Nazis were socialists - Change my mind

[Balthazar]

Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism.

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not Union of Soviet Communist Republics which, by definition of communism itself, would be oxymoron.

[1714758433]

1714758433

[1714758433]

1714758433

[tsaroz]

Socialists is a vague word. In a broad sense every modern government are socialist.
Socialism differs from communism basically in the matter of ownership and religion.
Nazi party was certainly a socialist party by work, Volkswagen is an example of the government delivering for the welfare of people.

[TECSHARE]

Heh.

I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.

But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't.

Yet that is literally the exact same argument you are making, also known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[coins4commies]

Its almost as if every country is different and no two governments are identical even if they share one word in their name. Bizarre!

[KingScorpio]

Party principles of the German Workers Party from 1913.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721

Party principles of the National Socialist Workers Party from 1918. (DAP changed their name to NSDAP)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034

Party principles from the first National Socialist party in the Reich (from 1918.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323636#msg53323636

Strasser program
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53326816#msg53326816

Some random quotes
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323521#msg53323521

Note:
Edited some of these posts moving my replies downwards so it would be easier to read through the OP.

there is fundamentally no difference between a party and a religious nobility both are oligarchies ruling the masses over the sphere they claim of.

[Oxstone]

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

Read this

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 was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

No, the government was Adolf Hitler and anyone he gave power to. The means of production were not collectively controlled they were controlled by one man.

That's not collective control of means of production hence not socialism.

[Balthazar]

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

<...>

There is another funny catch in such kind of statements. Any country, including the USA, has a set of special legislations for major disasters, e.g. like being in a state of war with powerful enemy. These laws are usually authorizing the government to expropriate any wortly assets in case if that is required to either achieve advantage over the enemy or save lives.

So, considering his own words, it seems like iluvbitcoins truly believes that US was a socialist country during the civil war and Abraham Lincoln was serving as its Führer. I suppose there is no need to make any extended comment for such a nonsense.

[TECSHARE]

Funny how to socialists, socialism is a seemingly amorphous term changed to fit the needs of any specific scenario needed, not being socialism any time it fails, and being socialism any time something positive is accomplished.

[Oxstone]

Funny how to socialists, socialism is a seemingly amorphous term changed to fit the needs of any specific scenario needed, not being socialism any time it fails, and being socialism any time something positive is accomplished.

How so?

Never changed the definition of the term.

Socialism is when you have a society where means of productions are collectively possessed.

That's all. I don't see a debate here. Only you and iluvbitcoin trying to fit the Nazis inside this definition, which is obviously difficult yeah ^^

[TECSHARE]

Funny how to socialists, socialism is a seemingly amorphous term changed to fit the needs of any specific scenario needed, not being socialism any time it fails, and being socialism any time something positive is accomplished.

How so?

Never changed the definition of the term.

Socialism is when you have a society where means of productions are collectively possessed.

That's all. I don't see a debate here. Only you and iluvbitcoin trying to fit the Nazis inside this definition, which is obviously difficult yeah ^^

Good of you to unilaterally declare there is no debate. It is amazing that no matter how many times socialism tried to acheive this goal of "collective possession of production" and fails, the failure itself is touted as the justification of why it is not socialism. Socialism is nothing but a means to the end of totalitarianism. Your naive fantasies of collectivization are nothing but a conduit for delivering dictatorship as is inevitably the result any time socialism is tried, every moment in between touted as the success of socialism while its failures are never socialism. By your own metric the USSR was socialism. Mao's China was socialism. Shit, even China today is socialism according to this metric. Socialists are relativist retards who have no actual principles but the ones that sound good in any given argument, because they believe the ends justifies the means of their utter bullshit.

[iluvbitcoins]

Heh.

I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.

But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't.

Do you have any argumentation behind those words?

Socialists is a vague word. In a broad sense every modern government are socialist.
Socialism differs from communism basically in the matter of ownership and religion.
Nazi party was certainly a socialist party by work, Volkswagen is an example of the government delivering for the welfare of people.

Today all western countries employ a model which is best described with a term 'mixed-economy'. We use the private market with a heavy usage of wellfare programs and goverment redistribution through taxation. It's a mix of socialism and capitalism. Countries run on the market and use it to run some of those programs.

Its almost as if every country is different and no two governments are identical even if they share one word in their name. Bizarre!

They were a lot more simmilar than we were taught.

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

Read this

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 was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

No, the government was Adolf Hitler and anyone he gave power to. The means of production were not collectively controlled they were controlled by one man.

That's not collective control of means of production hence not socialism.

By that sort of reasoning the USSR wasn't socialism, China wasn't socialism, Cambodia wasn't socialism, Albania wasn't socialism, Cuba wasn't socialism, 0 countries in the world had socialism.
Which country would you describe as socialist?

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

<...>

There is another funny catch in such kind of statements. Any country, including the USA, has a set of special legislations for major disasters, e.g. like being in a state of war with powerful enemy. These laws are usually authorizing the government to expropriate any wortly assets in case if that is required to either achieve advantage over the enemy or save lives.

So, considering his own words, it seems like iluvbitcoins truly believes that US was a socialist country during the civil war and Abraham Lincoln was serving as its Führer. I suppose there is no need to make any extended comment for such a nonsense.

We live in capitalist countries that employ lots of socialist policies, but in the major pictures most of the country is run by the private market.
We're a mixed economy, and so is the case with the event you described.

[iluvbitcoins]

"In these sad times it is exceptionally comforting to see many Parisian workers talking to German soldiers as friends, in the street or at the corner café. Well done, comrades, and keep it up, even if it displeases some of the middle classes - as stupid as they are mischevious. The brotherhood of man will not remain forever a hope: it will become a living reality."

-L'Huminaté, 4 July 1940.

Source: The Lost Literature of Socialism by scholar and historian George G. Watson
L'Huminaté was the newspaper of the French Communist Party. Interestingly the paper still exists, formally independent but still closely tied to the Party.

The Times adopted a term Communazi to referr to the USSR and National Socialist Germany.

Facists given Istria, Zadar, Cres, Lošinj, Lastovo, Palagruža by the Treaty of Rapallo - 12th November 1920
Independent State of Croatia (facist) formed - 10th April 1941
National Socialists invade USSR - 22nd June 1941
1st partisan units formed in Croatia - 22nd June 1941

It's odd how those dates add up. It's almost as if they were okay with National Socialism until the nazis invaded USSR.

Another interesting thing to note is that Staljin ignored all warnings he received about the incoming German invasion until it hit them.
He had complete trust in Hitler.

After Hitler eliminated Strasser, Staljin said something along the lines "It's wonderful how that man deals with his opposition".
I believe he admired him.

[Oxstone]

By that sort of reasoning the USSR wasn't socialism, China wasn't socialism, Cambodia wasn't socialism, Albania wasn't socialism, Cuba wasn't socialism, 0 countries in the world had socialism.
Which country would you describe as socialist?

None, that's more or less the point you know?

What's funny is people making fun of the argument "it's not real socialism" while it's not the argument at all, the argument is "it's a dictatorship, not socialism".

And what's even funnier is to see people like you or TECSHARE giving a definition of socialism, not being able to apply this definition to said country and still wanting to put the word socialism on it xD

That's not difficult science, you have a definition with precise criterias, you apply it to a situation and see if the situation fits the definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Was it the case in USSR? Is it the case in China? Or in Nazi Germany?

No.

So those countries are not socialist countries unless you have another definition of socialism. But contrary to what TECSHARE is lying about, I'm not the one with a bizarre definition of socialism, you were the one giving this definition.

After Hitler eliminated Strasser, Staljin said something along the lines "It's wonderful how that man deals with his opposition".
I believe he admired him.

Wahou, a dictator admiring another dictatore, that must mean they are both dictators no?

[iluvbitcoins]

By that sort of reasoning the USSR wasn't socialism, China wasn't socialism, Cambodia wasn't socialism, Albania wasn't socialism, Cuba wasn't socialism, 0 countries in the world had socialism.
Which country would you describe as socialist?

None, that's more or less the point you know?

What's funny is people making fun of the argument "it's not real socialism" while it's not the argument at all, the argument is "it's a dictatorship, not socialism".

And what's even funnier is to see people like you or TECSHARE giving a definition of socialism, not being able to apply this definition to said country and still wanting to put the word socialism on it xD

That's not difficult science, you have a definition with precise criterias, you apply it to a situation and see if the situation fits the definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Was it the case in USSR? Is it the case in China? Or in Nazi Germany?

No.

So those countries are not socialist countries unless you have another definition of socialism. But contrary to what TECSHARE is lying about, I'm not the one with a bizarre definition of socialism, you were the one giving this definition.

After Hitler eliminated Strasser, Staljin said something along the lines "It's wonderful how that man deals with his opposition".
I believe he admired him.

Wahou, a dictator admiring another dictatore, that must mean they are both dictators no?

They did collectively control the economy, what the hell are you on about?
Even if for some bizarre reason countries that collectively control the economy from a central entity aren't socialist the leaders actively wanted to implement socialism and each time they tried, it resulted in mass deaths.

So, if a hundred leaders throughout the world call themselves socialist and fail to build your perfect version of socialism, how do we know anyone who calls himself socialist is actually going to create that utopia? If every single person who tried it failed already. We don't have 1 example. We have a 100.

It's bizzare how people are going to call Norway socialist because of it's healthcare but USSR is apparently not socialist hahah

[KingScorpio]

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

[iluvbitcoins]

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

If Russia is capitalist why did it invade Ukraine?
If Serbia is capitalist why did it invade Kosovo?
If Austria-Hungary is a monarchy why did it invade Serbia?
National Socialists didn't produce nearly enough oil and needed the oil fields in Ukraine and the Caucuses to power their war machine.
After the Soviets eliminated half of their generals in the purges,  their military was terrible. The most capable were killed.
Hitler saw how weak the Soviet army was in their invasion of Finland.
They suffered terrible defeats at the hands of a few Finns. He considered the resource rich region to be easy pray, especially after he absolutely destroyed Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia with their new blitzkrieg type of warfare. Entire countries crumbled in less then 2 weeks.

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

That literally doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is a voluntarly system of cooperation between consenting individuals.
There's nothing voluntaristic here. It's  implication of force. Statism.

[KingScorpio]

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

If Russia is capitalist why did it invade Ukraine?
If Serbia is capitalist why did it invade Kosovo?
If Austria-Hungary is a monarchy why did it invade Serbia?
National Socialists didn't produce nearly enough oil and needed the oil fields in Ukraine and the Caucuses to power their war machine.
After the Soviets eliminated half of their generals in the purges,  their military was terrible. The most capable were killed.
Hitler saw how weak the Soviet army was in their invasion of Finland.
They suffered terrible defeats at the hands of a few Finns. He considered the resource rich region to be easy pray, especially after he absolutely destroyed Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia with their new blitzkrieg type of warfare. Entire countries crumbled in less then 2 weeks.

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

That literally doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is a voluntarly system of cooperation between consenting individuals.
There's nothing voluntaristic here. It's  implication of force. Statism.

ever heard of currency imperialism? every national central bank does that, including the usa.
capitalists need wage slaves. the moment other capitalists rise up and take away parts of their financial sovereignty the older capitalists lose some of their power

besides that capitalist usa also invaded and annexed regions
capitalism doesnt mean peace and democracy it means seeking to empower a banking cartel, as much as possible also at the expense of other and their freedom, communism/marxism is doing the same btw.

for example american capitalism discriminates nonamerican capitalism and vice versa.

[iluvbitcoins]

ever heard of currency imperialism? every national central bank does that, including the usa.
capitalists need wage slaves. the moment other capitalists rise up and take away parts of their financial sovereignty the older capitalists lose their power

besides that capitalist usa also invaded and annexed regions
capitalism doesnt mean peace and democracy it means seeking to empower a banking cartel, as much as possible also at the expense of other and their freedom, communism/marxism is doing the same btw.

Who uses coercion in order to enforce that monopoly?
It is the state, not the private market.

It's the centrally managed entity that is funded by forceful theft of its citizens.

They are statists.
They didn't earn that money, it's not their money.
It's money they got through theft of its citizens (taxation).

Correlating a centrally planned entity with capitalism is absurd.

free market
noun
noun: free market; plural noun: free markets; modifier noun: free-market

    an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses

[KingScorpio]

ever heard of currency imperialism? every national central bank does that, including the usa.
capitalists need wage slaves. the moment other capitalists rise up and take away parts of their financial sovereignty the older capitalists lose their power

besides that capitalist usa also invaded and annexed regions
capitalism doesnt mean peace and democracy it means seeking to empower a banking cartel, as much as possible also at the expense of other and their freedom, communism/marxism is doing the same btw.

Who uses coercion in order to enforce that monopoly?
It is the state, not the private market.

It's the centrally managed entity that is funded by forceful theft of its citizens.

Those are not capitalists, they are statists.
They didn't earn that money, it's not their money.
It's money they got through taxation from their subjects.

free market
noun
noun: free market; plural noun: free markets; modifier noun: free-market

    an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses

so you want to run american economy without a state, you must be some kind of a savage anarchist, who is going to provide education, defense and police? who is going to be the capitalist of those people in america currently its a jewish ran banking cartel, but what do you want? you want to work for gold? thats not reliable, for foreign currencies? cryptos?

get ready to feel what capitalism in truth is. its chaos. and competition between individuals for financial sovereignty. no more professional jewish market managment for americans.

[iluvbitcoins]

so you want to run american economy without a state, you must be some kind of a savage anarchist, who is going to provide education, defense and police? who is going to be the capitalist of those people in america currently its a jewish ran banking cartel, but what do you want? you want to work for gold? thats not reliable, for foreign currencies? cryptos?

get ready to feel what capitalism in truth is. its chaos. and competition between individuals for financial sovereignty. no more professional jewish market managment for americans.

I didn't say what I want, I said goverments are centrally planned and have nothing to do with the private market.
Capitalism is a system of voluntary cooperation between consenting individuals. Goverment does not fall into that equation because of it's threat of force.
I didn't say we should abolish our mixed economy goverment. I said how things stand.

But your questions are funny though.
If the goverment was providing you with food, you'd ask "who's going to provide food?", if it was providing water, you'd say "who's going to provide water?" like those things wouldn't exist without the threat of violence mandated by the goverment.

Just because goverment does something, you think that thing can't be done without it.
Astonishing.

The banks run a fractional reserve banking system only because the goverments have decided to issue a guarantee on their reserves.
They only have 17% of the money deposited on their accounts in reality, but they lend all of it because it just switches accounts and becomes a number rather than a value. You do know that this fractional reserve banking system came down crumbling in 1933 and The Great Depression but do you know what we did about it? We guaranteed the banks reserves with tax payer money if they go crumbling down again.
The state supported the fractional reserve banking after it was supposed to disappear in 1933 like every other ponzi scheme that existed.