National Socialism is not Socialism

The problem is when people think NatSoc is actually socialism when it's not.

nah, Jewish "Socialism" is about reducing man down to nothing, while NatSoc is about giving man tools to become the Ubermench

Marxism, "democratic socialism", etc are not socialism because they are attempts by the Jews to permenantly enslave us.

Socialism is the "science of dealing with common weal"

National socialism is the only form of socialism as nationalism is necessary for public weal.

It's true it's first officially coined in the beginning of the 19th century, but it has nothing to do with socialism.
I'm speaking simply of idea that resembles the 19th socialism.
For Marxist, it is synonymous. For Leninist it is different and so on and so on.
Sure:

There's nothing to be argued. It's a written doctrine with specific tenets outlining the programme.

Hitler first called it Socialism because 1. that's what it was. The community before the self. 2. The jewfags were pushing their party to emulate the eastern block countries and it was gaining traction, so Hitler figured if he used the color red and put the name Socialism to it, the passers-by would take a moment and walk in to hear him speak of his political ideology.

There's really nothing more about it to discuss unless you have questions?

Attached: hitler_says_hi.jpg (1355x904, 485.11K)

1. Socialism is not the community before the self, retard.
2. Hitler adopted the name because it attracts the left wing voters already in Germany.

The eastern blocs at the time HATED socialism/left-wingers because the USSR just invade Poland in the 1920s.

Also, we must note that Hitler was AGAINST the name change, but the party decided to adopt it anyway.

Attached: hitlers-definition-of-socialism-a-socialist-is-one-who-serves-14845086.png (500x300, 97.36K)

Funny how Hitler just whipped out muh true socialism definition outta the blue.

(you) ?

Attached: 1540069787686.jpg (1504x1000, 253.73K)

Socialism is not a political program, it's an ideology. Socialism can thereby be defined as the opposite of individualism. Capitalist ideology supports the ideology of individualism. Like the jew, it's anti-human.
Socialism, as it relates to the NSDAP is very much "the community before the self interest." That's a quote and it also defines socialism. If you want to talk about a separate political program, then do so in another thread but we aren't discussing that here.
Left Wing is socialistic is nature. The word was originally used to attract the attention of the left wing ideology that was popular at the time.

Again, just attempt to say hurr socialism back then is not muh socialism, my socialism is the real socialism.

But it wasn't. The National Socialists were in constant battle with communists. Hitler defined the "socialism" in National Socialism because he wanted to explain how his ideology was explicitly anti-communist. Same with the NatSoc flag. Notice it employs a large amount of red, despite the communist color being known as red.

What do you mean "nothing"? Two main currents of Socialism had been formed at the time around this meaning of term.

For example, Proudhon:
He was the forefather of Anarchism and it was he who said "private property (in the meaning of "wage labour") is theft". Individual ownership was his solution that intended to abolish wage albour.

It was him who Marx argued with (Poverty of Philosophy in reply to Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty; as well as mention of individual labour in Manifesto), and whose ideas stongly influenced First International as well as Paris Commune. How the hell does he not have anything to do with Socialism?

Same goes for others. This is the Socialism. Later thinkers refined and improved upon this basis.

And I'm answering that it cannot be used as an argument.

You are conflating movements that intend to implement principles and societies built along those principles.

Obviously, for Marxist Communuist society is also Socialist (as it abolished wage labour). But this does not mean that any Anarchist (Utopian Socialist) is also Communist.

Also, how the fuck Leninists are different from Marxits?

I was asking about privatization. I don't see anything about privatization.

Again, who says that and what gives Hitler's the right to define socialism when socialism has been defined in the 19th century?

But Hitler's actual economy program is capitalism, so can you explain that?

What gives Karl Marx the right to define communism since it's a latin word.

communis meaning universal.

On what grounds? Because every ideology is against individualism?

Newsflash: Marx did not define Communism.

op is a faggot however this deserves more attention as have heard this shit over and over again about Natsoc but but muh socialism from right wing and even the npc spew but but muh democratic socialism.Its been laid to rest many times howeer influx of take your pick shitting it up mostly butt hurt jews shillary didn't get elected. Explain the diff yet again and how it is no where near the same thing in simple format for npc deprogramming//.

Proudhon was the father of anarchism, NOT socialism, socialism exists before him and their idea was simply the common ownership of goods/properties.
I'm not arguing that they didn't have anything to do with socialism, but that socialism wasn't about abolishing wage labour, at first.
Why not?
I think you are conflating utopian socialist with anarchist there, different beings.
Marxists used socialism and communism synonymously, but Leninists think socialism is the preparation stage of communism.
Maybe I quote the wrong part:
Anyway, it is clear Bismarc was anti-socialist.

Karl Marx did not define communism.

1. The party adopted the socialist to attract LEFT wingers.
2. It's nice of him, but he should have said is National Capitalism because that is his program.

Oh ffs you blue haired freaks, just start your revolution. I want to kill commies.

Attached: 35m0f90.jpg (1160x1274, 1.87M)

An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx (see also Marx). In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals (see Marxism and Marxism-Leninism).
Communism | Define Communism at Dictionary.com
dictionary.com/browse/communism

Capitalism and socialism are both natural phenomena. The line between them is actually quite blurry. Every action any person has ever taken was decided upon because it was calculated by their internal meat computer to be the most profitable (the profit in this case, and truly all cases, being positive feelings). One can see how it is more profitable to ally with others and pool resources for the common good in order to maintain security. You see, in socialism you have people participating in it because it benefits them, so there is in fact a transaction occurring.

National Socialism recognizes that it's better for the population engaging in this social arrangement to be as alike as possible, thus forming bonds with one another that prevent abuse of the agreement.

Seems like that information is wrong then.
"Communism" derives from the French communisme which developed out of the Latin roots communis and the suffix isme – and was in use as a word designating various social situations before it came to be associated with more modern conceptions of an economic and political organization. Semantically, communis can be translated to "of or for the community" while isme is a suffix that indicates the abstraction into a state, condition, action or doctrine, so "communism" may be interpreted as "the state of being of or for the community". This semantic constitution has led to various usages of the word in its evolution, but ultimately came to be most closely associated with Marxism, most specifically embodied in The Communist Manifesto, which proposed a particular type of communism.

The term was first created in its modern definition by the French philosopher Victor d'Hupy. In his 1777 book Projet de communauté philosophe, d'Hupay pushes the legacy of the Enlightenments to principles which he lived up to during most of his life in his bastide of Fuveau, Provence.[7] His book can be seen as a backbone of communist philosophy as d'Hupay attempts a definition of this lifestyle which he calls a "commune" and advises to "share all economic and material products between inhabitants of the commune, so that all may benefit from each other's work".[8] His friend and contemporary author Restif de la Bretonne also describes him as a "communist" in one of his books.[9]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism

Nobody says it's not natural or not.

What I say is that Hitler's system is capitalism, or mixed market capitalism.

Nigger. There was communists and people that didn't vote in Weimar Germany. All of the so called "left wingers" were communists. The National Socialists did not want any communists.
No it was actually the opposite of nice. As I said, Hitler named the ideology National Socialism for a reason. That reason was to slap the communists in the face, and to show them they had a direct enemy.

I suggest you shut your mouth before you get beaten down further by people who know what they're talking about.

really fuck all shitskins they will never be us and we have no responsiblity to feed house and clothe them then parade them around through affirmative action like they can ever be as good as us when that would take millions of years and race mixing dosen't help them as they always go back to nigger drivel planted by the rat jew who knows as long as whites live they are doomed.

You're saying it's one or the other, and I'm telling you it's not. That has never been achieved anywhere. Intrinsic to any collaboration of people is a transactional profit based motive.

Newscheck: left wingers do not just imply communists back then, it also implies liberals, socialists and anarchists.
Again, Hitler was against the name change, it's the party who changes the name.
But you don't know what you are talking about. You are revising history then tell me to shut up.

Even the retard libertarian accepts mixed economy as capitalism.

There is free trade capitalism, and there is mercentalisim/protectionist capitalism.

I recognize your shitty english, now that I look. You're the same kike from the meta thread that went on for days how Hitler was a Rothchilds puppet.

Kill yourself, yid

I was mistaken. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you were just fresh to the realisation that natsoc means something entirely different than marxsoc. Turns out youre just a kike that fails comprehensive reading.

So what's your point? What gives you the right to define gender when gender has been defined in the 15th century.

I accept everything as capitalism, and Hitler understood that men don't work for nothing (it's written in "Mein Kampf") thus, allowed his people market freedom within the bounds of what was beneficial to all of Germany.

Here's the real history:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
In other words, SOCIALISM was a name added later in spite of Hitler.

So no argument?

Again, Hitler's "socialism" is no socialism at at all, socialism exists before Marx defines it.

Indeed who? I don't want to define gender.

Well, it's sorta true.

Even the USSR was just state capitalism.

Communism is a pipe dream.

Same reason why Hitler can define the word Socialism.

Everyone stop replying to (((9727a2))). Go look in the meta thread and read the posts of (((f6648b))). It's the same poster. Shitty english and bad talks Hitler with jewish lies.

It's collectivism. All collectivism is socialism.
National Socialism is just another brand of Marxism. Zig Forums is an exact mirror reflection of Zig Forums. You want a totalitarian state that will murder silence/murder people for wrongthink, with full government censorship and control of the population.

...

...

He can't.
The word has been defined since the 19th century.

Again, so because leftists re-define genders, Hitler can re-define socialism?

Is he a leftist?

That is why you can't change your gender is a social construct definition since it has been defined since the 15th century.

Therefor the original meaning stays there are only male and female

Exactly what jewish lies?

This is amusing because your mind automatically blocks anything that might imply Hitler can be bad or make a wrong decision.

This is the funny thing about all these labels, they just serve to confuse the issue of what the game of life is really about:

Enacting you will upon the world

Yeah, I agree, gender should be synonymous to sex.

Nationalism is cradle to grave government control. How is that not socialism?

JFC are you guys retarded? Am I dealing with downs syndrome students?
Socialism is not a political program because…. wait for it…

It's not a political program! Hey! how about that?
No political program has called itself Socialism!
USSR - Political program
Republican - Political program
NSDAP - Political Program
Socialism - Political ideology

It's not that hard to follow along. You don't need to be heard all the time.

When you start your own political party, you can adapt political theory into that party, and once you define that political theory into your party tenets, it is thereby your right to define that political theory. Rather, it's your duty. Welcome to the big league kid. Here, we can discuss a thing and not relate that thing other things not being discussed. Tough to do, I know. All that brainwashing gets in the way.

Wtf are you a nazi? You white privileged nazi. Race and gender is a social construct. Drumpf iz voldemort.

Because socialism is the public owning of properties.

Hitler's economy has both private firms and national firms, thus making it mixed economy.

I'm not taking this filthy patriarchy crap

So Hitler just changes word because he has a party?

Also, it's not him who wants to make the party into a Socialist party, see
In short, his "true socialism" is just an excuse when the party name has caught on.

Socialism is defined as an economic program for marxists/leninists/stalinists.

the whole point is jew socialism is a pile of shit compared to white socialism as whites veiw socialism as a racial collective that work together for the race when jew socialism is the destruction of the fabric of all races but their own .

Simple, don't let them.Instead treat them with the truth of their own existence as nothing but a parasite that has held back MAN since they hopped on our backs .Time to dirt roll the parasites off our hides

...

I'm fucking shaking right now, you racist nazi.

True.

Socialism took form not before, but during Proudhon.

When was this "at first"?

1840s: Proudhon argues for abolition of wage labour and is a rabid anti-Communist (i.e. against common ownership). He also calls himself Socialist (and is recognized as one).

When did this Socialism you are talking about exist? How did Proudhon adopt the label of Socialist? He could not redefine it himself, as he was explicitly and openly against common ownership promoted by neo-Babeuvists.

Because it only signifies how the people who invented the term "pre-Socialist" understood the meaning of Socialism. Moreover, they did not say why they are pre-Socialist.

I am not conflating anything. Marxists consider Anarchists to be Utopian Socialists.

No. I already explained the difference.

It is Communist society that is Socialist, while you are trying to link Socialist thinkers with Communist thinkers. Also, society obviosly remains Socialist.

Bullshit.

First-phase Communism (not "preparation") is referred to as Socialism in vernacular, for convenience, as society is not fully developed Communism.

Where is the correct part?

I'm Angeligender, my pronounces are zer/they. I feel offended by your statement.
What gives you the right to define gender?

Congratulations, your dictionary is shit.

Babeuf was referred to as Communist long before Marx. It was neo-Babeuvists who were the Communists before Marxists took over.

what a waste

What about when the next fearless leader steps on the scene? What about before those men existed?
Do you see the problem with defining and ideology in relation to a program? The program encompasses the ideology, not the other way around.

Liberal Party (UK) was not recognized as Left-wing at the time. Only later (and in US) did Liberalism start to be somehow left-wing. Even today almost nobody outside of US considers it Left.

Congratulations your dictionary is shit. We jews are the inventors of Communism.

Attached: quote-first-of-all-we-have-to-understand-what-communism-is-i-mean-to-me-real-communism-the-bobby-fischer-110-58-17.jpg (850x400, 62.45K)

Attached: 1539362040313.jpg (309x751, 100.04K)

both jew both get the rope

Attached: Communismisjudaism3.jpg (711x502, 119.64K)

Liberty and individualism are the very soul of the Aryan race. It's why Whites have been so much more creative and successful than others. If you've got to sacrifice that and become chink tier insectoids to win, then it's a pyric victory that sacrifices everything that made the West great in the first place. That's why the greatest generation did the right thing and crushed Nazi Germany.

OP is obviously a newfag and should lurk for 2 more year.

What kind of nonsense did you read? Some neo-Trot pamphlets?

Hello, Mises.

No, with you own degeneracy.

> On what grounds [can it be defined as the opposite of individualism]?

Yes it is, you twat. It's just not (wholly) Marxist socialism, but it is socialism (and influenced by Das Capital, like most lines of political thought since).
It guess it's more "Prussian socialism".

Uhm, no? Socialism is as much as economic program for the leftists.

But we are talking about Weimar Germany.

No, it isn't, you guys can't even define it.

Attached: Mutts forced to further breed with niggers.jpeg (500x500 782.25 KB, 305.75K)

Again, accusation of newfaggotry without evidence.

USSR still employed the capitalist economy, just with national companies.

More proof collectivism is so bad it's forced at gun point?

I don't care if its socialism or not, I only care about the effects.
Unless I see the following happening, I cannot draw any or all parralels between current implementations of socialism.

Attached: 55430ff59d6476d8ada22be00a80e8eeab3b2f1ccd8f20af00642cc7e2fab67a.jpg (640x360 97.33 KB, 7.92M)

The goy know, the next gen is jew aware and the more rat censors the more they realize jews are the problem.Literally proud of the awareness of the jew and identifying their death hooknose early wooooo.The parasite can't survive without a host and eviction notice posted .

Everyday you deranged subhumans amuse me.

Which existed when Liberalism meant either old classical Liberalism (thoroughly Right-wing), or modern Liberalism of Lloyd George (Liberal Party, UK). And when Weimar existed, modern Liberalism was not considered Left even in US.

State Capitalist. And only during 1920s (NEP). After introduction of Central Planning it became fully Socialist.

Again, your very own picture proves collectivism is bad.

Collectivism literally forces you to racial integrate with niggers.

No, the liberals are definite left wing in Weimar, considering the actual right wing parties exist at the time (monarchists, traditionist, nationalists).
Didn't know socialism is when the government owns all national companies.

And collectivism provided you with muh "western civilization", considering the nobles and tax money that funded Carnot, Da Vinci, Mozart, Bach, etc… And Hitler, but since you insects worship white marbles, lets bring you right to that period.
Be a subhuman somewhere else.

oh hell naw fuck all that

Collectivism sure did not provide me with muh western civilization.

Western civilization has much to individualism much more.

The nobles PERSONALLY patronages these artists, they weren't taxed for that.

Try again.
Go enjoy collectivism in South America and China then.

You did not present evidence of Bismarck supporting privatization.

Neither did you explained why you think that Socialism is not about abolition of wage labour, nor did you agree with obvious evidence that is.

Now you intend to start "discussion" about what Left/Right means.

Shitposting.

You have no idea what is and what is not considered Socialist for Marxists.

You haven't provided a evidence, a quote from Proudhon, father of anarchism, has nothing to do with socialism which was defined in the early 19th century as common ownership of goods.
Yes, liberals have been thoroughly seen as left wingers.
Yeah I do, socialist for marxist is when workers control the means of production.