Was Hitler a Socialist?

A national one, yes

>the word 'privatization' was invented to describe Hitler''s policies
>banned unions
>night of the long knives
yeah, socialist as fuck

File: IMG_6771.jpg (68KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 512x512px

>>2607202
A nationalist socialist but a socialist none the less
>>2607271
What gender is this person

>>2607278
That's a man, baby.
And hitler isn't a socialist.

>>2607202
No

>>2607202
That depends on what your definition of socialist is.
>>2607271
USSR had an elite that ruled over workers, banned unions and purged other socialists.

The same way he was a homo because he was a homo sapiens.

>>2607271
>He thinks sensible unions have anything to do with socialism

>>2607290
Everyone who doesn't use meme definitions of economic systems and has to rely on semantics acknowledges the USSR as state capitalist.

>>2607292
This.

File: Gregor_Strasser_1.jpg (249KB, 1024x1410px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1024x1410px

No.

>>2607294
>socialism is when the gubment does stuff and not when workers have power
found the american

>>2607298
Name me one socialist state in history where the workers had significant power.

I await your response where you talk about a mixed market capitalist society

>>2607202
WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH REDDITORS POSTING THUMBNAILS

GET OFF MY BOARD

>>2607326
Where do you think you are, anon?

>>2607202
yes. collectivism is socialism. you don't have to be a liberal to be a socialist. liberalism and socialism is not always linear

>>2607202
Up until he didn't need the support of the people or the SA.

File: 1477394073559.jpg (932KB, 2765x1308px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 2765x1308px

>>2607202
Not a true one, no.
Strasserism is real National Socialism

>>2607202
No

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

>>2607202
>Hitler added the word Socialst to the German Worker's party name in order to appeal to red workers
>Mein Kampf chapter 2 is dedicated to attacking and defeating the marxist AND democratic socialist worldview and public policy.
>After several months of discussions Hitler and Goebbels agree in Goebbel's diaries sometime before the beer hall putch that the defintion of socialism in the party name will refer to traditional family values and not refer to workers rights.
>Hitler's party banned workers unions on May 2nd 1933
>Hjalmar Schact privatized many german industries
>Hitler demanded that anyone who wanted to retain left wing ideals and policies renounce them or leave the party
>The Weimar government classified his party as extreme right wing

He was a non-Marxist socialist, which is rare these days.

Almost all socialists in the modern age have been Marxist, which is why they've become quasi-synonymous.

>>2607322
Would say Tito but there is probably never been a proper socialist state that isn't M-L

File: 1477443870117.jpg (3KB, 125x112px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x112px

HERE we go again.
Philosophically: Ultraconservative. Only a retard would refute this.
Economically: Socialist, I guess?
National Socialism was genuinely unique. Economic growth in Germany was standard Keynesian stuff, but there were strangely socialist social programs and whatnot.

>>2607202
Not really. But he was a collectivist totalitarian piece of crap, like most militant commies also were, and he used socialist rhetoric to get proles on his side. From what I understand, he really cared little about economics, viewing it as being secondary to politics and conquest. He seemed to think that if you could just get the national, racial, and military stuff right, you could seize enough land and resources to make the economy sort itself out.

>>2608875
He wasn't necessarily wrong, I should add... had he tried to grab the land and resources of third world peasants, like the US and European imperialist powers did, he probably would have succeeded. But when he went East to grab land, he had to fight his way against other Europeans equipped with modern technology. So he got cucked.
I believe that the US conquest of Native American lands was a big inspiration to him.

>>2608866
>Philosophically: Ultraconservative. Only a retard would refute this.

I'll gladly be a retard, then. The guy was engineering his own brave new world, he despised actual conservatives like Hindenburg and the conservatives despised him and his brown bande.

>>2607290
USSR wasn't socialist either

>>2607202
Yes. Like usual he did socialist stuff, but after reality bitch slapped him he just stopped. Same with the USSR and communism.

>>2607202
A Prussian Socialist not a Marxist one.

>>2607297
>>2607282
>>2607287
Post proof on why not.

>>2607271
I agree he wasn't a socialist but unions are banned in Cuba and North Korea.

>>2610311
North Korea is not socialist. It's more of a far right dictatorship reminiscent more of Imperial Japan than soviet communism.

>>2607202
Yes he was. He even claimed that he was a socialist

check it out.
https://youtu.be/ep0tzEQYC1E

>>2611196

Was there some kind of Universal Healthcare system and some kind of social safety net in Germany during the years of Hitler?

>>2607202
>Was Hitler a Socialist?

He took huge loans to artificially (free market wise) create jobs with huge government projects.
His government also artificially kept wages from rising with the prices, and thus forced prices to not rise as much, creating problems for merchants.
His government established child care centers, and there was a government dictated education system.
Nationalized healthcare, gun control, government ran eugenics, planned parenthood, blaming the 1% (jews), literally confiscating the property of the 1%, secret police and government right over the freedom of the individual.....

Basically he was for big, BIG government, and a small individual.
He was for a more planned economy, and a more collectivist society and culture.
This would put him as a socialist, and people only get confused because of the policy of corporatism, where the state didn't directly own things, instead there were corporations that the people partook in, and those owned things instead. In USSR for contrast, the state owned them, and the people partook in the state. Its just a more divided version of the same concept.

>>2610484
>far right dictatorship

LEL

you mean far left but okay

>>2607202
Nope he wasn't

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmH-9LhuX85UX-06Fl5rH4SQh9LAt86pzBv6J7qaXwMPan9-i1.jpg (58KB, 593x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 593x720px

>>2611546
It's far Korean, but I would argue it took more elements from Imperial Japan than the Soviet Union

File: Gun_advertisment_Nazi_Germany.jpg (71KB, 402x612px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 402x612px

>>2611472
>implying child care centers and nationalized healthcare are inherently socialist
>falling for the "Nazi gun control" meme
>"big government"

You're American, aren't you?

>>2611612
>those socialist core institutions aren't socialist, and you must be american too!!!

Let me guess, Stockholm syndrome slav neo-nazi?

>>2611615
That's right, retard, they aren't socialist.
Socialism isn't the Big Gobernment or whatever the state does.
I'm a Slav and hate both nazis and commies, I just hate it when American screw everything up.

>>2611615

How is gun control a socialist thing?