NatSoc

Excluding the Lehi, is Fascism inherently anti-Semitic or just anti-elitist and most elites happen to be kikes

>Can someone please explain to me the difference between Socialism and National Socialism economically?
Sure. Its wrong when liberals want it, but perfectly fine when nazi's want it.

national socialism still allows a hierarchy. Rich people are still rich, poor people are still poor.

The intention of marxian socialism is to achieve equality. So when they take from the rich, it's actually an attempt to impoverish them, and when they give to the poor, it's an attempt to lift them up. National socialism still allows a natural heirarchy, there is still rich and poor. But taxes and benefits are calculated as to what will benefit the nation as a whole.

So for example, higher taxes on the rich might make sense, simply because they have more to contribute to the nation. It's not to punish them or anything.
That's also the logic behind the eugenics policies. It's done in the interest of the nation as a whole, not to selectively harm any given individual, or achieve some ideological outcome

National socialism was whatever Hitler wanted it to be

What was taxation like in Nazi Germany

Attached: b1fa4b0b-ee89-45f6-9715-0ee68e155d44.jpg (500x353, 44K)

NS identified Jews as a parasitic group that infiltrates and subverts its host country. Jews take the power positions and then abuse them for the gain of their own group.

It depends on what you define as elite. Elite in the sense of great individual achievements that benefited Germans in general was definitely encouraged. Thus, the SS or NAPOLA.

Attached: ED534F43-58CF-42F7-BF0D-2110D5AC0AF2.png (490x437, 264K)

In other words, what white men are when they don’t get influenced by Jews to be greedy and fuck over their neighbor to make money.

NS strived to mitigate poverty, for example by creating useful work in the first place (Hitler created millions of valuable jobs), but also through ‘Winterhilfswerk‘ to help poor people. Also, settlements were supported with beautiful houses.

Imagine a country that does not invite millions of third worlders, but does encourages eugenics and uses the taxes to actually benefit its own people.

Attached: 301929BE-26F3-4F7C-B2F1-FB63F743F148.jpg (450x647, 105K)

Socialism is a generic buzzword that was popular in Europe for a while. Pretty much every political party for a while was some kind of Socialist party, it doesn't actually mean anything. Retards will tell you that Socialism means shit like government controlling the means of production, but those people are just idiots.
The difference between Socialism and National Socialism is that Socialism is just a buzzword that doesn't mean anything, there are no clearly defined rules of socialism, one person's socialism is not going to look anything like someone else's socialism. National Socialists on the other hand had their goals and policies stated clearly, it was a political party and you can find out everything about their policies.

You need to stop obsessing with labels and look at the actual policies. It doesn't matter if they called themselves National Socialists or German Party 1488. It's just a label. Politics are all about optics and branding. The NatSocs could have called themselves literally anything else, they could have been the Green Party, and you'd be here asking what the difference between Green Parties and the German Green Party are. The question misses the point.

NatSoc love UBI
Soc hate UBI

Attached: yangblacksun.jpg (1910x1078, 892K)

In theory, there isn't one. In practice, 1930s Germany was not textbook capitalist nor socialist, they were economically pragmatic based on circumstance. Hitler clearly wasn't 100% dedicated to the socialist aspect given he purged high ranking far-left members of the Nazi Party who were calling for a 'revolution' to divide wealth equally. I suspect the 'socialist' was just in 'National Socialism' to appeal to the masses or for idealism, it was definitely the 'nationalist' party that was important.

But since National Socialism has only really been practiced in name once, it could be anything in practice.

Thanks based Latvian

This is correct. Hitler didn't found the party, he joined the party and ran against other socialist parties. Hitler had the choice to join socialist party number 1, socialist party number 2, socialist party number 3, (((communist))) party and the nationalist socialist party. He chose the nationalist party.
The party was the platform Hitler used to achieve what he wanted for the party. Hitler didn't wake up one day and decide that he is socialist now and that Germany needs to be a socialist state. The party was a vehicle to save his country.
In Murica you see the same things, except there's only two viable parties. These people do not join the republican or the democrat party because they love a republic or democracy, they are using these parties as a vehicle for their agenda.

Amazing, truly a genius

Socialism = International with no ties to the local region (no better than corporate capitalism)

National Socialism = based on the identity and needs of the people in a specific region

Hitler was a worker himself who lived for some time in poverty and sometimes slept with a hungry stomach. He definitely saw the social side and wanted to improve the situation for other workers. At the front in WW 1 he learnt that Germans are all one and that they need to help each other.

There were many other parties to join (for example Zentrum), but he joined the NSDAP because it matched his own values/views. NS is a holistic world view that covers all areas of life in a consistent and reasonable manner.

Nationalism (or national socialism) is just the use of both socialism and capitalism to the extent that it is good for the nation. It rejects socialism and capitalism that is bad for the nation.

Attached: Political Compass15.jpg (1890x1890, 2.19M)

takes what works from socialism based on the needs of the nation and still not rejecting capitalism

He joined the German workers party back when it was very socialist and populist. Hitler changed the party when he became its leader. He made it more capitalistic and open to business. I believe deep down Hitler always kept the old tenets of the German workers party, he wanted to create a far more equal and meritocratic society.

It is more than just that. He completely removes the poisonous Jewish element. Also, he adds racial homogeneity and eugenics, while also encouraging high culture.

Attached: 71C5D41C-35CD-477C-9C1D-A673C30DBAF0.jpg (2140x1460, 624K)

Those things are included in socialism when its good for the nation and capitalism when its good for the nation. Nationalism is inherently socialistic. Socialism that is not nationalist means parasitism. All you need to do is make socialism nationalist and it precludes removal of parasites.

You know it's true when a jew says it

>In Murica you see the same things, except there's only two viable parties
That's how every country on the planet works I think. Some states may start out governing by a textbook specific ideology but eventually they become less specific in their adherence to the ideology & they start to lean towards governance based on pragmatism. Perfect example is from Mao's China governed by textbook communism to today's Chinese Communist Party, which is still officially in power in name only, and today may as well be called the Party of China, as they care just as much about keeping their culture free of European style communism as they do of national socialism.

What nazi Germany actually did
>put all resources into rearmament
>people became meatlets because of it
>fucked over small businesses
>created kike mefo bills
>got into debt because of it
>"how are we going to pay for it?"
>"well when we accomplish our autistic lebensraum dreams we'll be able to"
>controlled prices and agriculture
>started rationing like rats from 39
Basically it was a big larp of doing whatever works to achieve Hitlers deluded dreams, it didn't work and fucked white people over forever.

In the Third Reich, the Market was used for the allocation of almost all private goods, resources and capital. The state either directly owned or directly managed the output goals of the Armaments industry (to prevent War Profiteering that occurred in WWI), it owned the central bank and banking system in general (yet not every specific Bank), which was of course the greatest sin they could've committed.
Also National Socialism is a form of Socialism. If you want to properly differentiate between the two, then use the specific relevant label for the variation (Nordic Socialism, Marxist Socialism, Guild Socialism, etc.). The current automatic definition of Socialism (State ownership of economy) is the Marxist definition. Marx however did not invent the word, and should not have the monopoly on defining it.

National Socialism is explicitly anti-semitic, but Ultranationalism in general (of which Italian Fascism and German National Socialism are localized variations of) is only implicitly anti-semitic. It will not allow for the subversion of the national interests to any economic class, and places the wellbeing of the nation over dogmatic economic ideology or personal gain. In that sense it rejects everything the jews stand for and act like as a whole group, without directly calling them out (most of the time, anyway).

Low personal income tax rates (~13.7%) but relatively high Corporate tax rates (~40%). It was the world's first real, actually so-called "progressive" tax rate, in that those who made all the profits payed the greater share, while also getting the better conditions (a fair trade). Social Capital was prioritized over Economic capital. Since the Third Reich operated a form of Autarky, you either didn't do things the state directed you from doing or you weren't able to operate. In the current Globalized system, this is entirely impossible.

Socialism: We give your money to niggers
Nat Socialism: We give your money to our own people

i think fascism and natsoc is perfect

Attached: 1559642867574.jpg (424x395, 50K)

Marxist Socialism = Worker control over the means of production
National Socialism = All resources and labor are put to benefit for the nation
The word "Socialism" seems to have a closer meaning to "pro-social" for National Socialists.

From "Faith and Action":
archive.org/details/FaithAndAction
Socialism means: "The common good before the individual good."

Socialism means: "Think not of yourself, but of the whole, of the people and the state."

Socialism means: "Not the same for everyone, but to each his own."

These sentences make clear what we call "German socialism." No one is a socialist who
does not live according to them. §A new order grows from these sentences. The sentence
"To each his own" has killed the "mass," the slogan of Marxism, and replaced it with the
"community." Every community grows around a leader. He is the center of its order,
which forms around him. A number of these leaders form a larger community, and stand
around their leader as a living order. It all grows from below — the number growing ever
smaller — like a pyramid, and finds its epitome in the Fuhrer of the Reich. All are bound
by the community. Each community is a living order. The whole, the great living order, is
the people's community. It binds inextricably person to person, leader to leader. It does
not give the same to everyone, but to each his own. It creates the socialist people in a

socialist state. §Each has his task in the community, given to him according to his gifts.
Never do all have the same task, but rather each his own. His task gives him a place in
the community, If he fulfills it completely, he wins the esteem of the others. He is happy,
even if his task is not large in the overall scheme of things. §Such communities grow in
the field, in assault troops, in artillery battalions, in submarines, in S.A. units.
the state.... there's a little more in the link, but character limit

>relatively high Corporate tax rates (~40%). It was the world's first real, actually so-called "progressive" tax rate
is AOC the new Hitler? no wonder Ann Coulter is giving her and Bernie sensei some cut of that slack.

A popular use of the term "socialism" was put forth by Oswald Spengler in about 1918. He was an extrenely influential academic in Germany during the interwar period. Hitler based a lot of his policy around Spenglers philosophy, ironically since Spengler himself wasnt a National Socialist.
Socialism to Spengler was based around the Prussian ideal of a meritocracy of service to the totality. Socialism was "social" based on the fact that it was predicated on society and its organization. He criticized Anglo "society" because it was only a collection of private individuals. He criticized Marxian socialism because it was based on the same materialistic, individualistic Anglo social system where personal value is based directly on material value.

Spengler also criticized the Anglo system because their political parties were always a stupid dichotomy whose interests were fundamentally thr same, just from a different side. No real change ever occured going from Labour to Tory or vice versa.

>whole world declares war on you
>put resources into war effort
Wow, sounds exactly like every other country mobilizing for war

Attached: 1548627706168.jpg (850x400, 65K)

National socialism uses corporatism.

>Spengler also criticized the Anglo system because their political parties
>No real change ever occured going from Labour to Tory
The irony is our modern two-party democracy & the concept of having two dominant political parties isn't even referenced in English law until the late 19th century, like 300-400 years after the 'parties' in the English Civil War & the Whig Party. Over time, it just sort of happened and we just fell into the trap of two-party democracy. Thinking about it, that happened to the Roman Republic too.

The English parliament in theory was meant to be dominated by independent MPs addressing the current issues of their constituencies and temporary political parties, coming and going through the ages, to respond to the current issues on a nationwide scale. The Prime Minister is meant to be picked by the Queen, nowhere in law does it say the Queen has to select the PM based on who got the most votes, but in an attempt to avoid being beheaded like the French royal family, the monarch just agreed to appoint the leader of which ever political party gets the most votes and that will always be Labour or Conservative.

Sounds like it has a lot of issues and Jews could easily take over.