Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?

[Syne]

Yes, as I previously pointed out to you during the Great Recession, Europe followed the austerity path. They didn't bail out their banks. They didn't recapitalize their banks. We did. That's why we emerged from the recession quickly whereas the recession lingered in Europe.

It wasn't until Europe followed the US example did things get better in Europe.

Here is part of your problem; you are reading and citing fake news e.g. MoneyMorning. Italy's problems aren't new. They've been around for a long time. What your reference failed to account for is the fact that Italy is now working with the EU and more specifically the EU central bank to recapitalize its banking system. https://www.ft.com/content/b7b55e26-f2a1-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608

Really? There were no European bailouts?

Europe's bailed out economies are booming. Except Greece, of course
Europe's bailout fund loaned Spain 41 billion euros ($45 billion) to rescue the banks, and prevent the economy collapsing.
...
Ireland was the first eurozone country to fall into recession in 2008. It received 67 billion euros ($73 billion) in international bailout loans in December 2013, after its property market collapsed and banks started failing.
...
Portugal received 78 billion euros ($85.6 billion) in bailout loans in 2011, after failing to get its budget deficit under control.
...
Cyprus got into trouble in 2013, when its financial system began to collapse. Like Greece recently, it was forced to close its banks for an extended period to prevent a complete meltdown. It secured a bailout package worth 10 billion euros ($11 billion) in March 2013.
...
Just last summer, the IMF said Greece was on track with its reforms, and looked like it would not need any more bailouts. But the election of a radical left-wing government set the process back, as reforms were reversed and the country engaged in a six-month standoff with Europe and the IMF over bailout terms.
- http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/news/economy/europe-bailout-countries-spain/​

They did do bailouts, and they did recapitalize their banks.

When, as a negative repercussion of the Great Recession, the relatively fragile banking sector had suffered large capital losses, most states in Europe had to bail out several of their most affected banks with some supporting recapitalization loans, because of the strong linkage between their survival and the financial stability of the economy.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis#Evolution_of_the_crisis​

Who said Italy's problems were new? Both Greece and Italy had high debt to GDP ratios before the crisis. Greece has been forced to accept austerity measures in return for bailouts, so it's not like these happened in the sort of isolation you seem to imagine. And it is not this imagined isolation that explains the lagging Greek economy:

The American bailout was made easier because only one government was involved. For Greece, the political process was protracted because of the number of European countries involved in the decision-making. While TARP was larger, it was still just a small fraction of the entire American economy. Greece’s bailout was a bit bigger than the country’s economic output the year the bailouts began.

Since getting help, Greece’s economy has continued to shrink, which made its debt payments untenable. The United States started to recover the next year, and it actually made money on pieces of its bailout.
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...-up-the-greek-and-american-bailouts.html?_r=0​

https://www.ft.com/content/b7b55e26-f2a1-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608

Hmm. Did you not see my previous reference which listed country by country the most current contribution discrepancy? Did you forget about the part when I specifically addressed the issue? Did you not get it when I said each member country should contribute the agreed upon amount?

No, I rarely see much that wasn't addressed to me. Saying they "should" is not necessarily agreeing that they don't.

But the discrepancies do not justify the US withdrawal from NATO as you seem to believe. It does justify more political and trade pressure on those countries. I, like many others, have car insurance. Just because I haven't suffered a covered liability, it doesn't follow the insurance doesn't have value, and so it is with NATO. Just because there hasn't been a WW III it doesn't mean NATO has no value.

Who said NATO has no value? Of course it has value...to Europe.

Crony capitalism is a form of capitalism - perhaps the most common form.

Apparently you don't understand corporatism.
Cronyism can exist in any economic system because humans must administer those systems. Favoritism doesn't adhere to one specific system.

Crony Communism in China
Unscrupulous officials have been stealing more since the early 1990s thanks partly to a large increase in infrastructure spending. Lucrative contracts for roads, ports and railways are opportunities for them to enrich themselves or their cronies. Investment in infrastructure, real estate and other fixed assets rose from an average of 36 percent of G.D.P. during 1980-1991 to more than 41 percent during 1992-2011.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/opinion/crony-communism-in-china.html​

This is a good example of the harm done to reason by the destruction of meaningful vocabulary.

Capitalism does not require any markets at all, let alone free ones. Government action is not necessarily socialism. Governments granting favors to capitalist enterprises does not convert them to socialist enterprises. Government collusion with capitalists, or in the other direction corporate capitalist corruption and coercion of governments (as in the US, typical banana republics, most fascist takeovers, etc), does not create socialism.

There is no such thing as "socialist-style" capitalism. Cronies of capitalists are not socialists.

Who said there was '"socialist-style" capitalism'?
Capitalism and socialism lie on a scale of economic freedom, where less freedom in the market moves towards socialism.

That is a fundamental, basic, crucial, error. Freedom in the economy is neither necessary nor particularly welcome in corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalists want monopoly, control, market domination - that's where the big profits come from.

And the promulgation of that error has been a deliberate tactic, a calculated ploy, of the fascist propaganda operations in the US. The rightwing media operations have been marketing that line, hard, for decades - they are on the brink of success.

The goal is 1) equating tyranny with socialism, socialism with tyranny, both and vice versa, while simultaneously 2) equating freedom with capitalism, capitalism with freedom. That way people will not recognize incoming takeover by fascists: they are capitalists, after all, therefore in this Orwellian milieu by definition advocates of freedom.

And? Corporatism is not capitalism.
Conspiracy theorist much?

 

[parmalee]

You're conflating crony capitalism (corporatism/mercantilism) with capitalism.
Capitalist critique
Supporters of capitalism generally oppose crony capitalism as well, and consider it an aberration brought on by governmental favors incompatible with free market. In this view, crony capitalism is the result of an excess of socialist-style interference in the market, which inherently will result in a toxic combination of corporations and government officials running the sector of the economy. Some advocates prefer to equate this problem with terms such as "corporatism, a modern form of mercantilism" to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such a system is to have help from corrupt government officials.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism#Capitalist_critique​

Government collusion means the economy isn't free....hence not capitalist.

Immediately prior the Capitalist Critique on the wiki page:

Socialist critique
Critics of crony capitalism including socialists and anti-capitalists often assert that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of any strictly capitalist system. Jane Jacobs described it as a natural consequence of collusion between those managing power and trade, while Noam Chomsky has argued that the word "crony" is superfluous when describing capitalism.[32] Since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments. Much of the impetus behind campaign finance reform in the United States and in other countries is an attempt to prevent economic power being used to take political power.

(Bolding mine.)

Hmmm... whom to trust? Jane Jacobs and Noam Chomsky for the latter contentions, or John freakin' Stossel (from whom the Capitalist Critique derives). Not that it really matters, as even Stossel does not dispute that crony capitalism is, in fact, a form of capitalism: definitions of capitalism do in no way mandate that free market or laissez faire are essential components of capitalism:

Economists, political economists, and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism, and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[8] obstacles to free competition, and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism;[9] the extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are matters of politics and policy. Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention, and in some cases economic planning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Honestly, do you just make up this shit as you go, and then desperately search for sources which kinda-sorta-maybe-but not really support your bizarre claims?

 

[iceaura]

Capitalism and socialism lie on a scale of economic freedom, where less freedom in the market moves towards socialism.

Nonsense. The capitalist system typical of fascist governance is much less free than the mixed socialism typical of liberal governance, for example.

Cronyism can exist in any economic system because humans must administer those systems. Favoritism doesn't adhere to one specific system.

So? Crony capitalism is still not socialism, or anything like socialism. It is capitalism.

And? Corporatism is not capitalism

But corporate capitalism - by far the most common variety these days - is capitalism.

Who said there was '"socialist-style" capitalism'?

You quoted a wiki article that claimed the governmental collusions typical of crony capitalism were "socialist-style".

Since getting help, Greece’s economy has continued to shrink, which made its debt payments untenable.

That's what austerity measures do - shrink the economy, punish the poor for the sins of the rich, punish labor for the sins of capital, punish citizens for the influence of foreigners, etc.

 

[Syne]

Immediately prior the Capitalist Critique on the wiki page:

(Bolding mine.)

Hmmm... whom to trust? Jane Jacobs and Noam Chomsky for the latter contentions, or John freakin' Stossel (from whom the Capitalist Critique derives). Not that it really matters, as even Stossel does not dispute that crony capitalism is, in fact, a form of capitalism: definitions of capitalism do in no way mandate that free market or laissez faire are essential components of capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Honestly, do you just make up this shit as you go, and then desperately search for sources which kinda-sorta-maybe-but not really support your bizarre claims?

Who to trust? A self-vowed anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist (read heavily biased), two journalists who essentially cancel each other out, or a historian (Burton W. Folsom, Jr.) who correctly distinguishes market entrepreneurs (free market capitalists) from political entrepreneurs (robber barons/crony capitalists). If you cannot make such a simple distinction, then your discernment is suspect. Quite aside from the intellectual dishonesty in characterizing the capitalist critique of cronyism as wholly coming from Stossel.

If You Don't Like Crony Capitalism and Economic Fascism, You're A Cuck
It turns out that if you don’t like the notion of a president-elect threatening private companies with withdrawal of public contracts – which, by the way, would involve utilization of more taxpayer dollars; or a president-elect threatening companies with tariffs for the great sin of moving jobs offshore in order to compete to provide consumers with the best products at the lowest prices; or a vice president-elect leveraging state resources to bribe a company so that the president-elect can take credit for saving jobs…this makes you a leftist.
- http://www.dailywire.com/news/11277/breaking-if-you-dont-crony-capitalism-and-economic-ben-shapiro

Yes, Crony Capitalism Is Bad Whether It's Obama Or Trump
In other words, Trump threatened a domestic company with taxpayer dollars – we’d presumably have to pay more not to use Carrier’s parent company with regard to defense – so that he could get a headline.

That’s gross.
- http://www.dailywire.com/news/11244/yes-crony-capitalism-bad-whether-its-obama-or-ben-shapiro

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism​

Competitive markets only exist in a free system of voluntary exchange. If that governmental favoritism drives competitors out of the market, consumers no longer have the full options for voluntary exchange.

Nonsense. The capitalist system typical of fascist governance is much less free than the mixed socialism typical of liberal governance, for example.

You keep saying that, but I've yet to see you post any support for this oft-repeated claim.

So? Crony capitalism is still not socialism, or anything like socialism. It is capitalism.

Cronyism alloys the capitalist characteristics of "private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets" similarly to how socialism does.

But corporate capitalism - by far the most common variety these days - is capitalism.

Mixed economies are not necessarily corporate capitalist, so you'd need to support that claim.

You quoted a wiki article that claimed the governmental collusions typical of crony capitalism were "socialist-style".

It didn't say '"socialist-style" capitalism', it said "socialist-style interference in the market".

That's what austerity measures do - shrink the economy, punish the poor for the sins of the rich, punish labor for the sins of capital, punish citizens for the influence of foreigners, etc.

More conspiracy theories?

 

[iceaura]

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Competitive markets are not central to capitalism, quite obviously - monopoly markets are not only very common but in most circumstances (according to most economic theorists) inevitable, unless prevented by careful regulation and governance.

If that governmental favoritism drives competitors out of the market, consumers no longer have the full options for voluntary exchange.

And the capitalist makes bigger profits, garners larger rents, gains higher returns on the private capital they have invested. Yes.

"The capitalist system typical of fascist governance is much less free than the mixed socialism typical of liberal governance, for example."
You keep saying that, but I've yet to see you post any support for this oft-repeated claim.

I've never said that before, on this thread or recently in this forum. It's simple enough fact, though - look at the typical examples.

Cronyism alloys the capitalist characteristics of "private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets" similarly to how socialism does.

Socialism has socialist characteristics, capitalism has capitalist characteristics. That's why we have these words in the English language. Crony capitalism is capitalism, "crony socialism" (as yet undefined) would be socialism.

Mixed economies are not necessarily corporate capitalist,

All modern use of "mixed economies" refers to a mixture of socialist and capitalist corporate economic organization.

It didn't say '"socialist-style" capitalism', it said "socialist-style interference in the market".

And it was referring to government collusion in capitalist initiatives, without socialist characteristics. Hence gibberish, hence corrected.

"That's what austerity measures do - shrink the economy, punish the poor for the sins of the rich, punish labor for the sins of capital, punish citizens for the influence of foreigners, etc."
More conspiracy theories?

Observation is not theory. "Austerity measures", as the term is used, shrink economies - the preponderance of the hardship in Greece and similar places falls on the poor, on labor, and on the citizenry of those countries. The rich, the capital owning, and the international investors, suffer much less - despite having been the primary doers of the wrong things done. This is observed, not theorized.

 

[wellwisher]

Nazism is a form of socialism. The way I infer this is connected to the state of Germany during the rise of Hitler. Germany at that time, was closer to a ghetto country than a country of prosperity, due to having lost a major world war; WWI, and being all busted up. Socialism can look attractive when you have nothing. Everyone works together to restore basic services to the country. This is sounds good if your are struggling, but it is not enough if you are already beyond this. Had Germany been productive and prosperous, Nazism would not have the same mass appeal. It would tend to undermine the fruit of capitalism. It would need to cheat and become violent.

 

[joepistole]

Nazism is a form of socialism. The way I infer this is connected to the state of Germany during the rise of Hitler. Germany at that time, was closer to a ghetto country than a country of prosperity, due to having lost a major world war; WWI, and being all busted up. Socialism can look attractive when you have nothing. Everyone works together to restore basic services to the country. This is sounds good if your are struggling, but it is not enough if you are already beyond this. Had Germany been productive and prosperous, Nazism would not have the same mass appeal. It would tend to undermine the fruit of capitalism. It would need to cheat and become violent.

Well, here is the problem with that Wellwisher, the Nazi's were capitalists, "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Adolph Hitler. That's why Hitler was staunchly anticommunist. That's one of the reasons he attacked the Soviet Union.

Hitler equated socialism with revolution. He didn't view it as a economic system, " he (Hitler) was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[14] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[12] The term that Hitler later wished he had used for his political party name was “social revolutionary.

As has been repeatedly pointed out now, capitalists did very well under Hitler's regime until warfare began interfering with their ability to conduct business. Unfortunately for you and those of your ilk, the truth still matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Hitler.27s_views_on_economics

Now let's look at some of the similarities between the modern Republican Party and Nazi Germany. They both promulgate alternative facts. They both are for state control of media as demonstrated by Trump. Trump has on several occasions told the media what to report and what not to report and as recently as today. Trump has actively worked to undermine the free press.

The modern Republican Party embraces torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. The Republican embrace of torture began with Baby Bush and continues under Trump. Trump has repeatedly endorsed torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. Hitler's use of torture is well known.

The modern Republican is every bit as authoritarian as Hitler was. Trump has repeatedly praised Putin who is in every sense a dictator and a corrupt one at that. Putin now controls the Russian press. He murders his political opponents, and he invades neighboring states. Trump like Putin, and Hitler before him, is a self avowed nationalist.

 

[Sylvester]

You believe what you want...I mena, we dont know...we weren't there. You have to to resign yourself to the fact that socialism does not exist in the human condition. Mussolini was a fascist, if it's any consolation.

 

[Syne]

Competitive markets are not central to capitalism, quite obviously - monopoly markets are not only very common but in most circumstances (according to most economic theorists) inevitable, unless prevented by careful regulation and governance.

What is 'Capitalism'
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely free to determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, without check or controls. Most modern countries practice a mixed capitalist system of some sort that includes government regulation of business and industry.
- http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp​

Yet you provide no definitions, nor citations of "most economic theorists", for your repeated bare assertions.

I've never said that before, on this thread or recently in this forum. It's simple enough fact, though - look at the typical examples.

You have repeatedly said fascist governments are capitalist, and you continue to fail to support that claim.

Observation is not theory. "Austerity measures", as the term is used, shrink economies - the preponderance of the hardship in Greece and similar places falls on the poor, on labor, and on the citizenry of those countries. The rich, the capital owning, and the international investors, suffer much less - despite having been the primary doers of the wrong things done. This is observed, not theorized.

Then provide the evidence of the rich being the primary wrong doers. You know, instead of government policy/intervention.

 

[Syne]

Well, here is the problem with that Wellwisher, the Nazi's were capitalists, "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Adolph Hitler. That's why Hitler was staunchly anticommunist. That's one of the reasons he attacked the Soviet Union.

Hitler equated socialism with revolution. He didn't view it as a economic system, " he (Hitler) was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[14] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[12] The term that Hitler later wished he had used for his political party name was “social revolutionary.

As has been repeatedly pointed out now, capitalists did very well under Hitler's regime until warfare began interfering with their ability to conduct business. Unfortunately for you and those of your ilk, the truth still matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Hitler.27s_views_on_economics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Hitler.27s_views_on_economics
Yet:

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences.[199] Nazi propaganda posters in working class districts emphasised anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[206]

[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler']Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[207] He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[191]

Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.[/URL]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism
​

Or maybe this bit from your own cherry-picked link:

Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system"...
In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[16] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[17] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can't escape...What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Hitler.27s_views_on_economics​

You were saying?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Hitler.27s_views_on_economics

Now let's look at some of the similarities between the modern Republican Party and Nazi Germany. They both promulgate alternative facts. They both are for state control of media as demonstrated by Trump. Trump has on several occasions told the media what to report and what not to report and as recently as today. Trump has actively worked to undermine the free press.

If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.
...
Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html​

The modern Republican Party embraces torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. The Republican embrace of torture began with Baby Bush and continues under Trump. Trump has repeatedly endorsed torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. Hitler's use of torture is well known.

Water-boarding is not a concentration camp. Have you seen how many people have volunteered for water-boarding, just to prove the point?

The modern Republican is every bit as authoritarian as Hitler was. Trump has repeatedly praised Putin who is in every sense a dictator and a corrupt one at that. Putin now controls the Russian press. He murders his political opponents, and he invades neighboring states. Trump like Putin, and Hitler before him, is a self avowed nationalist.

You've obviously drunk the paranoid kool-aid.

 

[joepistole]

Yet:

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences.[199] Nazi propaganda posters in working class districts emphasised anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[206]
Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[207] He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[191]

Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism
​

Or maybe this bit from your own cherry-picked link:

Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system"...
In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[16] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[17] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can't escape...What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Hitler.27s_views_on_economics​

You were saying?

And how does that change a single thing? The only cherry picking going on here is between your ears. Per previous references Hitler viewed socialism as a word to denote revolution. And the fact remains, Hitler was very much a capitalist, and capitalists did well under his regime until war made business difficult. Hitler in addition to being a capitalist was also an authoritarian. Hitler certainly wasn't a socialist in the way you wish to use the term. He hated communism. He threw communists in concentration camps, along with dissenters, gays, and Jews.

If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.

How do you figure? Where is the evidence for that one? And please be specific.

...
Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

And?

Water-boarding is not a concentration camp. Have you seen how many people have volunteered for water-boarding, just to prove the point?

Who said water-boarding is a concentration camp? You are making shit up again comrade. I don't know how many people have volunteered to go through water-boarding as part of their torture training. I'll tell you one person who promised to do so and backed out of it. His name is Sean Hannity the famous right wing demagogue. After promising for months to undergo water-boarding the brave right wing demagogue Sean Hannity backed out. He was and remains a coward. There aren't long lines of people wanting to get waterboarded. People aren't lining up to be waterboarded, much less for fun.

It doesn't matter if special forces learn how to withstand waterboarding as part of their torture training. It doesn't change the fact that waterboarding is torture. Furthermore, Trump has advocated more severe measures than just water boarding.

You've obviously drunk the paranoid kool-aid.

LOL....said the pot to the kettle.

Before you go accusing others of drinking the "paranoid Kool-Aid comrade, you need to take very long and serious look at yourself.

And the fact remains, Trump like Hitler and Putin is a self avowed nationalist. Trump like Hitler and Putin are authoritarians. The don't like the free press. They revel and thrive in misinformation. They all are against civil liberties and are for torture. They all believe in their ethnic superiority.

 

[iceaura]

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely free to determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, without check or controls. Most modern countries practice a mixed capitalist system of some sort that includes government regulation of business and industry.
- http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

Yet you provide no definitions, nor citations of "most economic theorists", for your repeated bare assertions.

What you have there is a description of an aspect of common reality. Not a definition. And it's careless - sloppy in the extreme.

For example, a centrally planned economy would be capitalist if it were a private capitalist plutocracy doing the planning - like a company town, or a banana republic, or a fascist industrial State. In fact, if you take that slipshod (if it's even honest) description seriously, becoming a trust or monopoly like the railroads and oil industry of the Gilded Age, or the company towns of the coal country and hard rock mining corporations, would not be capitalist - that getting control of one's market and wiping out the competition (the occasionally accomplished goal of many capitalists) would change the industry from capitalist to something else.

Also: my guess is you have confused the "mixed capitalism" term in there with the "mixed economy" term used in the common economic literature. That is common among those who confuse government itself with non-capitalist economies - any capitalist economy that wishes to preserve a good degree of freedom in market competition will have to have government, to counteract concentration of wealth and consequent destruction of freedom in the markets, and then the markets themselves.

If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.

Nonsense. That goes back to W&Cheney, the discarding of habeas corpus along with search and seizure warrants and the like, and the Homeland Security/Patriot Act bureaucratic expansion. Obama added nothing - pulled back a bit, actually.

Yet:
The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

The name - not "term", which is different and not capitalized - came out of attempts to get Germans to vote for Adolf Hitler's political Party.

Of course Hitler mistrusted free markets - so did Standard Oil. Simultaneously industrial scale and genuinely free markets are not all that common on this planet, in capitalist countries or anywhere else, partly because wealthy capitalists don't want them around.

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences.[199] Nazi propaganda posters in working class districts emphasised anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[206]

So the Nazis distributed propaganda, taking advantage of the ignorance and bigotry of the German working class. That is news?

Note the trick: when Hitler accused the Jews of being capitalist and therefore greedy bankers and industrialists blighting the lives of good Germans, then since Hitler and his pals were not Jews they could not be greedy capitalists blighting said lives. Sounds familiar somehow, don't it?

Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[207] He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[191]

Germany's economy under Hitler was capitalist. Period.

Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.

So? He got one - a total war economy is a State directed economy. In Germany's case, a State-colluding and State-allied and State-supporting economy of private, for-profit, capitalist corporations - who made money hand over fist as long as the army was winning its battles.

Or maybe this bit from your own cherry-picked link:
Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system"...

You get your political and historical facts from Hitler's claims in his speeches? Seriously?

 

[river]

nazism was more than being socialism it was fascist .

germany and the soviets and the allies were backed by bankers by the west .

 

[spidergoat]

You believe what you want...I mena, we dont know...we weren't there. You have to to resign yourself to the fact that socialism does not exist in the human condition. Mussolini was a fascist, if it's any consolation.

Most of Europe is full of socialist institutions.

 

[billvon]

Most of Europe is full of socialist institutions.

As is the US. The military, public roads, air traffic control, the VA, police, fire and ambulance - all socialist institutions.

 

[birch]