all 9 comments

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's the way I view it. Preindustrial revolution the best way to steal a lot of wealth was to parlay favor with the two power groups in charge of Europe: the church and the royal families/aristocrats. Jews played these groups with usury, prostitution, poison, secret societies, etc, but never fully controlled them. Then the industrial revolution happened and an enourmous amount of wealth was pooled away from the aristocrats and elite families. These new uber wealthy merchant (mostly Jews) started to buy and scam their way into royal society and they quickly married into these families as well. At the peak of the industrial revolution Jews and royals were becoming the same people but were also being exposed to a new threat. The destabilizing force of global capitalism. Here are some of the issues:

-poor distribution of wealth -encouragement to fuck over your neighbors -financially arranged marriages (this was always a thing in history but became 'extreme' during the industrial revolution) -child labor -pollution -more power to banking/merchant class -Humans being treated as cogs -incentivized females into the workforce -long work hours (less time for family and spiritual life) -increased the birth rates of lower IQ people (more cheap food)

The list goes on. Marx was correct in many of his critiques of capitalism.

The working class have always had it rough but under capitalism/industrialism they also lost access to the land and a sense of autonomy and freedom that came with agrarian work. Working class whites started getting closer to slaves during the industrial revolution because of a major wealth distribution issue.

Socialism became the general political term for any system that opposed the dangers of capitalism (and still is). Socialism became a buzzword for any political party that claimed they would claw back the stolen wealth and redistribute it to the 'people'. This claw back movement was a threat to the new elite and they saw in marxism a way to make the new destructive forces of socialism get directed conveniently away from Jews and their money sources. They saw in marxism a way to get whites to fight eachother. It gave them a way to promote atheism and tear down old Jewish enemies like Christianity and pro white clerical structures.

National socialism on the other hand was a socialist system that would have clawed money out of the the Jewish merchant and Jewish/Jew'd royal hands. National socialism held the belief that most working class people all over the world hated the merchant class that sought to break their unique local national structures and ethnic communities. Japanese Nationalist, Latin Nationalists, Arab nationalists and many other rallied around Hitler's German National Socialism and the general nascent concept of international national socialism.

Hitler was absolutely a socialist but a socialist focused on his region and people. He wasn't willing to be bought out like so many political leaders are today. He had enough military connection and social skills that he bypassed all the safeguards that Jews put in place to keep nationalist ethnic populists from spoiling their financial hustles.

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. Nat-Soc & Fascist beliefs stemmed from the Prussian version of Socialism which was much different to the Marxist variant.

Both reject Capitalism, but National Socialists were as their name suggests, Nationalists whereas Marxists are Globalists. Simple.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depends on what exactly you mean by "socialist". The "modern definition" or leftist definition of socialism? Hell no. Basically zero connection, and in fact the inverse on many key points, not to mention almost no resemblance philosophically.

If you mean the somewhat more nebulous "right wing" definition of socialism (which is the one I subscribe to) then yes, they were. Essentially, from what I've seen and read, Hitler believed (in my opinion rightfully so), that the Left stole the concept of "socialism" from the right. In my view this was a concentrated effort to bury the old systems by essentially usurping them and changing the definitions of words that could be associated with them, but that's besides the point.

Socialism to some extent has always existed, as socialism is simply the result of a high-trust, empathetic, and united society: charity, unity, and a collective desire to allocate things most efficiently for the benefit of everyone. Ironically, despite hijacking the term, Leftists and liberals are incapable of creating anything even approximating socialism, because their evil ideologies cannot create trusting, stable, or well-meaning societies, only societies of slavery and suffering, the opposite of socialism.

While these aforementioned things that found "socialist" societies were, in the past, purely natural and organic, in the modern day, it is necessary to legislate them into being, unfortunately. This is why I think National Socialism and Fascism/Third Positionism more generally is the solution; regardless of the specific policies and plans to do so, these ideologies seek to re-establish an approximation of true socialism, to the benefit of the nation and its people.

Any truly nationalist society will eventually develop towards this point anyway, in my opinion, as if you truly love your nation and its people, and want the success and survival of them, then as a leader you'd naturally implement policies and enact legislation to help the nation prosper, as a nationalist businessman or industrialist you'd happily sacrifice profit and growth if it's necessary to help the nation flourish, and as a nationalist citizen you'd gladly surrender certain privileges or luxuries for the good of yourself, your family, and ultimately your nation. Obviously these are all the ideals, and every class, every sector, and every group will have outliers and those unwilling to cooperate. But nations at least approaching this ideal have existed in the past and I believe will exist in the future as well.

The truth is and always has been that Leftism and capitalism are both evil, Satanist machinations of the Jews and their Shabbos Goyim. Somewhat ironically, one can say that they are like a hammer and sickle, with the liberal hammer of capitalism smashing the old order of humanity and the sickle of Leftism cutting down any resistance or sprouting Third Positionist inclinations.

[–]CourtJester 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hitler merely adopted the socialist label in order to draw over socialists/communists into his ranks while driving away bourgeois intellectuals. It's also the reason why he included red in his flag design, in his own words, "The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement".

And he plainly stated that the full name of the Party "kept away all those heroes whose weapon is the sword of the spirit and all those whining poltroons who take refuge behind their so-called ‘intelligence’, as if it were a kind of shield."

Hitler consistently declined proposals from his subordinates for Germany's reconciliation with Soviets, citing how as long as they had a Jewish head, this was impossible. Yet he once told Ambassador William Dodd, "We are not primarily attacking the Jews, rather the Socialists and Communists. The United States has shut out such people. We did not do so. Therefore, we cannot be blamed if we now take measures against them."

The fact that Hitler expressed his relief that he had gone through with Operation Barbarossa after much deliberation speaks volumes. He wrote in a letter to Mussolini, "This partnership with the Soviet Union, in spite of the complete sincerity of the efforts to bring about a final conciliation, was nevertheless often irksome to me, for in some way or other it seemed to me to be a break with my whole origin, my concepts and my former obligations."

He also rejected plans and suggestions for promoting Russian nationalism and playing them off against Russian communists for ideological reasons.

But it accepts Fichtean socialism.


Fichte did not enjoy any prominence in Hitler's movement. Fichte was an eclectic, an intellectual pygmy, a diseased brain, a concept cripple, who had no original ideas of his own, but exploited Kant's discoveries for his own profit. (According to Goethe & Wagner, Schopenhauer & Nietzsche)

Hitler's philosophers were Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the latter whom he regarded as nearest to his movement. The only time Hitler acknowledged Fichte (as an anti-Semite, not as a great German philosopher, as he publicly did with Nietzsche) was in an early propagandist speech, a forgettable passing mention.

Fichte advocated for the German language as the only genuine one; Hitler regarded such language purists as the mortal enemies of German language.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Terms like Capitalism and Socialism don't really matter when Hitler's final goal was to create a race of super charged Aryans who are self-reliant.

This would have been even more true if Hitler lived long enough to learn about Artificial Intelligence. Money becomes obsolete in the future thanks to technology automating everything as we're seeing now.

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, not in any concrete way. National Socialism was a sort of semi-collectivist capitalism, operating practically as some hybrid between private and state capitalism. To an extent it simply did whatever was politically convenient or necessary in the realm of economics. The capitalist class was maintained although they became subservient to the state (not unlike the US et al). One of the primary reasons Germany lost the war was the unwillingness and/or inability to prepare or adapt the economy for a total war the way the Soviets could; this would have disrupted the semi capitalist system they operated under and might have compromised their political power if capitalists political and financial support shifted too far away from the party (they were subservient but still a powerful group who influence within the party). Nor was there any strong indication the party intended to move away from the capitalist system, if anything they seemed to be preparing post war Germany for a capitalist model. They also purged the party in earlier years of "actual" socialists, rejecting it as possible future for the party/Germany.

I find that thread and most definitions of "right socialism" to be fairly vague and the German state under Nationalism Socialism much more strongly resembled capitalism under wartime conditions than anything meaningfully distinct. Elements of collectivism and state control within Italy and Germany never really materialized into anything more substantial and I don't believe they were evolving in that direction but who knows with enough time. I suspect they would have eventually looked something like France or other "social democracies" in a post world war victory.

Bottom line is there was no ownership of the means of production, workers councils, vanguard workers movements etc in control of the state. The state "guided" the capitalist class but it was essentially still capitalist in production and ownership.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One of the primary reasons Germany lost the war was the unwillingness and/or inability to prepare or adapt the economy for a total war the way the Soviets could; this would have disrupted the semi capitalist system they operated under and might have compromised their political power if capitalists political and financial support shifted too far away from the party (they were subservient but still a powerful group who influence within the party). Nor was there any strong indication the party intended to move away from the capitalist system, if anything they seemed to be preparing post war Germany for a capitalist model. They also purged the party in earlier years of "actual" socialists, rejecting it as possible future for the party/Germany.

The USA was more Capitalist and it held a higher GDP than both Germany and the Soviets through every year of the war. Germany was also slightly ahead of the Soviets in several cases.

But the Soviets had the direct benefit of the U.S also supplying it with money, oil, material etc to make up for those short comings.

There was nothing a German economic model could have done to stop this.

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GDP is only loosely useful as a guide here. Germany had superior industrial capability to the USSR (especially including the combined Euro industry it directly or indirectly owned) yet it severely lagged behind the USSR in material production (tanks, planes, artillery etc) once the war began. By 1942, before lend lease had really significant impact, the USSR had already retooled and raced ahead of German war production. This can largely be chalked up to the USSRs central planning economic model that allowed them to relatively easily direct production as needed and recognizing much earlier the scale needed for "total war".

Conversely Germany was caught up in web of competing capitalist interests and the NSDAP was reluctant to commandeer industry because of how it would have affected the political-economic balance within Germany and their expectations that they would be able to return to a more "balanced" post war economy where private industry took the lead after victory in the East. A further complication was that German industry was less streamlined than Soviets and they built more complex equipment in general. By the time they became desperate enough in 44 to actually take the necessary industrial-economic steps for the total war they were actually in it was too late, they saw a large increase in war production (despite Allied bombings) but by that time the matter had already been decided - they were never going to catch up to the Soviet material already on the field.

While there were other constraints on Germany (chiefly oil production) if Germany had directed towards war production on the scale of the USSR in 1941 it would have been a much closer run war in the East at least. It's less about GDP and more about Germanys industrial failure to match their ambitions, hamstrung by the economic-political model and underestimation of the industrial scale needed to win the war.

[–]AlphixNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, I agree with you. Socialism's true definition is something like "any measure aimed at ensuring a fair distribution of newly created wealth". This would imply that the Bezos, Gates and Musk types of fortunes would not be possible, while the epidemic of homelessness we are now seeing in many cities in the USA would not be possible either.

But there has been a century-long psy-op to equate "socialism" with "Marxism", often using Marx' own words that "socialism is just a step towards communism" which is, and one might hope this would be obvious! - Communist propaganda. And yet, people are so brainwashed with this that they will call any policy that conforms to the aforementioned definition - COMMUNISM.

From that point on, socioeconomic thought becomes truncated and subtlety, lost. This has been a very astutely orchestrated Orwellian Newspeak operation that will have very far ranging consequences, since today even mentioning "wealth distribution" gets you branded a "socialist" which is a stand-in for FULL BLOWN COMMIE when in fact there are an almost infinite number of points on the unregulated, 100% pure capitalism to absolute communism axis.