> prevent (((Central Banks))) from undermining the National (and natural) authority of the government itself. Am I close?
Basically yes, though they're are a few other economic concentrations to note such as a on national self sufficiency through tarrifs (largely for the sake of national defense ) and other economic incentives to help german workers such as tax breaks and such
Though the core of national socialism really is liberation from debt backed currency
I've posted a video explaining it breifly a few times but here it is again
youtube.com
and another
youtube.com
Basically if you give a private coperation (central bank) controlled by jews the ability to print your nations money they can litterally end up owning every media outlet and politician in the entire fucking place
which is what we have today
if the state prints their own money
which funnily enough most people assume without realizing it isnt true
it can fund most social programs and national defense without taking it from the tax payer
which is why germany had a lower tax rate then ANY other country in the world in the 1930s
Tell me about, National Socialism. How does it differ from Capitalism?
or just fucking new
chillax bro
incase you hadnt noticed we're fucking winning
thenation.com
reuters.com
OK, I think I understand that somewhat. I know it's a silly comparison but the Hobbits of the Shire in Tolkien's works were very protective of the community as a whole. Whenever outside threats appeared, petty infighting was forgotten. So Volkishness promotes 'for the good of the tribe'?
Yes, I can certainly see that very well since I've been lurking Zig Forums for a few years now. The United States is completely cucked to the globalist-kikes. The idea of our US Federal Reserve is plainly evil and at odds to the basic self interests of my country.
What's confusing about it? The management of the economy of the country is very similar to the social-democratic model. This is even historically justified, considering that the origins of the socdem model is related to national-socialist (and proto-fascist in general) policies.
We do support welfare, but only when it's productive to the people. We obviously oppose any forms of welfare that, while momentarialy positive, is ultimately negative. You have mentioned some welfare programs that are to be encouraged, but those are not nearly all of them. Another very important point which was historically advocated were the worker's rights, stuff such as maternity/paternity leave, unemployment subsidies and worker protection.
There is also the encouragement of culture, which definitely falls under the "welfare state" label.
Otherwise, you are mostly correct.
"Wellfair" as you put it was only used as temporary crutch by the national socialists, and mainly even then for women and young children. The National socialists realized, rightly so, that if you take away the responsibility of a man to work he becomes degenerate and useless to society. This is why Hitler rather then using unemployment created vast infastucture projects to fix unemployment instead working on the idea that it is better to pay people for work then to pay them to act like niggers.
As for your points about workers rights you are right, since under national socialism the working class is seen as equal to the upper class, not less as under capitalism and not more as under marxim but these actions would never be taken to destroy productivity. Much less to abolish capitalism which was paramount to the german ability to create and work for his own good as well as his races.
I honestly dont think you're a bad guy but you need to be careful on how far left you go. The point of this ideology more then anything is to unite our race across all lines (including class) for self preservation. We NEED all of us who can be woken up to fight, the workers, the middle class, and the wealthy. That is what national socialism is, one poeple fighting as a people for their survival and prosperity.
Yes, and kek dont be sad about quoting tolkien he was fucking based
By jew i think hes got it
Precisely. Since you're a fan of Tolkien lets put it this way. One of the Hobbits has a farm. Lazily, as the Hobbits do, he collects his vegetables, trades around, and does what he believes is best for him. When the Shire is burdened with hunger however, out of no fault of any ONE person or any ONE group or family, they turned to him and asked him for food. "Of course, anything for my people, let us eat."
Socialist in nature to give to those in need without protest though regularly the man trades as though he were a capitalist. At his heart he is Volkish, and though it was not profitable for him to simply give when his people asked for it, though he could have made money charging for food or soliciting trade out of all the Hobbits, he gave regardless because he truly cares for his people.
That is the heart of Volkishness and the heart of National Socialism. Caring for your people, viewing yourself in the collective of these people, and doing what must be done for that people.
So, when people babble on about Socialism this and Capitalism that it really is mind boggling and a telltale sign that they have yet to grasp National Socialism in its entirety. Feder's policies were not born out of spite for Capitalism or Socialism but out of what he knew was needed for his people.
If I understood that clearly, it probably wouldn't be confusing to me. Not being a smart ass, I'm just a newfag in general when it comes to the subtleties of politics.
Haha, thanks. I'll stop being scared off by the term 'Socialism' and study it. Is there a sort of 'Cliff's Notes' type book outlining the highlights, or must I dive into Mein Kampf straightaway? I'm pretty busy with Uni (STEM degree BTW) ATM.
Thank you user. That was a perfectly lucid analogy and I think I understand National Socialism just a little bit better now.
This isn't grinder, you want my wealth. Provide value.
Then you make it so that they won't become parasites to the state. It should still be possible for one to starve to death, which unlimited unemployment leave and UBI might bring, but we should also consider that our general model of distribution of resources, which we call capitalism, even in it's controlled stage, has it's vices. What if due to poor management someone's employer justifiably ceases to be? There are cases where the worker, due to specificity or market saturation, might simply not be able to find another job for some time. In this case it is perfectly reasonable for that person to receive aid for a period of time, probably around 2-4 months, and only to those who have demonstrated the will to work.
When possible, development of infrastructure will in fact create jobs and economic growth, but it only works when there is actually a fair amount of useful infrastructure to be built. Most western countries, as shit their infrastructure might be, will not have such effect because the economic gain from having what essentially is the maintenance of existing infrastructure would be minimal.
Eh, i will try to make it simple, then.
We generally adopt what you would call the "capitalist model", creating measures to stimulate the growth of the economy depending on the context of the nation, which may range to legitimately laissez-faire policies to state capitalism, with our own special rules and condition imposed by the state.