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.
