Fascism

[bripat9643]

Then why do people study history? Should history be removed from the schools?
Do conservatives avoid history because they don't like historical facts? Do conservatives avoid other college disciplines?

The government teaches history because it wants the pro-government view of history rammed down everyone's throat. People subject their kids to this brainwashing only because they are naive about government.

 

[bripat9643]

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

Oh. The "left wing" historians are lying. Everyone prior to Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now a liar because they stated Fascism is a rightwing ideology. That's so convenient for the right!



A good article, again quoting reputable sources and authors as sources to it's claims: Fascism was not left-wing !!!. Like socialism, fascism isn't just an economic doctrine like you try to make it out to be and that is something economists aren't likely to see.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

• All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

• All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholders and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

• Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

• Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

• Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

• Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

• Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

• Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

• The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?


In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.


There were ambivalences and exceptions on both left and right, but the general trend is of disapproval on the left and approval on the right. Moreover, appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s was, at root, motivated by conservative fears of Bolshevism and the feeling that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils.


You can find some positive things uttered about Mussolini by the left-wing British press until 1924 or so, because the nature of Italian fascism was not yet clear and some people still believed fascism was a working-class phenomenon. But 1924 is a clear dividing line, because in that year a famous Italian socialist by the name of Matteotti was murdered by Mussolini’s regime and the destruction of the Italian left was in full swing.


...And I reiterate what I’ve said before : since there is not 150 years’ worth of fascist doctrinal literature as there is for Marxist writings, we can judge what is fascism primarily from practise. And, in practise, we have : nationalism, militarism, law-and-orderism, Church patronage, and business mercantilism. These are not practises historically associated with the left, but with the right.​

Posting ever more massive volumes of leftwing propaganda doesn't prove a thing. it's still nothing more than a pack of lies. The opinions of marxist history professors doesn't mean jack shit.

Blah blah blah from the one who endorses massive walls of rightwing propoganda.

Which ones are Marxist?

Howard Zinn, to name the most famous one. The chances are 90% that any history professor you name is a marxist. The rest are "liberal." There are no conservative history professors.

Zinn wasn't a source in - the sources quoted in the article included:

Lawrence Squeri
Albert Szymanski
Christoph Bucheim
Jonas Scherner

Are they Marxists?

More than likely.

 

[regent]

Then why do people study history? Should history be removed from the schools?
Do conservatives avoid history because they don't like historical facts? Do conservatives avoid other college disciplines?

The government teaches history because it wants the pro-government view of history rammed down everyone's throat. People subject their kids to this brainwashing only because they are naive about government.

Sounds like the states have little say about education in their state? Could states remove history from their curriculum? Should they? Seems like most history is taught about the same and few, lf any, recognize it as brainwashing.
Wonder why historians want to brainwash citizens?
























aacadamies.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why do people study history? Should history be removed from the schools?
Do conservatives avoid history because they don't like historical facts? Do conservatives avoid other college disciplines?

The government teaches history because it wants the pro-government view of history rammed down everyone's throat. People subject their kids to this brainwashing only because they are naive about government.

Sounds like the states have little say about education in their state? Could states remove history from their curriculum? Should they? Seems like most history is taught about the same and few, lf any, recognize it as brainwashing.
Wonder why historians want to brainwash citizens?

aacadamies.

States should remove government from their education. Historians on the government payroll are nothing more than paid propagandists.

 

[regent]

Then why do people study history? Should history be removed from the schools?
Do conservatives avoid history because they don't like historical facts? Do conservatives avoid other college disciplines?

The government teaches history because it wants the pro-government view of history rammed down everyone's throat. People subject their kids to this brainwashing only because they are naive about government.

Sounds like the states have little say about education in their state? Could states remove history from their curriculum? Should they? Seems like most history is taught about the same and few, lf any, recognize it as brainwashing.
Wonder why historians want to brainwash citizens?

States should remove government from their education. Historians on the government payroll are nothing more than paid propagandists.

On what payroll are most historians on: federal, state, local or what?
And what of the service academies, they are directly under federal control, should they not be allowed to teach government?

 

[bripat9643]

Then why do people study history? Should history be removed from the schools?
Do conservatives avoid history because they don't like historical facts? Do conservatives avoid other college disciplines?

The government teaches history because it wants the pro-government view of history rammed down everyone's throat. People subject their kids to this brainwashing only because they are naive about government.

Sounds like the states have little say about education in their state? Could states remove history from their curriculum? Should they? Seems like most history is taught about the same and few, lf any, recognize it as brainwashing.
Wonder why historians want to brainwash citizens?

States should remove government from their education. Historians on the government payroll are nothing more than paid propagandists.

On what payroll are most historians on: federal, state, local or what?
And what of the service academies, they are directly under federal control, should they not be allowed to teach government?

It doesn't matter. They are all sucking on the government tit.

 

[kaz]

....you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist.

Fuck you, cock sucking dick. ....dick wad

Awesome rant. Take any meds for that condition?

You're the one who needs medication with all that butt hurt over your beloved Hillary going down in flames leading you to your endless chanting of everyone's a racist.

Let's discuss your racism. So why do you think blacks can't compete with whites and need the bar lowered? Is it inferior breeding, Archie Bunker?

What does this have to do with anything?

I always like the liberal cluelessness

Liberals: Let's discuss your racism

Response: No, let's discuss your racism

Liberals: What? What does that have to do with anything?

You want to talk about the "right" and racism, yet it's liberals who think blacks can't make it on their own. They need more handouts and the bar lowered or they can't make it. That is the only widespread racism left in this country, and it's in the left

 

[kaz]

What have I said that is a lie or deceit?

What you call "lies and deceit" I call disagreeing.

Then why can't you answer the question asked

1) Where did Hitler say he was against socialISM. He said he was for it repeatedly

2) How does killing socialists prove he wasn't one? Practically everyone in Europe was socialist by then and they still are

I have answered that. When he refused to collectivize or impose the socialist political agenda - then don't you think that indicates he is turning against socialism?

Or, how about these quotes (which I've posted before):

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

Socialism is AT IT'S HEART - about elevating the working class - not instilling a new elite ruling class. (even though in reality, it did not work out that way). Hitlers ideology above absolutely opposes any sort of idea of class equality.

Of course he collectivized, what do you think government control is? All collectivization at the national level is government. The only collectivization that has ever worked are voluntary associations where the people can leave any time and those are not national governments, just communities. How does that makes sense? All industry was under his control, it was entirely collectivized.

And you need to be more specific what you mean by "social agenda." He was a socialist, the economy was government controlled, again, what does that mean?

And seriously, you think in socialist systems that unions can overrule government? You actually believe that? Really?

"Social Agenda" - pretty much what is defined here: What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

It's more than just an economic program. According to Marx, it was a transitional stage to communism.

The ONLY thing Nazi's had in common with it was a degree of government control over the econony but there was no pretense at "people's control".

Which is why I said the "real" difference. There is no people's control in socialism. Even the Dutch don't believe they can change government control over their economy. There is no real difference, my point exactly.

Fascism is the same as socialism other than the marketing. That is not a real difference. Businesses are controlled as people are controlled in both fascism and socialism. It's the same

 

[kaz]

....you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist.

Fuck you, cock sucking dick. ....dick wad

Awesome rant. Take any meds for that condition?

You're the one who needs medication with all that butt hurt over your beloved Hillary going down in flames leading you to your endless chanting of everyone's a racist.

Let's discuss your racism. So why do you think blacks can't compete with whites and need the bar lowered? Is it inferior breeding, Archie Bunker?

What does this have to do with anything?

He's another one of you, his argument went straight to right wingers are racist.

So you seriously don't get when someone comes in a conversation talking about how we're a bunch of racists and what my saying let's discuss your racism has to do with anything? Really?

I know you said that as a poster, not a mod. I'm not saying that you're abusing any power, you aren't using any. Just want to be clear you realize I'm not misinterpreting that. But you are another race whore who thinks every discussion involves racism, and you're pure as the driven snow. I see zero evidence in real life there is no racism on the left or that there is any more racism on the right than the left.

Pardon me for being blunt but where the fuck do you get that from? Broad brush maybe? Racism is an INDIVIDUAL matter above all

I like the butt hurt when you then turn around and say exactly ... what I did. You said racism is "right wing." I said no, it's not right or left, it's distributed. Now you just agreed with me that it's individual. Try to remember what side you're on

It's just that every fucking conversation I'm having with liberals right now is about racism, none of those were taken to racism by me and I'm completely fucking sick of it. So I'm banning myself for awhile until I get over it. Maybe that's tomorrow, maybe not. Don't know. But I would like to discuss something OTHER than racism and I'm sure the fuck not getting it here

I don't think I've ever discussed racism with you...just saying.

By the way. I get tired of being labeled unAmerican, Terrorist supporter, etc.

It's the same as the topics we've been discussing. You believe your own marketing hype, not the reality of what you are doing. BTW, note you don't allow anyone who disagrees with you to do that ...

 

[kaz]

You're the one who needs medication with all that butt hurt over your beloved Hillary going down in flames leading you to your endless chanting of everyone's a racist.

Let's discuss your racism. So why do you think blacks can't compete with whites and need the bar lowered? Is it inferior breeding, Archie Bunker?

Obviously you are confused, but that's understandable since you are severely cracked.

I disliked Hillary, never supported her and am glad she lost.

I'm against Affirmative Action. All human beings are 99.5% identical genetically. The major difference is cultural. All Americans should be given the same opportunities. "Special rules for special people" is anti-American.

Any other lies you want to make up about me? What do the voices in your head tell you to do?

Funny how you get labeled

I actually came to like her or at least her ideas. More so then Trump.

I also think affirmative action was necessary at the time - not so much now.

Agreed. Usually by the nutjobs, so it's not bothersome.

Hillary? I found her to be duplicitous and didn't trust her. I also was totally against her ideas on the Second Amendment.

Agreed. Right now, Affirmative Action and other "special programs for special people" are headed for running forever. Let's hope this administration and Congress fix it.

So you could only disagree with the socialist on the second amendment ... LOL ...

 

[kaz]

Again this is why I'm just tired of you. Your own quotes said he killed socialists WHO OPPOSED HIM. And you keep ignoring that and repeating your canard he killed them because they were socialists, not because they opposed him.

Never have you presented a quote from him saying he hates socialism.

It's irrelevant anyway since he controlled the economy and was by definition a socialist

Did you miss the part where he also refused to go along with socialism and collectivism? Did you miss that? And, after he killed those who opposed them - he tossed the rest in concentration camps - did you miss that as well? I posted a quote where he specifically did not want to go full socialism and at that point - parted ways with the socialists and formed his own ideology? Did you miss that as well?

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

He was a national socialist in the same way North Korea was a democratic republic.

By the way - Stalin didn't care about any other country either.

I like it, I keep asking how Communists are different than fascists and the first time you really addressed it, you pointed out they are the same ...

And Hitler was a socialist like North Korea is a democratic republic? So Hitler didn't control the economy? He was the "opposite?" Wow, you're just swimming in the kool-aid, Honey

 

[kaz]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George Reisman


My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

Name the unions with power in communist countries.

And again, prove that the blacks in Chicago that kill blacks aren't blacks since your go to argument continues to be he hated socialists because he killed them

 

[kaz]

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

He was a national socialist in the same way North Korea was a democratic republic.

By the way - Stalin didn't care about any other country either.

No....hitler controlled the economy of Germany, the German government controlled the economy making it socialist.....North korea does not have democratic institutions...you are wrong on both counts...

You would only be right if socialism was soley an economic theory and, if the means of production were owned and controlled by the people or for the people through the state. Not the case with Nazi Germany.

When you say politics, the political part is the belief that government should control industry, which is redundant with that government controls industry. That view can be anywhere from mob rule (Democratic) to Communist, but the belief government should control industry is their political view. No duh since only government can implement a socialist system since only government can use force to compel people to make decisions against their own interest.

Again, I spent 9 months in the Netherlands from June 15 to March 16 and the people cannot change nor do they believe they can change their socialist government. They recognize their future is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats and when you discuss change they just shrug their shoulders and say it isn't going to happen. That socialism is the people controlling anything is just a leftist self delusion

 

[Frankeneinstein]

• "Powerful and Continuing Nationalism"...not to be confused with patriotism or just plain old love of country, but otherwise true

• "disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights"...but not the disdain for privilege disguised as human rights

• "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause"...except when Trump is that enemy and is the rallying cry to unite against

• "Supremacy of the Military"...true, but that has been true of almost every great leader

• "Rampant Sexism"...as an atheist just let me say...OH FOR GOD SAKE

• "Controlled Mass Media"...true, and in contrast our "mass media" has control of a political party and is obsessed with bringing the other party under its control

• "Obsession with National Security"...true

• "Religion and Government are Intertwined"...true

• "Corporate Power is Protected"...true

• "Labor Power is Suppressed"...true

• "Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts"...the "Arts" really should be defined here...and the suppression disdain of intellectuals would better define left wing communists, than a right wing fascist...Fascist Germany leaned heavily on their intellectuals to advance society, and when they fell both the U.S. and Soviets went into a mad scramble to bring them under control and Hitler was both a wannabe artist and author and later on one of the greatest art thieves in history...while the communists had no use for anyone not plying their craft for the good of the state...things like ballet and opera were almost exclusively the dominion of the ruling class.

• "Obsession with Crime and Punishment"...very true

• "Rampant Cronyism and Corruption"...very true

• "Fraudulent Elections"...true

 

[Divine Wind]

So you could only disagree with the socialist on the second amendment ... LOL ...

Incorrect, but that's not unusual for someone so cracked in their thinking.

 

[kaz]

So you could only disagree with the socialist on the second amendment ... LOL ...

Incorrect, but that's not unusual for someone so cracked in their thinking.

That was the only disagreement you listed. And note you keep cutting the quotes we are discussing so you can hide from them

 

[2aguy]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George Reisman


My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

Name the unions with power in communist countries.

And again, prove that the blacks in Chicago that kill blacks aren't blacks since your go to argument continues to be he hated socialists because he killed them

Thank you. Well put.....

Excellent points all around. Thank you for pointing them out.

 

[Divine Wind]

That was the only disagreement you listed. And note you keep cutting the quotes we are discussing so you can hide from them

So, from that you jumped to the conclusion it was the only disagreement. Fascinating.

Cutting quotes? Another one of your leaps of logic. Is there really any wonder why I think you are cracked?