Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

193

Communism is based on the idea that the state completely owns all corporations and all forms of production. In return they would promise to ensure a livable wage, free education and free healthcare etc. This leads to 99% of the population living just barely above poverty level, while those that are in powerful positions in government or at least well-connected to those in power to become fabulously wealthy. The level of taxation levied upon these poor souls to accomplish this ensured that the masses were poor and stayed poor their entire lives.

With National Socialism a person that founds a company or corporation gets to retain full ownership of said company. The wealth of the company is still distributed out amongst it’s employees, but in a drastically different manner. Much more beneficial to all involved. Lets use the analogy of a pirate ship crew. Pirate ships operated on a share by share basis. Yes the captain might get 10 or even more shares of the booty they collected, but if they captured a ship loaded with gold for example, even the single share that the deck hands and galley hands would get could be a small fortune. Likewise if a company was very successful and made billions of dollars, like many of today’s companies do, the single share that the janitors or night watchmen would get could be enormous sums of money. Name one other form of government where a janitor can afford a large house, fancy cars, multiple children and still afford to send them all to college as well. You can’t. There aren’t any.

This method of guaranteeing even the lowliest of employees would enjoy a full share of the company’s profits easily explains the level of fervent fanaticism Hitler enjoyed from his followers. The effectiveness of National Socialism is beyond debate as seen by how Hitler was able to take a country that had not only been utterly decimated in World War One, but incessantly raped and pillaged by the Jewish elite bankers such as the Rothchild’s after the war during the Weimar Republic. In a mere 12 years he took this ragged husk of a nation and rebuilt it to be the single most powerful nation in the world by the beginning of World War Two. There existed some forms of taxation in Hitler’s Germany, but most of that came directly from the companies making huge profits. Not on the backs of the individual. Other than military and infrastructure spending, most of these taxes were used to help the population have bigger families. For example, when you purchased a home the state would pay for 25% of your house once you had a child. If you continued to have more children you would have your entire mortgage paid off by the state upon the birth of your fourth child. Many other forms of assistance were geared towards helping the people be able to afford to have large families as well.

Exactly the same right?

Communism is based on the idea that the state completely owns all corporations and all forms of production. In return they would promise to ensure a livable wage, free education and free healthcare etc. This leads to 99% of the population living just barely above poverty level, while those that are in powerful positions in government or at least well-connected to those in power to become fabulously wealthy. The level of taxation levied upon these poor souls to accomplish this ensured that the masses were poor and stayed poor their entire lives. With National Socialism a person that founds a company or corporation gets to retain full ownership of said company. The wealth of the company is still distributed out amongst it’s employees, but in a drastically different manner. Much more beneficial to all involved. Lets use the analogy of a pirate ship crew. Pirate ships operated on a share by share basis. Yes the captain might get 10 or even more shares of the booty they collected, but if they captured a ship loaded with gold for example, even the single share that the deck hands and galley hands would get could be a small fortune. Likewise if a company was very successful and made billions of dollars, like many of today’s companies do, the single share that the janitors or night watchmen would get could be enormous sums of money. Name one other form of government where a janitor can afford a large house, fancy cars, multiple children and still afford to send them all to college as well. You can’t. There aren’t any. This method of guaranteeing even the lowliest of employees would enjoy a full share of the company’s profits easily explains the level of fervent fanaticism Hitler enjoyed from his followers. The effectiveness of National Socialism is beyond debate as seen by how Hitler was able to take a country that had not only been utterly decimated in World War One, but incessantly raped and pillaged by the Jewish elite bankers such as the Rothchild’s after the war during the Weimar Republic. In a mere 12 years he took this ragged husk of a nation and rebuilt it to be the single most powerful nation in the world by the beginning of World War Two. There existed some forms of taxation in Hitler’s Germany, but most of that came directly from the companies making huge profits. Not on the backs of the individual. Other than military and infrastructure spending, most of these taxes were used to help the population have bigger families. For example, when you purchased a home the state would pay for 25% of your house once you had a child. If you continued to have more children you would have your entire mortgage paid off by the state upon the birth of your fourth child. Many other forms of assistance were geared towards helping the people be able to afford to have large families as well. Exactly the same right?

(post is archived)

[–] • 13 pts

I just responded to another person having this same contention, did y'all just get out of a meeting or something?

I have a different argument then the one you are straw manning. I copypasta that shit form the other thread... here is my take.

Definition: NAZI; Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei "Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party"

Socialist structures, be they marxist or nationalist, have a fundamental flaw which is that the inevitable bureaucratic bloat, centralization, and institutional memory of these organizational structures has always lead/will invariably lead to, a massive unwieldy system that falls to despotic tyranny of the minority.

Conversely, natural and universal laws of scarcity and competition mean that any successful system will need to be decentralized more local controls in order to promote and benefit from inevitable group competition. My study of history leads me to believe that self determinationism and individualism in the pursuit of private property drives healthy and necessary competition which in turn promotes and capitalizes on our natural and universal evolutionary progresses of scarcity driven group/tribal identity.

[–] • 1 pt

Your straw man is actually a straw man.

The NSDAP actually had far less bloat than the "free market capitalism" of the US because they saw regulation as something that was occasionally a necessary evil rather than a cost of doing business. If the workers and owners could come to an agreement on some dispute they would see no need to step in. Because the owners and workers were heavily motivated to work together this was often the case. In the US the owners are encouraged to exploit the workers and constant intervention is needed. People are begging for more intervention right now particularly with social media because those companies are run by predatory foreigners. The companies run by people who love their country like Lindell and Nehlen don't need constant regulation.

The best way to minimize bloat is not is to have a strong sense of nationalism.

[–] • 0 pt

Interesting take, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I disagree with your last line. I don't feel nationalism will impede bloat but I do agree with you that it is important.

Also, in order for a Republic to exist according to Aristotle the society must poses "philia" or a homogeny of values, ideas, and objectives. Without this fraternity, which most often stems form ethnic identity, effective structural organization is incapable of managing and responding effectively. Philia in practice is a motivator for cooperation and mutual resolve in much the same way you articulate the NSDAP works to achieve.

As for the rest of your content. NSGermany was not around long enough for institutionalized bloat to develop. In that regard the experiment in NS government has not been allowed to run its course and it very well could be able to withstand the institutional decay. Unfortunately at this point we do not know for sure and so both of us are simply speculating. But its a fun mental exercise.

[–] • 1 pt

I agree that any system will bloat eventually. To the extent that it can be fought against the only effective tools (apart from violence) are a strong leader (dictator) and nationalism. NS Germany would have bloated over time, but it would have been no more, and possibly less than any other form of govt.

[–] • 0 pt

Socialist structures, be they marxist or nationalist, have a fundamental flaw which is that the inevitable bureaucratic bloat, centralization, and institutional memory of these organizational structures has always lead/will invariably lead to, a massive unwieldy system that falls to despotic tyranny of the minority

Workers owning the means of production causes this?

[–] • 8 pts

Socialist systems as governance cause centralization and bureaucratic bloat. It is as inevitable as it is necessary for them to exist.

The false pretense that superficially owning the means of production some how mitigates the absolute authority of any socialist systems central controls is an asinine position that ignores reality and human history.

[–] • 0 pt

China's centralization seems to be working well.

[–] • 4 pts

Workers don't really own the means of production in socialist regimes. A centralized cabal which claims to represent, or even 'be' the workers takes total control - see the so-called 'vanguard of the proletariat.' The National Socialists were only nominally different. The title of ownership remained in private hands, but the government had complete say down to fine detail. The point is that control is centralized, which leads to bloat, incompetence, and corruption. The bigger the organization, the more bureaucracy it takes to control it. Past a certain point, it is all bureaucracy, all rent seekers, drones and crooks, basically corrupt scumbags. That is why the world government so beloved of the globalists is unfeasible, and also why the slimy bureaucratic types lust after it so much.

[–] • 3 pts

I like your explanation.

I don't think the two philosophies could be more opposite. It amazes me how brainwashed some people are, and I don't understand why. I was "educated" in a public school too, but after that, I took the time to learn the truth. I do have to admit though, that I did miss a lot of television since I was busy reading and un-indoctrinating myself.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Name one other form of government where a janitor can afford a large house, fancy cars, multiple children and still afford to send them all to college as well. You can’t. There aren’t any.

There's no economic system where that can happen. It's a literal impossibility, like a square circle. Value is relative. It doesn't matter what number you assign to the money. You can't pay everyone enough money to live high on the hog because supply and demand will adjust everything so that the bottom can barely afford to scrape by and the wealthy are obscenely wealthy. It doesn't matter if the poorest guy makes $1 a day and the richest makes $1.10. In that case a used Toyota Prius with 500,000 miles will cost $8 and a new Model S will be $9. Getting that extra dollar will be very difficult because raises will be measured in pennies per year.

[–] • 2 pts

Yes, it's exactly the same, under communism your pirate ship would be no different. it's just known to the crew who owns the ship instead of lying to them telling them they own it too.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

You are stupid as fuck if you think communism and fascism are the same in effect* where the only difference is a small lie. Hitler on this slightly (files.catbox.moe)

You are parroting kikes and you do it so fucking constantly.

Or even REMOTELY similar. Like REMOTELY NatSoc is a Fascist ideology. Fascism is about natural freedoms.

[–] • 1 pt

Nice poster I like that, I've learned a thing or two on this one, things that I could hardly have found just on my own

[–] • 1 pt

poster

Now you're thinking in propaganda!

[–] • 1 pt

Agreed, this is a classic example of teaching someone to look at each tree and not see the forest.

The end result is the same which is a centralized, bloated political party controlling the masses and individual freedoms are only allowed as long as it supports the system. Your money is only your money as long as the government allows you to keep it.

The original capitalistic design of the US was far superior until power became centralized in DC and socialist policies began to take over. You can only motivate people with free shit for so long before they demand more and more and the system begins to collapse.

[–] • 1 pt

God I've been waiting for a post like this for a while, I've always had fags telling me they're both the same, but could never exactly explain why they're not. Then again I'm sure that's my own fault, since all it takes is a simple look into Communism's workings and the National Socialist workings.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts (edited )

What are you talking about? All it would take to debunk OP is to literally just Google how small businesses faired in Nazi Germany (tip: they all got fucked and steamrolled) and look up how workers faired in Nazi Germany (also fucked and steamrolled). The only way to be a National Socialist is to just take every piece of evidence regarding the 4 year plan and the economic conditions of Nazi Germany (which is COMPLETELY coherent by the way), throw it all in the garbage bin and yell "propaganda", and then just shrug your shoulders and say Nazi Germany was "an economic miracle" that cannot be explained (except for with all the evidence I just mentioned).

That's literally the only possible way to believe this, is to take the flat-earther route, where you say millions upon millions of people are just lying, including the people who lived throughout Europe and were there when it happened.

This entire post does not even explain HOW all of this makes sense in any sort of economic terms, just repeatedly insisting "nah bruh, everyone was super free and like, shit was awesome and stuff". That's the culmination of every National Socialist argument. Just hand waving and vague generalizations.

This whole "dude it was like financially wizardry and genius and stuff". It's complete bullshit. And you will never, EVER hear a detailed breakdown from a National Socialist about how that actually occurred. Because the process necessary to MAKE that occur involves some shiesty, shady ass tactics. Period. It's the laws of physics.

It would be like if you're like "hmm. How'd you afford that 200,000 sports car and all these cool new expensive gadgets and clothes and stuff over the past year? Don't you work at McDonalds and weren't you bankrupt a few years ago?" And I'm like "heh...um...I'm good at budgeting and....I work really hard".

Like, no. That is clearly bullshit. But there are probably some stupid fucks who would believe it. Now if you said "well I actually took EVERYTHING I MADE and stockpiled crypto" then okay, we actually have a plausible scenario now.

[–] • 1 pt

I can't remember the last time I googled anything controversial that Google didn't manipulate my search results. Just Google it? lol

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

It depends. The more obscure or technical the information you're looking for is, the more reliable it is. It's not like the economic policies of Nazi Germany are a hotly debated topic.

Edit: seriously go search for "Catholic church homosexuality". Manipulated as shit right? Big gay as far as the eye can see. Now go search for any Church Fathers commentary on homosexuality, for example, "thomas aquinas homosexuality". Suddenly exactly what you would expect.

I'm not Catholic btw.

[–] • 1 pt

Government is all the same.

[–] • 0 pt

This is a super simple argument. "Socialism", in any form, is only viable within a cohesive social structure. The reason the slaves in this country cannot endure any form of socialism is because there's no cohesion. Between erosion of pair bonding, a lack of homogenous communities and active division being fueled by both outside and inside forces, our country hasn't experienced cohesion in somewhere around a century and at least half of one.

You retards need to stop doing this "it's not racist if..." and "it's not socialism because...". Stop shying away and taking the bait. Either believe something and stick to it without simping or dedicate yourself to abandoning deciding just because someone else wants you to and then be honest about your decision to not decide.

[–] • 0 pt

I'd like your source for this, I've read about the nature of wages during that 12 year experiment but what you're suggesting is far different.

Again, if you're correct, so be it, but I'd like to read about for myself.

[–] • 0 pt

Of course they're not the same thing.

They are spelled completely differently.

[–] • 0 pt

Name one other form of government where a janitor can afford a large house, fancy cars, multiple children and still afford to send them all to college as well. You can’t. There aren’t any.

Janitors exists because people have been reduced to poverty and serfdom. Before the central banks, fiat currency and liberal theology, apprentices cleaned. Children and young adults would do the work taken by nannies and janitors today. Not only did you not need to send your kids to school to learn how to get fucked in the ass, they were paid while learning a valuable trade.

This method of guaranteeing even the lowliest of employees would enjoy a full share of the company’s profits easily explains the level of fervent fanaticism Hitler enjoyed from his followers.

For example, when you purchased a home the state would pay for 25% of your house once you had a child.

Many other forms of assistance were geared towards helping the people be able to afford to have large families as well.

I appreciate the post, it's much closer to reality then most others on this site, but it's just so slightly off. Most of the efforts of the NatSoc government was with the mantra of "help yourself!". Hand-outs were cut, as were benefits. Many social programs were stomped out. Instead Hitler mobilized various organizations to better the german people. One example is soup kitchens run by children, one of their tasks was to gather left-overs from their neighborhoods, and then cook food that poor germans could enjoy for free. This was a huge success.

Again, I appreciate your post, A good book on the subject of NatSoc economics is "wages of dectruction". It might be written by a man who hated Hitler, but it's factually accurate as far as I know.

Load more (2 replies)