-Privatisation
Privatisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
ctrl f socialist, Hitler gathered support from capitalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-15
Ctrl f union, Hitler banned unions and strikes
ctrl f insist on, Hitler was a capitalist!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser
Ctrl f business, Hitler was in bed with corporations
https://www.scribd.com/doc/311227946/Antisemitismsocial democracy-pdf
antisemitism as an attack on social democracy
http://imgur.com/sUxPARb
>Hitler
>Socialist
http://i.imgur.com/bJjU3at.jpg
Reprivatisation of banks
http://imgur.com/qa8qMnc
The “we are opposed to Crony Capitalism” quote by Hitler is a misquote, it was said by his enemy Strasser.
He co-opted the term national socialist from Strasser
http://i.imgur.com/5jBT2Z3.jpg
Nazis got along with corporations just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
ctrl f non-israeli victims, Hitler sent socialists to the camps
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm
Hitler wasn't a socialist
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/dont-ever-call-hitler-socialist
Hitler wasn't a fricking socialist, idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Ctrl f Majority of scholars, most scholars ACCEPT THIS FACT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
To remind you, socialism means democratic ownership over the means of production
This evidence shows that Hitler, though he called himself a socialist to try and pander to the left, never had the intention to distribute the means of production to the workers.
He banned unions, strikes, reprivatised banks, protected corporations, and took out communists, vaushists and even socialists in his own party.
>Wikipedia
>Imgur
>Opinion articles from non-historians
lol, imagine being this much a psued.
>He banned unions, strikes, and took out communists
Yes, that's what Stalin did. Workers had no right to strike in the USSR or form unions. So yeah, Hitler was a socialist. Even Stalin hated israelites and the Soviet Constitution protected private property under Stalin. Corporations like Ford and Koch Industries did business in the USSR.
> http://i.imgur.com/5jBT2Z3.jpg
> The Nazi dictatorship's relations with the employers, most especially the industrialists, had its ups and downs, but the Nazis had no difficulty working with them as long as they accepted increasing economic regulations and planning by the state in return for the survival of private capitalism.
>Nazis got along with corporations just fine.
If the Nazis had no problem working with X, provided Nazi's demands are met, then X must have had no problem working with Nazis in exchange for their survival. Therefore they got along just fine.
QED
>To remind you, socialism means democratic ownership over the means of production
a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Just like nazism was state control of the economy, Hitler was a socialist
>Privatisation
So Lenin was a capitalist then since he made up the NEP
All of this is far-left propaganda.
Go back to sleep, commie.
Reams of wikipedia bollocks. Spare us it. The historigraphy surrounding Hitler, foremostly by social taboo and often by law, permits that nothing positive nor endearing or sympathetic be written or said about him.
He paid lip service to social welfare for ethnic germans and delivered on that promise, but the underlying beliefs of the nazi regime were in hierarchy, not only of the superiority of germans over other races but the natural place of germans in their own social order. German workers were instructed to reject class consciousness in favor of race and not question their position on the social ladder.
Because of this as well as his fanatical hatred for communism which to him included everything from striking workers to actual bolsheviks to the left wing of his own party, he was beloved by wealthy industrialists all over the western world.
That the State should have absolute control over the people. That's the core idea of Fascism, Nazism and Marxism.
fricking love TIK bros
MMTMM
banned unions, killed and jailed socialists, invaded random countries after pretending to be their ally, stole the savings of his own citizens.
basically all the same shit stalin did.
Read Mein Kampf, specifically the one good pre-war, American translation that hasn't been "edited." Hitler living as a young man in pre-WW1 Vienna saw how the Christian Socialist and Pan-German parties in the Austro-Hungarian Empire each missed a key aspect that limited their appeal: The Pan-Germans wanted the masses to love their nation and heritage but offered no real concrete plan to curb the power of the wealthy and relieve the extreme poverty of the working class. The Christian Socialists had an effective plan for improving social conditions but were forced to endlessly re-fight The Reformation within their ranks leaving it unable to build a mass movement. Hitler saw this and developed the concept of National Socialism for German politics after WW1. National Socialism focused on convincing the masses that the government was on their side with pro-worker, pro-family policies that put labor at the center of the economy as the creator of value rather than capital and thus convinced them to embrace their nation over "International" movements like communism that promised them salvation.
National Socialism saw private property in the hands of the masses as a virtue-building good. It wanted large concentrations of economic power directed and limited, not confiscated so they could be controlled by a government/party elite.
National Socialism was the most effective enemy of International Communism and usury-driven monopoly capitalism. So it is no surprise who swiftly became his enemies. Hitler, born into the petite bourgeoisie, was into early manhood, uncomfortable with anti-semitism because it seemed an "unprogressive" kind of prejudice--a superstitious peasant's fear. It was only when he realized who most benefitted from both international communism and international capitalist finance, that he began to understand the underlying threat of these specific people to the West.
Soon they grew to hate him and National Socialism.To this day they malign both.
>National Socialism was the most effective enemy of International Communism and usury-driven monopoly capitalism
Sure.
That's why they were in talks to join Comintern when Stalin double-crossed him.
Russian communists then decided he was not communist to get US help.
Idiots like you repeat this 1940's propaganda.
>That's why they were in talks to join Comintern when Stalin double-crossed him.
That never happened.
>horrible false information in post
>low iq take
>reddit spacing
yepp, checks out
stalin asked to join the axis in 1939 but got no responce.
1.gay
2. Animal rights
3. Gun control
4. No freedom
5. Vegan
6. Gay
Need I go on?
Nothing worse than a israelite impersonating a dumb goy.
the dark enlightenment is what happens in the counter-currents store-room after drinking too many cosmos
he joined socialist party expecting it to be libshit pussy hangout but found out they were quite based and redpilled and liked them very much, which is coincidentally how i became leftist as well. maybe i can be a hitler 2 in the future, who knows?
>Replace class with race
>Replace workers with Germans
>Replace bourgeoisie with israelites
>Get the exact fricking same system down to a T
>Soviets called them "Fascists" instead of "National Socialists" to avoid drawing obvious parallels
Gee, I wonder.
its literally communism for racists anon
Non marxist "socialism" is a joke
Rather
>what makes a person call Hitler a leftist?
He must be a libertarian and very pro capitalist. Any market intervention = socialist. Since Hitler was a dictator, and could interfere in affairs, they call him a leftist. Leftist to them = socialist.
Hitler wasn't a communist, but whilst despising the anti-national Marxism he took in and understood the most palatable aspects about it.
But of Hitler's attitude to the USSR: at the onset of Barbarossa, Hitler said something to the effect that it was as if something had been lifted and he could be himself again, that these dealings with Bolshevism, Hitler's lifelong enemy, had been a mental break and a hard thing to live by. At last he was in open war with the ultimate foe.
>Hitler's lifelong enemy the bolshevism
>What is the Molotov Ribbentrop pact
I don't think it's possible to be more stupid than an internet nazi in 2022. Very close to the normie in terms of stupidity.
im not sure im seeing your point here, the Molotov Ribbentrop pact was a strategic maneuver and in no way diminish the ideological animosity between fascism and national socialism and communism
Only brainlets think that, people with actual historical knowledge know that Hitler represented bourgeo-fascism.
>What are the similarities between nazism and communism that make people say that Hitler was a leftist?
Killing Ersn't Rohm? Having his 1933 campain financed by Rockefeller through I.G Farben? No, it must be something else.... Having his grandmother Maria Schicklgruber being IMPREGNATED by a Rothschild in the Rotschild manor in Vienna? No...
Ill give you the only real answer you will probably get from this entire thread judging by the hilariously ignorant posts ive read so far: national socialism involves reordering the economy in such a way that wealth creation is tied almost entirely into investment into the working class and development of infrastructure, and involves nation wide unionization of the working class and a subsequent court system for settling disputes between the labour guild and the government and private capital which was quite successful. combine these with a slough of heavy workplace regulations, social programs, and you start to see something that resembles the spirit of leftist ideology reified in a more pragmatic form that has actual real-world viability, unlike leftist meme ideologies. its no secret that fascism, and by extension, national socialism, was bourne out of frustrated leftists looking for more viable praxis
RIP Ernst Rohm.
Oh by the way, your little cucked regime still made Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Warburg richer.
https://humansbefree.com/2016/05/hitler-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318
Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst were the main sponsors of the election campaign for the seizure of power by Hitler.
The investments of IG Farben in this politician seemed to pay off initially. Every time the Wehrmacht invaded a European country, IG Farben was already on the footboard and annexed for nothing chemical industries and oil fields in Europe.
It is not surprising: the rulers want us still delude that World War II has been a kind of accident of history, caused by a psychopath named Hitler. But the fact is that wars then, as today, initially had economic motives.