Re: Was Hitler a Socialist?

does joolian spend his time just endlessly reading braindead 
self-validating propaganda???

geminiGPT fact checking:

- nazi germany conducted massive waves of privatization of previously 
state industries
- corpo profits soared during the nazi regeme, and business owners had 
substantial bargeining power with the regime so long as their production 
aligned with military progress
- hilter dismantled trade unions, outlawed strikes, banned collective 
bargaining, and froze wages. the worker was subjugated to both capital 
and the state
- state-directed production, price controls, and rationed raw materials 
reflect a totalitarian war economy, not anti-capitalist ideology. 
capitalist democracies, including us and uk, implemented similar 
measures during WWII without becoming socialist lol

heck if u knew anything about how hitler rose to power, u'd know that 
facists, both him (and mussolini) where both initially funded by 
capitalists to suppress the rise of communism so like ... no he wasn't a 
socialist in that he was trying to promote the rise of global communism, 
which is a defining feature of a socialist vs just a dictator

ur such a goddamn retard joolian, ur truth meter is just that fucking 
broken eh???

On 8/24/26 11:18 AM, Julian wrote:
> Hitler was undoubtedly an anti-capitalist and a socialist in the modern 
> sense of the word
> 
> A recurring theme in Elon Musk’s posts on X in recent months has been 
> his claim that Hitler was a socialist. He has received both a great deal 
> of support and a great deal of criticism on the platform, but hardly any 
> of those taking part in the debate have seriously examined the issue. 
> Critics of the thesis point out that the means of production were not 
> nationalized in National Socialist Germany. They also argue that the 
> fact that Hitler had communists and Social Democrats imprisoned in 
> concentration camps speaks against this thesis.
> 
> The second argument is not convincing. Stalin, too, had tens of 
> thousands of fellow communists murdered, denouncing many of them as 
> “Trotskyists,” or “fascist agents.” But what about the argument that the 
> means of production were not nationalized on a large scale in National 
> Socialist Germany?
> 
> For traditional socialism, which is based on the teachings of Karl Marx, 
> the nationalization of the means of production is indeed the central 
> objective. But National Socialism was a form of modern socialism that 
> took a different approach.
> 
> In May 1937 Hitler declared that he told German industry what it had to 
> produce under the Four-Year Plan. If industry said it was unable to do 
> so, he would “take that over myself, but it must be done.” If industry 
> complied, however, he was glad not to have to take it over himself.
> 
> That such statements by Hitler were not empty threats became clear to 
> the industrialists no later than on 23 July 1937, when Göring announced 
> the formation of the AG for Ore Mining and Iron Smelting Hermann Göring. 
> The development which had begun with Hitler’s and Göring’s repeated 
> threats finally led to the creation of the Reichswerke Hermann Göring, 
> which by 1940 employed 600,000 people. The plant in Salzgitter finally 
> became the largest in Europe.
> 
> Some theorists – both on the left and among libertarians – recognized as 
> early as the 1940s that National Socialism represented a new form of 
> anti-capitalism. The economist and sociologist Friedrich Pollock had 
> earned his doctorate with a dissertation on Karl Marx’s theory of money 
> and was a co-founder of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt 
> am Main. Ludwig von Mises was known to be, together with von Friedrich 
> August von Hayek, the most important representative of the Austrian 
> School of National Economics. Both were staunch opponents of National 
> Socialism and emigrated to the United States.
> 
> In an article on the economic system of National Socialism published in 
> 1941, Pollock acknowledged that the legal institution of private 
> ownership had been maintained, but argued that its actual function had 
> fundamentally changed. In his words, this amounted to “the destruction 
> of all the essential traits of private ownership, saving one exception.” 
> Even the largest companies, he noted, had lost the right to decide 
> freely where to invest or when to discontinue unprofitable production; 
> these rights had effectively been transferred to the ruling groups.
> 
> This is one of the most lucid analyses of the economic structure of 
> National Socialism, and it corresponds with what Ludwig von Mises wrote 
> in The New York Times on June 21, 1941. Mises argued that the German 
> system of socialism, or Zwangswirtschaft, retained some capitalist 
> institutions only nominally. Private ownership formally continued, but 
> entrepreneurs had effectively been reduced to the status of shop 
> managers, while the government determined what and how they produced, as 
> well as prices and trading partners. He summarized the system as 
> “socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism” – comprehensive 
> planning and government control of economic activity, while retaining 
> the labels of a market economy.
> 
>  From 1940 at the latest, Hitler increasingly became a proponent of the 
> state planned economy – partly because he was convinced of the 
> superiority of the Soviet Union and its economic system. In his 
> monologues to his inner circle (known as “table talks”) on 27/28 July 
> 1941, Hitler said that “A sensible employment of the powers of a nation 
> can only be achieved with a planned economy from above.” About two weeks 
> later, he remarked that economic planning was still at an early stage 
> and envisioned building an encompassing German and European economic order.
> 
> The statement that economic planning was still at a very early stage is 
> important because it shows that Hitler was not thinking at all of a 
> reduction of state intervention – not even for the time after the war – 
> but, on the contrary, intended to expand the instruments of state 
> control of the economy even further.
> 
> Yes, Hitler was not a socialist in the classical Marxist sense. But he 
> was undoubtedly an anti-capitalist and a socialist in the modern sense 
> of the word. In this respect, Musk is right.
> 
> 
> Rainer Zitelmann

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃