hey guys, requesting that picture that explains why the nazis

>>1978496
Capitalism is an Albino invention to make sure we never get to the top. Get fucked.

>>1978496
The nazis weren't capitalists. They were national SOCIALISTS.

>>1978507
Nazis were dumbasses but i'll admit they were right about a "masterrace" it just wasn't the Albino race.

File: Ernst Röhm.jpg (34KB, 347x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 347x480px

>>1978507
Real national socialism has never been tried.
The true, left-wing part of the movement was destroyed by Hitler in 1934, and replaced with a corrupt capitalist dictatorship.

File: 1477394073559.jpg (80KB, 960x454px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x454px

>>1978496
they weren't capitalists or socialists

>>1978496
They allied with conservatives in beating up socialists.
They forbade non-government syndicates and kept government-led syndicates intentionally weak (they existed just to show a favourable face to the workers).
They never imposed serious restrictions on private companies (in fact, large private companies formed the backbone of their economy).
Only in the late war did they impose economic restrictions (in the form of a war economy, much like the Allies did, and not of a socialist economy).

>>1978532
The first two points aren't capitalistic and I'm fairly sure you faced some sort of "serious restrictions" on your private company if you happen to be a jew.

>>1978517
Milo yiannopolous of his day

>>1978556
The first points prove that they were neither socialist nor in any way friendly to socialists, but were friendly to conservatives, which advocated capitalism.

>if you happened to be a jew
Where exactly were you going with this?

File: 517.jpg (9KB, 248x233px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 248x233px

>>1978722
That still doesn't support they being capitalists. It's almost as if they had some sort of third positioning, distancing themselves from socialism and capitalism.
>Where exactly were you going with this?
Really? You're just going to either fake not knowing about the whole "aryanization" thing they had going? Or are you seriously talking about capitalism in Nazi germany without knowing about it?

>>1978828
>them being capitalists
a) they supported the status quo (capitalism)
b) they didn't really care a lot about economics after the Strasser bros were offed, so it's not really fair to call them capitalists, as they didn't really care (which I never did), but they worked in favour of capitalism and against socialism
c) the "third position" is a meme, as evidenced by my previous points. They lacked an ideological-economical doctrine after the night of long knives, and just supported the status quo (hey, it gave them a reason to beat up socialists and kept their political alliance with conservatives and capitalists up).

>You're just going to either fake not knowing about the whole "aryanization" thing they had going? Or are you seriously talking about capitalism in Nazi germany without knowing about it?
I just don't see how confiscating jewish property makes them capitalist or non-capitalist/friendly to capitalism or opposed to it. That is, I do not see the relevance of that point, hence my previous answer.

>>1979158
Italians also trashed the "third position" in the same way btw, after their political alliance with the conservatives. It ended up being a meme, which alienated many of the original fascists.

>>1978532
>They never imposed serious restrictions on private companies
They forced all companies to join into cartels, and extended the Fuhrerprinzip through the Cartels.

File: 1402859669739.jpg (742KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 1920x1080px

>>1978496
Here's some info for anyone interested
>One of the most plagued questions we get when talking about Fascism is economics, normally brought up by people still stuck in a liberal mentality and limited scope of perception, where everything is defined in term of social and economic policies, rather than principles derived from the notion of a singular Truth and Order that dominates the world. The variety of historic economic plans and practices maintained by various champions of our Struggle likewise distorts any comprehensive answer to the question. All in all we've simply answered people that economics are secondary, they don't matter in such a way as to be a fundamental and defining element of Fascism. The answer didn't change, however there is now a way in which we can describe this attitude to economics, and it's actually a word we've used repeatedly in reference to Fascism anyway: Socialism.
>Our Socialism, however, is not in of itself an economic system, it is not the Socialism of Marx and co and stands in direct opposition to both Communism and Capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that to Fascism, Socialism is the definitive social structure which is more comparable to the structures of Individualism and Collectivism, yet it stands in opposition to those two structures as well.
>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
http://pastebin.com/gPcZcwNr

File: hitlerbaby1.jpg (32KB, 376x376px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 376x376px

>>1979639
>Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”

- Adolf Hitler 1938