Comments by "Nick Nolte" (@nicknolte8671) on "Analysing Nazi Anti-Semitic Propaganda Imagery (so nobody falls for it in the future)" video.

Of course you did. Mises himself was an adviser to a fascist regime, a racist and a misogynist. And no, there isn't a clear distinction, Nazism is an extreme form of fascism.
4
@AmericanCaesarian Fascism is capitalism in decay and fascism (and Nazism) are attempts by capitalists to save capitalism. That's why IG Farben gave the Nazi Party 4.5 million Reichsmarks and saved them from bankruptcy and that's why Mussolini allowed cartel growth, cut taxes on businesses, decreed wage reduction and rescinded the eight-hour work day. "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error." - Ludwig von Mises
2
@signorasforza354 Spengler, the intellectual who inspired the Nazis, said in 1924 that any form of taxation is "Bolshevism", that "the more a tax is justified the more it is unjustified" and that taxation is a matter of "life and death". Consequently, when the Nazis came to power, they held income tax rate at 10% lower than Great Britain under a conservative government. In 1941. At the time of the biggest land invasion in human history. Corporate profitability skyrocketed 4 times under the Nazis and even though millions of more people worked, the share of the workers' in the economy dropped by 3%. The share of rich people meanwhile increased by 9%.
1
@signorasforza354 "The domestic agenda [in Nazi Germany] was one of authoritarian conservatism, with a pronounced distaste for parliamentary politics, high taxes, welfare spending and trade unions." -- Adam Tooze, "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy"
1
@signorasforza354 Who profited during Nazi years? "Although millions more had jobs, the share of all German workers in the national income fell from 56.9 per cent in the depression year of 1932 to 53.6 per cent in the boom year of 1938. At the same time income from capital and business rose from 17.4 per cent of the national income to 26.6 per cent. It is true that because of much greater employment the total income from wages and salaries grew from twenty-five billion marks to forty-two billions, an increase of 66 per cent. But income from capital and business rose much more steeply—by 146 per cent. All the propagandists in the Third Reich from Hitler on down were accustomed to rant in their public speeches against the bourgeois and the capitalist and proclaim their solidarity with the worker. But a sober study of the official statistics, which perhaps few Germans bothered to make, revealed that the much maligned capitalists, not the workers, benefited most from Nazi policies." Source: William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
1
@signorasforza354 "Incidentally, this also shows that the instruments used to induce private industry to undertake war-related productions and investments could be very similar on both sides of the front. That in turn can be viewed as a piece of indirect evidence for the fact that the economies Germany and the Western Allies still were quite similar, as they all were basically capitalist. The foregoing analysis again proves that in the Nazi period enterprises continued to shape their actions according to their expectations and that the state authorities not only tolerated this behavior, but bowed to it by adapting their contract offers to the wishes of industry. That is also confirmed by Tooze, who argues that there was no 'Stalinist option' available to the Nazi regime and consequently 'a mixture of incentives provided by the state with private economic motives' was decisive for the development of certain sectors of production." "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy"
1
@signorasforza354 "The Economist magazine introduced the term privatisation (alternatively privatisation or reprivatisation after the German Reprivatisierung) during the 1930s when it covered Nazi Germany's economic policy."
1
@signorasforza354 Be careful who you reply on the Internet next time, you just might get humiliated again.
1
@signorasforza354 In 1941, the US produced more than 3 million cars. During the course of the war, it produced exactly 139 cars. Wow, the Nazis were exactly like capitalist USA. Dumb fasci.
1
@signorasforza354 "Mussolini, a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano) before World War I, became a fierce antisocialist after the war. After coming to power, he banned all Marxist organizations and replaced their trade unions with government-controlled corporatist unions. Until he instituted a war economy in the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies with a minimum of government interference. Despite his former anticapitalist rhetoric, he cut taxes on business, permitted cartel growth, decreed wage reduction, and rescinded the eight-hour-workday law. Between 1928 and 1932 real wages in Italy dropped by almost half. Mussolini admitted that the standard of living had fallen but stated that “fortunately the Italian people were not accustomed to eating much and therefore feel the privation less acutely than others." Lol, your ideology word for word.
1
@signorasforza354 "Historian Ishay Landa has described the nature of "Prussian socialism" as decidedly capitalist. For Landa, Spengler strongly opposed labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. At the same time as he rejected any social democratic provisions, Spengler celebrated private property, competition, imperialism, capital accumulation, and "wealth, collected in few hands and among the ruling classes". Landa describes Spengler's "Prussian Socialism" as "working a whole lot, for the absolute minimum, but — and this is a vital aspect — being happy about it." How much of this do you subscribe too, dumb fasci?
1
@signorasforza354 "First, one has to keep in mind that Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard. Private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. Therefore, it is not astonishing that Otto Ohlendorf, an enthusiastic National Socialist and high-ranking SS officer, who since November 1943 held a top position in the Reich Economics Ministry, did not like Speer's system of industrial production at all. He strongly criticized the cartel-like organization of the war economy where groups of interested private parties exercised state power to the detriment of the small and medium entrepreneur. For the postwar period he therefore advocated a clear separation of the state from private enterprises with the former establishing a general framework for the activity of the latter. In his opinion it was the constant aim of National Socialist economic policy, 'to restrict as little as possible the creative activities of the individual. . . . Private property is the natural precondition to the development of personality. Only private property is able to further the continuous attachment to a certain work.'" Alas your dear Otto was hanged in '51 for crimes against humanity. Shame... For he was a tru(tm) capitalist!
1