"Les NAZIS n'étaient pas de VRAIS SOCIALISTES"

- Ah ouais ? Tu as peut être raison. Moi sinon je suis nationaliste et vraiment socialiste

- Donc t'es juste un nazi

- Mais tu viens pas de dire que les nazis n'étaient pas de vrais socialistes ? Dans ce cas là je ne suis pas un nazi puisque je suis un vrai socialiste.

- Vous essayez toujours de vous trouver des excuses les fachos

Histoire vraie

J'ai eu la même conversation avec un mec que je considère comme un ami (mais bon, gauchiste communiste)

- Je ne suis jamais considéré "nazi" ni "national-socialiste" puisque c'est un mouvement qui va au delà du simple "nationaliste et socialisme"

- AGNEUGNEU ta gueule nationalisme et socialisme combiné ça donne quoi bah NAZI et toc le facho !

Pareil, faut les aider

Ami d'enfance, on a traversé nos galères ensemble

Et puis on ne choisi pas ses amis pour leurs idées politiques, c'est puéril.

Oui, un ami c'est surtout quelqu'un de fidèle et pas un pote avec qui tu vas en manif'

Le socialisme du nazisme, c'est le socialisme de Spengler; celui basé sur le militarisme prussien

Ahahah ce sticker

Il était socialiste, simplement que c'était un socialisme différent du socialo marxisme.

The National Socialist Welfare State

Cette vidéo le démontre d'ailleurs parfaitement.





Socialism is the public sector ( state ) control of the economy. Capitalism is the private control of the means of production. Socialists sometimes disagree with this definition. In the Sargon vs Akkad debate about capitalism vs socialism, one defined socialism as the ownership of the means of production which he says, is the classic marxist definition. He then lsited Soviet Union, Cuba, Eastern european countries and China as socialists. Workers are a group, so is the public. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Marx's definition of socialism is " socialised man, the associated producers rationally regulating their interchange with nature bringing it under their comon control. Instead of being ruled by it by the blind forces of nature : " Source : Das Kapital v3 Page 593. A fancy language to hide the true meaning of words. Marx says socialism is a group of people, the workers, controlling the economy together instead of being ruled by the natural economy. Socialism is the state control of economy. Marxist socialist North Korea can call themselves democratic because technically by the socialist definition, it's democratic. Interestingly, the fascists and national socialists also used the same logic to claim their authoritarian socialist state are the highest form of democracy. Some thought that Marx was calling for paradise and not totalitarism. Marx said the state would die or wither away. First it requires the setting up of a totalitarian state in order for the totalitarian state to wither away Then since a state is for the people, meaning it's hierarchy of society conssiting of the people, when Marx and Engels say that the state will die away, society will die too. And you have no longer hierarchy of society. You have anarchism. And you have every individual fending for himself in control of his own economy.

Individual control of his economy is capitalism. So Marx is saying that socialism will die away and we will be left with anarcho capitalism. Marx and Engel are calling for totalitarian state control of society, knowing well that the state won't wither away at all. They are just promising you that it will. Whatever the power is into the h ands of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao, they will be in total control and dominate every aspects of the lives of the people. At this point the people will hav eno chooice but obey as they are promising that the paradise will come soon. It's what both Lenin and Stalin did. They had to explain to the starving people that this isn't paradise of communism. That they were currently in socialism which is the transition yet to communism. and that they haven't got it yet. And this despite the thing that communism and socialism were synonyms. Marx and Engel promise that the totalitarism will wither away once it's set up. They are doing this to reassure the critics that the future paradise will not look like a boot stamping on a human face forever. O Brien said : " No one ever seizes the power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means. It's an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard arevolution. One makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. " Source : " Nineteeen eighty four " 1984. Orwell Page 276 Muravchik in his book : " Heaven on Earth " Page 14, said " For neither Lenin or Marx was the revolution the answer to the question : what can be done to the proletariat? Rather the prolateriat was the answer to the question : what can be done for the revolution. Marxists are self blind of this. Many marxists are laughing when some say that Hitler was a socialist because he wanted to " socialize the people " by removing the jews fom society.

Marx wanted the workers to socialize while Hitler wanted the German race to socialize. Marx wanted a worker collective. Hitler wanted a people or a race collective. Lenin wanted a disctatorship of the proletariat. Hitler wanted a people's state. Marx wanted a class socialism. Hitler wanted a race socialism. Marxists may fall back on the idea that socialism is not about race. but only about the workers. However, socialism pre dates marxism. The original socialism was not about class at all. Socialism was the collective in control of the means of production. It had nothing to do with class. It was the collective, or the public sector. The state control of economy. You can have a worker's state or a racial's state. You can have any type of states. Just because marxism is supposedly for the workers, which is not, doesn't mean it's socialism. It's only socialism when it calls for state control of the economy. Also the idea that marxism has nothing to do with race is equally correct. " The capitalists knows that all commodities, however scurvy they look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in true money, inwardly circumsied jews and what is more, a wonderful mean ofs whereby out of money to make more money. " " Das Kapital " V1 Page 107.

Marx thought capitalism was jewish. And Hitler thought the exact same thing. " Because the capital is internationa, its holders, the jews are international because of their being spread all over the world. And here everyone should actually throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, if the capital is international, becaue its holders, the jews, are spread internationally all over the world, then it must be insanity to think that one will be able to fight this capital of the same members of this race internationally. " Source : " Hitler, speech on 13th August 1920, quoted from Zitelman " Hitler, the politics of seduction " Page 265. And Marx is not calling for the socialization of its people. He is calling for the removal of jews from society. " As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of judaism, heckstering and its conditions, the jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an onject... The social emancipation of the jew is emancipation of society from judaism. " Reference : Karl Marx on the jewish question. Also, Hitelr read the Capital, which he says it convinced him that he was in a fight against " a real international and stock exchange capital " which he belives was run by jews. Source " Mein Kampf " Page 198. No wonder Goebbels declared 8 years later that socialism = antisemitism. Reference : Von Kuehnelt " Leftism " Page 137. Socialism is designed to divide society into hostile groups in order to exploit them and allow the accusers a chance to gain power. When you cllectivise the people, in this way, they become the governing body of whatever territory they are on. So on they become the state. Some might rejet the definition but it comes from the Oxford dictionary. " State noun, a nation or territory considered qs an organized political community under one government. Source : Offord dictionary. 2010 Page 1741.

This was an issue : socialists didn't know the true meaning of socialism. Socialists don't say what real socialism is, because they don't know, at least most of them, what real socialism was. Friedrich von Hayek said : " If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists. " Marxist reject this definition because they said in theory, the given definition would mean that when a guy owns his own factory, that he would be a state. Or he would be a dictator. First the word politic comes from the greek word polites., meaning citizen. The origin of that is polis, meaning city.City is public because of the hierarchy of society. So to be poiltical is related to the running of the hierarchy that dominates society. This means that because the factory owner is not relating to the running of the hierarchy that dominates society, a private owner of a factory is not political. And technically he is not a state, since the definition requires a politlcal community. Secondly, even if we reject this technical definition, and assume that the factory owner is a mini dictator of this factory and thus this is a state. How many people work for him? He has a tiny hierarchy or "state " . Anyone in this state can leave at any moment. And nobody is being forced to comply with his state. So he is not a threat to anyone. It's why I don't fear a factory owner. Or the owner of a restaurant chain. The worst they can do is sack me, sell me a bad product. Or I would have one guy being hostile towards me. The hierarchy of the public state can send police and the army into my door, steal my wealth with inflation and taxation, throw me into a cage, etc... This was because the public state has a lot mroe power than a guy owning a small business or a factory. Similarly when the workers rose up to collectively, take over the factory, they are a mob that becomes the state.

A dictatorship of the proletariat. They have already violently outhrown the factory owner and it's not like they are not willing to be violent again. Even if they are suppoed to be a democracy, as Socrates found out, dictatorship of the majority can force the minority to drink their poison. This collective control, slavery to the group tyranny, is the essence of socialism. So even if one invididual is a state, the power of the individual is limited to his of her property. Thus, capitalism is natural freedom of the individual instead of being owned by someone else or the collective. You can own your own home and workshope, produce things for society. You don't need to bow another private individual and owning your own property , you are not dominated bby anyone else. You are free to do what you want in your own domain. If you need something from someone else, you can make a trade for it. This freedom is essence of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean that each of us necessarly own a factory or a home. What it does mean is that if we work hard and produce things that our community wants, if we produce goods or services that others people value, then we will be rewarded by those others people. The community around us award us for giving to the community. All men are islands and the only way to receive value is to provide value for the others islands. The way to get rich is to get people what they want. Jeff Bezos is rich because he wants to collect banknotes or digits on a screen. Best part is that he can collect my currency if he wants to as long as he gives me history books. Half of the USA are on amazon prime giving their currency to amazon in exchange of goods. Jeff Bezos wants currency and you want Jeff Bezos products.
If you want currency, provide people with the products they want. If people don't like, they can do what he did. Some say that his business wasn't built by himself by the coworkers. They are the ones who did the physical work of puting the warehouses up. And so on. Except Bezos was the one who organized the effort. He was the one starting the business. He worked, founded his own business and provided to society and was awarded for that by society. He then was able to hire people to help build the buildings housing hs business. The people building this were paid for a particular service. They did not deliver the products to teh doors of the houses who's owners ordered products off of the website. They physically did the work. But they did it on Bezos' behalf. And he padi them for that work. If you hire a guy to install a roof in your house, he doesn't own the house just like he doesn't own the roof. You pay him for the job. There is also no points on working hard about something people don't want or want less. Working hard doesn't mean that you provided the same value to society that some others people. A McDonaldo employee provide less to the society than an airplane pilot for example as in the first case, it doesn't requires as much skills as in the second case. Airplane pilots get paid more for their works. Society thinks there is more value of having someone capable of flying a plane full of persons thousands of feets into the sky and land us in safety to where we want to go. Most socialists believe in the labour theory of value.
They argue that if the value is based on the amount of work that went into creating it, averaged over society. That's not true. They say that because the value is fixed, the capitalists can only make money if they steal from the workers. Marxists believe that hiring someone else to work for you and paying them for that work is capitalism because they have volunteered to work for you. And have agreed to the wage and can always leave and go live in the woods or something. In their mind, the reason it's exploitation is because of the Labour Theory of Value. It's the idea that a product gains its value based on how many hours it took to make it. If you took 5 hours to make a pile of muud then this pile of mud is worth 5 hours wages. If you happened to find a diamond on the floor, the diamond is worth nothing because you didn't put any effort into making it. Since everything has a set value, you cannot change higher than the value. A car who neede 10 hours of work who is 10 hours wage You cannot sell it for higher than that. The only way from anyone to make profit is pay the workers less their worth. So if you make 10 hours to make a car and the factory sells the car for 100 dollars that means your wages should be 10 dollars per hour. But the factory owner can't pay you 100 dollars because he wants profit so instead he gives you 20 dollars for a rate of 2 dollars per hour and pockets the others 80 dollars whichis profit. So under The factory owner can make more profit by paying you less than your worth. The problem is that goods are subjective in values. The Subjective Theory of Value came after Marx wrote his book about the capital. Without the Labour Theory of Value to prop it up, Marxism basically loses its entire substance. Under the subjective theory of value, you mgith slave away for 10 hours to make a car which could get sold for 20 000 dollars or not sold at all.
Either way you get paid for the hours you agreed to work building the car, regardless whether the owner makes profit or not, you still get paid. He is taking the risk with its business. You are not. If you don't like your job, nothing is stopping you generally from walking out and finding a better paying job. Or make your own car factory. Or your own business. Nothing says that you have to work for anobody else. Save up some money from your wages, become self employeed. But anyway the whole idea that hiring someone is exploitative is outdated. In reality, the value is subjective. Everyone makes a subjective, individual, assessment of the value of a good or service. If the Labour Theory of Value was correct, society would value hours long videos on youtube way more than shorter videos on youtube from vloggers that didn't put as many works. The reason is that long documented videos like history videos are not as valued as vlogging videos by the majority of people. Individuals values videos based on different factors. Not the labour time who went into it. Value is therefore subjective, not labour. Hitler believed in the shrinking markets. Which is a variant of the marxist tendency of the rate of profit to fall concept. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall needs the Labour Theory of Value to work to function. Since the theory doesn't work, it cannot works either. If vlue is subjective then so is labour and so is profit. If profit is subjective then there is no reason to suppose the rate of profit will fall over the time as the theory suggests.
There is no reason to think that the workers have their wealth stolen off by their employers. There is one argument. If a capitalist knew that he would make more profit by decreasing productivity, why would he raise productivity? If he knew profit would fall, he would actively seek to sabotage his own factory? He would hire the least productive workers and fire all researchers and enginners trying to come up with ways or raising the productivity. Capitalists wouldn't invest in larger productions. If there was an economic law that forced them to make lower profit over time. They wouldn't invest in the future, which is exactly they are doing by creating mass production factories and business. If we thought profit would fall, we would almost all living in the woods since any productivity at all is therefore, worse than no productivity. Then the tendency of the rate of the profit to fall doesn't make sense. Without these theories, capitalism isn't going to fall. Even if it does, it won't be for this reason. Eduard Bernstein, a marxist socialist, understood this. Bernstein was asked by Engels to complete Das Kapital volume 4. But this was before he deviated from the " true " marxist faith. " More than 50 years has passed since Marx and Engels formulated their sociological forescat that the rich would become fewer, the poor poorer and the middle class neligible. Bernstein observed that something nrealy opposite had occurred : the rich were more numerous, as were the middle classes and the poor were better off. He focused on the prediction that capital would become even more concentrated, apparently because data on this was easy to come by. " Reference : Muravshik : " Heaven on earth " Page 105. At the time, none of Bernstein's opponents could proof that he was wrong. They still haven't.1 year or so after Bernstein published his book, Lenin formualted an answer.

That most workers might not growing poorer or more ready to overthrow the system. But the proletarian revolution didn't need to be carried out by proletarians. That it could be done for them. " Lenin wrote : " Not a single marxist has understood Marx ". " Lenin quote from Murchavik in " Heaven on Earth " Page 112. Lenin decided that revolution was what Marxism was about. The establishment of the new state gave Lenin total control voer the workers whether they wanted or not. And this wasn't inevitable but desirable. Lenin wasn't interested in helpipng the working class or even his fellow socialists. He was interested in power. Lenin to Bela Kun : " Be firm. If there are waverings among the socialists who came over to you yesterday, , or among the pretty bourgeois, in regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat, suppress the wagerings mercilessly. Shooting is the proper fate of a coward in war. " From Muchavik " Heaven on Earth " Page 140.

Because Lnin realize that the tendency of the profit to fall was a fallacy, he realized that capitalism may not fall by itself. Indeed, it didn't and the Russian Revolution happened because of the WW1. It wasn't a war between private citizens but a war between the states. Between the public sectors who took opportunities to take more and more ressources from the production industries and consume them in violent conflict. The result was impoverishment of the private sector by the public sector, leading to the rebellion. Lenin used this societal breakdown to his advantage. Once he was in power, he did everything he could to stay in power. Which meant he had to steal as much grains as possible. from the epasants to feed his revolution. TO marxists in onre province, Lenin wrote :" Hang ' ( hang without fail so the people see ) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. 2. Publish their names. 3. Take from them all the grain. 4. Designate hostages. Reference : Lenin, 11th August 1917, from Gellatery, " Lenin, Stalin and Hitler " Page 53. The peasants were condemned to starve in the name of the workers. They would be murdered if they resisted. " Some were shot, others drowned, some frozen or buried alive, and still others were hacked to death by swords. " Lenin, Stalin and Hitler " Page 65. Semyon Budyonny cavalry division committed also crimes against jews. His men stole possession ( including women's underwear ) , tortured the men and the general himself attempted to shoot one man who threatened him to report him ot the higher ups, only failing to do so when his pistol misfired. " Reference : " Russian in flames. " Engelstein. Pages 532 - 539.

Hitler rejects both capitalism and bolshevism because he sees them both are jewish ideologies. Instead he wanted to construct an aryan state's control of the economy But he also wants there to be competition within that. Since he doesn't have the ressources to implement full socialism, he is calling for limited socialism until after the conquest of Russia. It's why Hitler's state allows some individual competitions and some survival of the fittest mentality in the economy. But he also can't allows full capitalism where every German is out for himself and is not working towards his " race " because so then he wouldn't be working to wipe out the " jewish state " in preparation for the racial social collective he wants to create. It's why we had national socialist officials walking into factories and taking them over from within, dictating policies to the owners as described in Gunter Reimann in " The Vampire economy " chapter 2. Also Tooze in " Wages of destruction " Page 111 - 113. Once it's done the nazi party could run business, sell products and make profit. Point 14 of national socialist 25th point : 14 : We demand that the profits from wholesale trade be shared out " This is why the Germans could own property and the jews see their property being taken from them. Even though the national socialist abolished private property in 1933, not long after taking power. On 28th February 1933, on the basis of article 48 paragraph 2 of the constitution of the German Reich against communists state endangering acts of violence.



Article 115 : The dwelling of every German in his sanctuary and is inviolable. Exceptions may be imposed only by authority in law. " Text from the Weimar constitution. Article 153 : Property shall be guaranteed by the constitution. Its nature and limit shall be prescribed by law. "Expropriation shall take place only for the general good and only on the basis of law. it shall be accompanied by payment of just compensation unless otherwise provided by national law. In case of dispute over the amount of compensation recourse to the ordinary courts shall be permitted unless otherwise provided by national law. Expropriation by the Reich over against the states, municipalities and associations serving the public welfare may take place only upon the payment of compensation. Property imposes obligations. its use by its owner shall at the same time serve the public good. " From the Weimar Constitution. By law, private property no longer existed since all property could at any time being seized by the state. Without property rights, all property belongs to the state. And the German people were effectively leased by the state until it was taken off them. Under Hitler, the Germans could keep their properties, which was not guaranteed for the jews because it suited Hitler and the national socialist state's ideology. But non Germans or Germans not obeying the state could have their property or business stolen from them. " The Nazis viewed private property as conditionnal for its use, not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further nazi goals, it could be nationalized. Reference : Temin : " Soviet and Nazi Economic planning in the 1930s " Page 576.
" Prof Junkers of the Junkers aeroplane factory refused to follow the government's bidding in 1934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensatin Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which others contractswere negociated. " Page 576 - 577. Chapter 2 of " Vampire Economy " also mentions that industrialists were visited by state auditors " who had strict orders to examine the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company for the precedenting 2, 3 or more years until some error or false entry was found. "
2 heures 20.

La gauchiasserie ne mérite que le fouet sur leur cervelle de rat handicapé