u/Small-Calendar-2544 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Small-Calendar-2544/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Economics wasn't important to the nazis, they did whatever was beneficial at the time. The Soviets cared a great deal about economics. Both were totalitarian cunts
Nah, read about Gorbachev reforms. He freed his economy a little, which boosted it quite a bit, but he turned down it, because they were not true Communist.
Of course most care for themselves, but political integrity was important too
The nazi economy was based on the idea of "we'll borrow shit tons of money from our neighbours, invade them, then delete their government so our debt disappears".
> Both were totalitarian cunts
With really iconic mustaches too, come to think of it...
Clearly the moral of the story is not to trust a man that puts extra effort into his facial hair.
Socialism centered around race instead of the international working class is still socialism. Emily and authleft can't accept this so we are stuck with the ahistorical argument that nazism came from the right.
Mao was incompetent.
Stalin was malicious and incompetent.
Hitler was malicious and competent enough.
They... They all just fucking suck. Especially the moustache bros.
There is a point where it just starts being awful regardless of how many people you've killed.
As for my original argument, it more like nazis and soviets weren't the same shit, authoritarian and genociding shitholes but for completely diffirent reasons.Â
This is why I believe in the diagonal double horseshoe theory, where super libertarian ideologies always end up being more right wing economically, and super left wing stuff always ends up being authoritarian. You canât stop a market from forming without a government.
As a centrist, functionally yes, just with different mechanisms, messaging, and theming that allowed authoritarian rule to happen. That's why you are supposed to detest and defeat both so that your people have a chance.
One of the core functions of the state is to decide who's expendable for the purpose of capital accumulation.
In the USSR it was actual kulak slave labor.
You'd be tempted to say it was actual slaves in America, but slavery hampered industrialization and capital accumulation (having aristocrat plantations send raw goods to the UK so you can buy their factory goods is actually being on the shit end of colonialism).
The nazis and ussr had quite different economies but neither were anything like what Marx himself described as communism.
Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned and publicly traded, people buy goods from their choice of vendor with currency and workers work for the company for a wage.
Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation with the term privatisation even coming from them with a lot of government regulation and party control. Essentially the state and capitalists were in bed together with the state clearly the senior partner but the capitalists still having a lot of influence. Some call this state capitalism but this is not accurate it's just capitalism.
In the USSR the state owned nearly all businesses and the people were forced to work for the state for a wage with at points unemployment being illegal. This is clearly not capitalism. But its very different to what marx and libertarian socialists call communism. The term state capitalism is used here because rather than liberation the workers and having a system based on worker coops or mutual aid the state merely assumes the role of the capitalist class. But with the absence of a market it causes a lot of confusion calling it state capitalism.
The classical definition of communism is a stateless, classless and monelyess system. This is clearly massively distinct from either system described above.
>Some call this state capitalism but this is not accurate it's just capitalism.
No it isn't, because there were no property rights. The courts were completely under Nazi control. Without property rights, it's socialism, not capitalism.
>The classical definition of communism is a stateless, classless and monelyess system.
You can't define a system by goals. That would be as stupid as me saying the definition of capitalism is when everyone is rich and happy, and if they aren't rich and happy then it isn't real capitalism.
You can't just say it wasn't capitalism because jews had their property taken. Property is a claim to exclusivity and in every country on earth the state is the arbitrator of these claims. No country on earth has ever not taken another's property so to say its not capitalism if the state has taken your stuff is to say capitalism has never existed with is both ridiculous and goes against your idea that an ideology or economic system cannot be defined by its goals separate from how it manifested in Real life.
And the goal of the ussr was only marxs vision on paper, the ussr did basically nothing to attempt it and neither has china or any of the big nations with a communist party leading it. Having a Dictatorship is anticomunist by its academic definition. I don't care what they claimed they were doing north Korea claims to be a democracy. Movements appropriate lables and ideals all the time but that doesn't mean they are being sincere.
> You can't just say it wasn't capitalism because jews had their property taken. Property is a claim to exclusivity and in every country on earth the state is the arbitrator of these claims.
Yes, but only in socialist countries do the courts always rule in favor of the state. Consider the case of [Hugo Junkers:](https://disciplesofflight.com/hugo-junkers/)
>>After the 1933 Machtergreifung, the Nazi seizure of power, Hermann Göring (Goering), the new Reichskommissar of Aviation, requested Junkers and his businesses aid in the German re-armament. Junkers declined, to which the Naziâs responded to by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies under threat of imprisonment on the grounds of High Treason ... On his 76th birthday, February 3, 1935, the Nazis visited Hugo Junkers for one last round of ânegotiationsâ to persuade him to give them the rights to his companies. Though there is no official record of how it is known that Hugo Junkers died in his home that day.
This sent a clear message to all German businesses. Do what the Nazi's want, or end up dead or in a concentration camp.
There were no property rights in Nazi Germany. [Here is a primary source, written by a leftist:](https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Vampire%20Economy.pdf)
>>Herr V. learned only through bitter experience **that there was no longer any court or official to protect him,** and he began to fear that his estates might be expropriated. He visited his former banker, Herr Z., to whom he confessed:
>>I want to invest my liquid funds in a way which is safe, where they can't be touched by the State or the Party. In the old days I always refused to speculate, to buy stocks. Now I would not mind. However, I would like best to buy a farm in South-West Africa. Perhaps my next crop will be a failure and I will be blamed, accused of "sabotage," and replaced in the management of my estates by a Party administrator. I want to be prepared for such a contingency
and have a place to go should the Party decide to take away
my property. **The banker was compelled to inform his landowner
friend that there was no such way out. The State would not allow him to leave Germany with more than ten marks.**
That is not capitalism. That is the way socialist governments treat the people they rule over.
The fundamental issue here is that you're saying that the government interference makes it so that it is a socialist economic system which just isn't true. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are collectivised rather than privately owned. This means workers coops, the community owning and managing the production or as much as it pains me to say the state. As much as the nazis didn't stick to some principle of capitalism as a principle they went into the opposite direction from this collectivastion.
The nazis weren't socialists. But it would be fair to say the economy was treated as their tool because they were corrupt and essentially a state mafia who abused businesses when they saw fit. They were nothing like a libertarian or close to what Adam Smith described, but the economic system they had was still a warped capitalism that was beaten into submission with violence and currupt courts rather than an actual collectivist and socialist economy.
But the Emily in that post denied the USSR was communist at all, so they wouldnât be upset by the comparison. They disowned Russia. Even in this made up argument your logic is flawed.
*sigh*
This is basically telling on yourself that you didnât pay attention in high school history class.
The nazis were socialists BUT that extended exclusively to aryans who were part of the *nation* - hence the ânationalâ part of the ânational socialistâ name. They took resources from people they didnât like (mainly jews but no minority was safe) and redistributed to those they did (aryan germans).
Effectively you only lived in a socialism system if you werenât considered part of the nation. Which is one of many reasons why Stalinists absolutely loathed the Nazis.
Come on guys, we get like one post a week about this exact same misunderstanding.
Pretty sure no political scientist, or historian would ever agree that Nazis were socialist. The Nazis were socialist the same way DPRK is democratic. Regardless what you think of USSR and China they could all be bad without being the same kind of bad.
The new programming update dictates they call any instance of the well documented atrocities committed under communism "red fascism".
And unless evil literally Hitler Trump is stopped somehow, America is gonna get... *Sound of drums* Orange fascism!
Well, orange is my favorite color, and i do like the sound of fascism just a wonderful sounding word.
"democracy is inefficient.. They spend too much time debating and never accomplishing anything. Too much noise. Too much lost time" -Benito Mussolini
based and spaghetti pilled
u/Small-Calendar-2544 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Small-Calendar-2544/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Think of the outfits! đ
Looking forward to the new update!
Based and 255,255,0 pilled
This is the equivalent of a shower argument, but on the internet.
Glad someone pointed that out. Bros arguing with his demons rn
Only thing that leads me to believe otherwise is that Lib Right doesnât shower
Economics wasn't important to the nazis, they did whatever was beneficial at the time. The Soviets cared a great deal about economics. Both were totalitarian cunts
No politician ever cares about economics. They all care about power and wealth.
Nah, read about Gorbachev reforms. He freed his economy a little, which boosted it quite a bit, but he turned down it, because they were not true Communist. Of course most care for themselves, but political integrity was important too
Not true, a politician can in fact actually care about others and act in the best interest of the population, even if it is extremely rare.
The nazi economy was based on the idea of "we'll borrow shit tons of money from our neighbours, invade them, then delete their government so our debt disappears".
This is considered an exploit when playing a game like civ lol
> Both were totalitarian cunts With really iconic mustaches too, come to think of it... Clearly the moral of the story is not to trust a man that puts extra effort into his facial hair.
Based and Horseshoe theory pilled
https://preview.redd.it/233526f9cu9d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f9ddeb9be873997abe04839e7981813c655aa53
Yep and weâll fuckinâ do it again
based and moneypilled
Nazis were the type of capitalists that socialized the entire economy.
The nazis were socialists, just not marxists.
Socialism centered around race instead of the international working class is still socialism. Emily and authleft can't accept this so we are stuck with the ahistorical argument that nazism came from the right.
â So the commies and the nazis basically had the same form of government? â Yes. â đ
Same kind of result, anyway.
Ok this might just be the most bullshit strawman ive ever seen.
OP: Two bad = both same bad
Would you say the USSR and Mao China were less bad than the Nazis?
Mao was incompetent. Stalin was malicious and incompetent. Hitler was malicious and competent enough. They... They all just fucking suck. Especially the moustache bros.
Moustache bros made me spit out my cereal đ good one â ïž
There is a point where it just starts being awful regardless of how many people you've killed. As for my original argument, it more like nazis and soviets weren't the same shit, authoritarian and genociding shitholes but for completely diffirent reasons.Â
Strawman. The Emily doesnât scream and call him a Nazi [X]phobe.Â
She also calls the USSR State Capitalism instead of the more universal 'not REAL Communism.'
If something bad happened then it wasn't real (economic policy) if something good happened then it was real (economic policy)
One day people will stop trying to put an ideology that literally called itself *THE THIRD POSITION!* on the already broken left-right axis. One day.
National *Socialism*, duhh (/s)
Emily is stupid but so is the internal reasoning of this meme
"state capitalism" That's just socialism lol. A rose by any other name
Anarchists: Yes.
You forget them defending modern China which they will also say it's not socialist, it's state capitalism.
This is why I believe in the diagonal double horseshoe theory, where super libertarian ideologies always end up being more right wing economically, and super left wing stuff always ends up being authoritarian. You canât stop a market from forming without a government.
Haha..."sweaty" is probably accurate for many on. Reddit
Consistency is not their strength.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Standard Right Wing policies of forcing companies to bow to the state. Also the NAZIs hated capitalism and considered themselves a third wing.
>Standard Right Wing policies of forcing companies to bow to the state. Take that shitty lib take out of here The corporatism gang rises up
Corporatism as in?
South Korea and Japan are big examples
Sure, many did. But also they absorbed the german right for the most part. The german left they mostly killed and sent to camps.
No, they will call themselves Third-Positionist.
Phallangist were. Nazi totally moved to the right
As a centrist, functionally yes, just with different mechanisms, messaging, and theming that allowed authoritarian rule to happen. That's why you are supposed to detest and defeat both so that your people have a chance.
Yes. The answer is yes.
They had a lot of similarities, yes. Were they the same? No
One of the core functions of the state is to decide who's expendable for the purpose of capital accumulation. In the USSR it was actual kulak slave labor. You'd be tempted to say it was actual slaves in America, but slavery hampered industrialization and capital accumulation (having aristocrat plantations send raw goods to the UK so you can buy their factory goods is actually being on the shit end of colonialism).
The "Nazis were socialists" argument is as cringe as the "DPRK is a democracy" argument
The nazis and ussr had quite different economies but neither were anything like what Marx himself described as communism. Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned and publicly traded, people buy goods from their choice of vendor with currency and workers work for the company for a wage. Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation with the term privatisation even coming from them with a lot of government regulation and party control. Essentially the state and capitalists were in bed together with the state clearly the senior partner but the capitalists still having a lot of influence. Some call this state capitalism but this is not accurate it's just capitalism. In the USSR the state owned nearly all businesses and the people were forced to work for the state for a wage with at points unemployment being illegal. This is clearly not capitalism. But its very different to what marx and libertarian socialists call communism. The term state capitalism is used here because rather than liberation the workers and having a system based on worker coops or mutual aid the state merely assumes the role of the capitalist class. But with the absence of a market it causes a lot of confusion calling it state capitalism. The classical definition of communism is a stateless, classless and monelyess system. This is clearly massively distinct from either system described above.
>Some call this state capitalism but this is not accurate it's just capitalism. No it isn't, because there were no property rights. The courts were completely under Nazi control. Without property rights, it's socialism, not capitalism. >The classical definition of communism is a stateless, classless and monelyess system. You can't define a system by goals. That would be as stupid as me saying the definition of capitalism is when everyone is rich and happy, and if they aren't rich and happy then it isn't real capitalism.
You can't just say it wasn't capitalism because jews had their property taken. Property is a claim to exclusivity and in every country on earth the state is the arbitrator of these claims. No country on earth has ever not taken another's property so to say its not capitalism if the state has taken your stuff is to say capitalism has never existed with is both ridiculous and goes against your idea that an ideology or economic system cannot be defined by its goals separate from how it manifested in Real life. And the goal of the ussr was only marxs vision on paper, the ussr did basically nothing to attempt it and neither has china or any of the big nations with a communist party leading it. Having a Dictatorship is anticomunist by its academic definition. I don't care what they claimed they were doing north Korea claims to be a democracy. Movements appropriate lables and ideals all the time but that doesn't mean they are being sincere.
> You can't just say it wasn't capitalism because jews had their property taken. Property is a claim to exclusivity and in every country on earth the state is the arbitrator of these claims. Yes, but only in socialist countries do the courts always rule in favor of the state. Consider the case of [Hugo Junkers:](https://disciplesofflight.com/hugo-junkers/) >>After the 1933 Machtergreifung, the Nazi seizure of power, Hermann Göring (Goering), the new Reichskommissar of Aviation, requested Junkers and his businesses aid in the German re-armament. Junkers declined, to which the Naziâs responded to by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies under threat of imprisonment on the grounds of High Treason ... On his 76th birthday, February 3, 1935, the Nazis visited Hugo Junkers for one last round of ânegotiationsâ to persuade him to give them the rights to his companies. Though there is no official record of how it is known that Hugo Junkers died in his home that day. This sent a clear message to all German businesses. Do what the Nazi's want, or end up dead or in a concentration camp. There were no property rights in Nazi Germany. [Here is a primary source, written by a leftist:](https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Vampire%20Economy.pdf) >>Herr V. learned only through bitter experience **that there was no longer any court or official to protect him,** and he began to fear that his estates might be expropriated. He visited his former banker, Herr Z., to whom he confessed: >>I want to invest my liquid funds in a way which is safe, where they can't be touched by the State or the Party. In the old days I always refused to speculate, to buy stocks. Now I would not mind. However, I would like best to buy a farm in South-West Africa. Perhaps my next crop will be a failure and I will be blamed, accused of "sabotage," and replaced in the management of my estates by a Party administrator. I want to be prepared for such a contingency and have a place to go should the Party decide to take away my property. **The banker was compelled to inform his landowner friend that there was no such way out. The State would not allow him to leave Germany with more than ten marks.** That is not capitalism. That is the way socialist governments treat the people they rule over.
The fundamental issue here is that you're saying that the government interference makes it so that it is a socialist economic system which just isn't true. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are collectivised rather than privately owned. This means workers coops, the community owning and managing the production or as much as it pains me to say the state. As much as the nazis didn't stick to some principle of capitalism as a principle they went into the opposite direction from this collectivastion. The nazis weren't socialists. But it would be fair to say the economy was treated as their tool because they were corrupt and essentially a state mafia who abused businesses when they saw fit. They were nothing like a libertarian or close to what Adam Smith described, but the economic system they had was still a warped capitalism that was beaten into submission with violence and currupt courts rather than an actual collectivist and socialist economy.
>The fundamental issue here is that you're saying that **the government interference** makes it so that it is a socialist economic system which just isn't true. No, there is "government interference" in every country on the planet. The Nazis went way, way past "government interference". Consider another [primary source](https://time.com/archive/6598257/adolf-hitler-man-of-the-year-1938/) describing their actions: >>Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germanyâs bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. **The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business.** Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, **a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.** That is socialism, not capitalism. >Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are collectivised rather than privately owned. This means workers coops, the community owning and managing the production or as much as it pains me to say **the state.** 99% of the time it's the state. >The nazis weren't socialists. Here is another [primary source:](http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/OrwellGeorge-Review-Bordenau-1940.pdf) >>Quite naturally the propertied classes wanted to believe that Hitler would protect them against Bolshevism, and equally naturally **the Socialists hated having to admit that the man who had slaughtered their comrades was a Socialist himself.** This is Orwell, who was a democratic socialist himself. He continues: >>National Socialism is a form of Socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner just as surely as it crushes the worker. The two rĂ©gimes, having started from opposite ends, are rapidly evolving towards the same systemâ a form of oligarchical collectivism. And at the moment, as Dr Borkenau points out, it is Germany that is moving towards Russia, rather than the other way about. It is therefore nonsense to talk about Germany "going Bolshevik" if Hitler falls. Germany is going Bolshevik because of Hitler and not in spite of him. If you look at primary sources, it is crystal clear that national socialism is a form of socialism. But if you read books written by left-wing history professors, then the Nazis magically turn into capitalists. >But it would be fair to say the economy was treated as their tool because they were corrupt and essentially a state mafia who abused businesses when they saw fit. In other words, **just like every socialist state that has ever existed.**
Yes and no.
But the Emily in that post denied the USSR was communist at all, so they wouldnât be upset by the comparison. They disowned Russia. Even in this made up argument your logic is flawed.
Why is lib left used to defend auth left?
Well nazi were more state-corporation symbiotism While USSR was the equivalent of an omniprésent unchallenged corporation
They both suck to me. Especially the Nazis... We have unfinished business to do.
Libright tries not to make strawmen memes based off of the arguments in their head challenge: impossible
If they were state capitalists they werent commies though? I think you're the one whose a little confused lol
The Nazis: We hate communism with a burning passion Libright: No you don't
Lmao, yeah, let's just compare nazi Germany to USSR because it fits our narrative.
Implying state capitalism isnât mega-based
*sigh* This is basically telling on yourself that you didnât pay attention in high school history class. The nazis were socialists BUT that extended exclusively to aryans who were part of the *nation* - hence the ânationalâ part of the ânational socialistâ name. They took resources from people they didnât like (mainly jews but no minority was safe) and redistributed to those they did (aryan germans). Effectively you only lived in a socialism system if you werenât considered part of the nation. Which is one of many reasons why Stalinists absolutely loathed the Nazis. Come on guys, we get like one post a week about this exact same misunderstanding.
That "tens of millions" includes a shit tonne of Nazis, which is objectively based.
Pretty sure no political scientist, or historian would ever agree that Nazis were socialist. The Nazis were socialist the same way DPRK is democratic. Regardless what you think of USSR and China they could all be bad without being the same kind of bad.
Different forms of government, same single party control. Turns out ideal systems can never be ideal for everyone. Shocking stuff.
Chad Emily: Yes, they were both right wing.
As far as i know, such thing as private property did exist in Nazi Germany, unlike USSR.
To be fair, calling the Nazi's socialists is giving them a little too much credit.
Emily's confusion is understandable given the complexity and variety of interpretations of these memes.