!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WARNING...................This is a long read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fascism has taken different forms in different countries. Still doesn't change what the underlying theme is. Namely, collusion between big business and government.

I think you're confusing corporatism(a core concept of anti-materialist economic theory) with corporatocracy(namely, shilling for Jew corporations). Corporatism is a economic theory that tries to organize society into "corporates" (similar to trade unions) and is a form of National Syndicalism. The system closest to Corporatist economic theory is Tripartism. Essentially a reboot of Syndicalism. Sorelianism is a big influence. The main difference between Fascist and Marxist economic theory is that we reject the Marxist concept of Class conflict as we believe it further divides the Nation even more. There are some leftists who'll tell you that the biggest difference is on the notion of private property, they are largely incorrect, I'll expand on that later on.

You see, class conflict is inherently divisive. If allowed to spread as an idea, it will inherently cause a nation to turn to ruins, a utopia to turn into a dystopia. We reject that. Instead our ideology leads to friendship and collaboration between the proleteriat and the bourgeoisie. Rich capitalists who do not abide by the policy are sent to labor camps/concentration camps. As Fascism is based on immaterialist metaphysical values, i.e. spirituality, nation, race, etc, we do not need a economic theory. And that is the beauty of it. We do not have an economic theory because economics is not the end, it is just another means to reach it.(LPT: Fascism is not a political theory or an economic theory, it is a philosophy. The political and economics forms of it are basically real-world implementations suited to the philosophy). So in the end, class conflict is a economic theory, and it is divisive, and it is antithetical to every value of Fascism, which seeks to unite not divide.

Hitler distinguished real social policy as acknowledging the general welfare as the highest good, not special interests policies masquerading as social policies. He described Marxism, in contrast, as the politics of class hatred, of pitting the elements of society against one another:

To adopt class struggle as a political creed means to preach hate as your basic principle. “Expropriate the expropriators,” means raising envy to the level of an economic principle. Marxist “socialization” actually means the destruction of human leadership and the personality factor. It means substituting mass and materialism for the human spirit and for human achievement. We need introduce no further proof of the complete collapse of Marxist theory than the bankruptcy of the communist economic system in Russia. We need only consider the wretched mission of the German revolution of 1918.

Here again I would like to direct the attention of the reader to the fact that Marxist pseudo-socialism concerns everything except communalism and common sense. Marxism is not truly social, not organically oriented. Rather, it is mired in the deepest depths of political backwardness. It is stalled on the philosophical basis of the most crass individualism. It represents the chaotic construction of society with which we became familiar in our section on fundamental principles.

Marxism consists of nothing except a plurality of individuals, connected as such through feelings of hate and envy. Under Marxism, individuals are not connected in any organic or logical way to higher principles. Workers are not bound to the other half of society. It is no wonder the social problem cannot be solved in this way, because the answer of Marxism to the social question can be only hate and exploitation. Likewise, it is no wonder that a viable form of government cannot come about under Marxism. The only possible result of a Marxist "stock market revolt" is a pile of rubble.

Once again National Socialism calls Marxism by its rightful name: “stock market revolt.” Marxism is an out-and-out capitalistic deception. It is capitalistic because the culmination of the social chaos of individualistic society, its deadly flower and rotten fruit, are inevitably high finance and monopolism.

The ostensibly anti-capitalistic policies (referring to the so-called social policy of the present government) pretend to be socio-political in nature. Consider its relationship to Marxism and the class politics of the occupational organizations. In reality these policies are necessarily capitalistic. However, in the present government there is no effort to achieve social assimilation, no striving for a systematic and beneficial inclusion of competing classes under a higher concept of national unity. Rather, we are dealing with brutal, egotistical striving of the individual to better his own position at the expense of the rest of society. Capitalism and Marxism are one and the same! They are derived from the same philosophical basis.

We National Socialists are the principal opponents of both capitalism and Marxism. We are separated by a whole world, by entirely different concepts of society. For us, the general welfare of society is the highest good. We reject class dialectic, class struggle and class conceit.

Once again it is evident that our limited number of socio-political demands ignores many issues of the day. We do, however, address the really important problems and tasks of real social policy, which are of concern to all our countrymen.

Now let's talk property. I'm sure you have heard many Marxists screeching about how Fascism is """"""Capitalist"""""" due to not abolishing property. What those ADHD affected retards do not get is the Fascist definition of "property". I'll refer you to the 17th point of the 25 Points of the NSDAP

We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

National Socialism acknowledged and protected private property, provided it was honorably and lawfully acquired. But if land was illegally acquired or not administered in accordance with national welfare, then the state could acquire it. This provision stemmed from Jewish companies speculating in land:

A fundamental discussion cannot be presented here, but whoever understands the concept of work can have no doubt that the products of labor must accrue to the laborer. The worker cannot conceive that the results of his labor, or equivalent value, should belong to an incomprehensible generality. Neither can he understand that the fruits of his labor should go to one individual capitalist. From this necessarily evolves, within the genuine concept of work, the concept of private property.

After all, we are dealing here with ultimate concepts, as with the concept of Heimat. Heimat becomes real when one stands on his own land, when one's family is surrounded by its own property. One’s own strawberries, potatoes, vegetables, fruit from one’s own garden, simply taste better than commercially prepared meals served in large establishments.

He who does not know this longing for his own property, he who can not enjoy the pleasure of personal ownership, is either a rootless person of the inner city or a rootless capitalist who considers the property of working people as fair game -- someone who understands the financial art of expropriating other peoples property.

When property is acquired by capitalistic theft, there arises an insatiable greed for more property, preferably convertible property. Such behavior contrasts with that of Nordic man, who is characteristically modest.

Nordic man wants only what he can utilize. That person is not a real worker, who wants to build an ostentatious villa which he himself cannot utilize. Nordic man wants a simple cozy home of his own, but he wants to own it outright. He does not want to rent it, paying three or four times the value of the house in the course of his lifetime.

By contrast: the greedy Jew, the capitalist, does not want permanent ties to one place. His highest ideal is a large safe stuffed with stock certificates, bonds, mortgages, and debentures. His goal is wealth -- not wealth in real property, but wealth in mortgaged property of others. He does not labor; and yet he does not rest until he has possession of a certain amount of debenture paper. This allows him to wield the whip of interest over his “debtors” even though they are not really indebted to him. Our program will place limits on this situation.