We're Nazis socialist?

Well?

snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_People's_Assembly
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Inb4 "Was Venezuela socialist?"

...

Was it?

...

nazis were socialists by name, centrists by their action
the left quickly realized that they could damage their opposition by associating their enemies with nazism so they started repeating over and over that it was a right wing ideology
worked pretty well

and just in case there are some deep newfags reading this, don't trust anything Snopes says, complete leftist propaganda

It's been a while since I went through this, but from memory one of the big themes of the Nazi party was that the means available to people under a Nazi system should be freely given to those that don't possess those means but need them.

That is to say that they believe it the duty of the rich to freely share their resources with the poor a.k.a. "from each according to their ability to each according to their need". The sense of charity as national identity was so strong that the wealth of the individual was effectively considered part of the wealth of the nation, and therefore part of the system of collective ownership by the people which defines the system of socialism.

This was mostly done through a sense of national pride and national identity in order to evoke a willing sense of charity. I think everyone here would prefer this system of charity because, unlike other systems, it doesn't advocate the complete abolishment of wealth, and it doesn't advocate the confiscation without compensation of wealth for the supposed sake of helping the poor (although it did have a rate of high taxation that was used to help the poor through massive infrastructure projects for job creation, which again is preferable to a standard welfare system)

In short, the Nazis were almost certainly socialist to a greater degree than a lesser one, as a persons wealth is the wealth of the nation. Coincidentally, that socialism is the main reason I'm not a fan of the Nazi party, though I must say that if socialism is inevitable, I would vastly prefer National Socialism to any other form out there, hands down.

>centrists by their action
Nationalizing industry is not 'centrist'
They just never got to actually implementing socialism because the war was more important.

Wtf? It's in the name.
>Was the USSR Socialist???

don't know if they were socialist but they were revolutionaries

>North Korea is democratic

YES and it worked very well, basically eliminating unemployment by creating jobs for the unemployed and creating the money to pay for it.

Europe needs this now to fix the Euro fuck up, UK also to get the chavs in work

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

>The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941

it was a mix of both nationalizing industries without infringing the free market, would you not agree that it was a mix of both and that a mix of both right and left gives a centrist policy ?

socialism does not mean stopping the free market.

Communism is not socialism, that meme is the jew brainwashing you, so they can keep their banking shekels and control the governments of the world

No, they had mixed markets. "National socialism is socialist" is like saying "butterflies are made of butter"

another brainwashed amerifag, stop reciting commie-jew prograpanda

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism

>In the first half of the twentieth century, the Soviet Union and the Communist parties of the Third International around the world mainly came to represent socialism in terms of the Soviet model of economic development, the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, although other trends condemned what they saw as the lack of democracy.

so what you're saying is that a socialist country doesn't object to having a free market ?

socialism is just "balancing out" the inequities of the capitalist system.

communism is fully getting rid of markets and democracy

>baguettefag asking me what socialism is

i'm asking you to clarify your argument, chav yeast sucker

...

yes but in america the jews try to scare people into believing "socialism" and "communism" is the same thing.

National socialism scares the rich and especially the jews, who control countries through the banking system, which hitler fought by creating his own currency.

Not my point. Democratic is not in the name of NK

Democratic is not in DPRK?

>DPRK

in todays france for example, imagine a national socialist came to power.

he would create his own currency, spend that money to hire the unemployed youth to do meaningful jobs and force businesses to hire people, pay more taxes etc. he would make the businesses work for the people and not send jobs overseas and tax dodge

our current system is setup to allow those who own the corporations to rape the working class of rich western countries, send their jobs to pajeet, send their taxes to ireland or some loophole shithole and keep their wealth in offshore accounts

>Not my point. Democratic is not in the name of NK
American education.

Actually it is, there is elections every 4 years and there are functioning opposition parties.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_People's_Assembly

If a red house is made out of red plywood and a blue house is made out of blue plywood, what's a greenhouse made out of?

>(((Snopes)))
Also