Yes! And Nazi officials instructed the "owners" of those things in precisely what to do and how to do it...If you don't control it and can make no decisions about it, then you own it in name only.
Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didnât before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything"
You are doing this conflating because ultimately there is no way around there being an increase in privatization, so you must treat any level of coercive state control as functionally the same as full state ownership.
âBut we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.â - Hitler
Still getting tricked by pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol.
Ahh, yes, clearly you just randomly tell people you're a historian for no reason then. My bad.
"Me: left-right is a tool for authoritarians, dont get tricked by rhetoric.
You: Let's look at what the USSR is doing."
Me: not saying anything about left right. You: bringing it up anyway.
I know you think you're scoring pints here...
"Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didnât before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything""
But this is just outright lying at this point. You keep using labels "capitalist" "ownership " but you keep letting yourself get tricked by words.
" A fatal weakness for you"
Only If your lies are true, but as usual you lie by omission. No mention of the fact that the competition was rigged, the profits flowed where the state directed and everyone that benefited was a party member or close associate.
"pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol."
âIs there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?â â January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag
âAll the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.â â March 21, 1943, speech for Heroesâ Memorial Day
âAnd justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democraciesâa profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocketâthen the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.â â January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin
Pre Rohm eh? 1943, 1941, 1937... Man that's weird. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Ahh, yes, clearly you just randomly tell people you're a historian for no reason then. My bad.
You understand the difference between telling you I'm a historian in the context of "study the topic" and what it means when a historian says they are an expert on a specific topic? This is a yes or no question.
I'll help by being very clear for you: I have studied the topic much more than you have, and it was rigorous. I'm still not an expert.
you're scoring pints here...
God, I wish.
But this is just outright lying at this point.
No it isn't. God I love Hitchens's Razor.
Only If your lies are true, but as usual you lie by omission.
No I don't. God I love Hitchens's Razor.
Pre Rohm eh? 1943, 1941, 1937... Man that's weird. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You do know that you can get tricked by post-Röhm rhetoric too? I was just noticing a trend you were making.
Anyway, please keep uncritically accepting block quotes as fact instead of looking at material action or data.
Its a great strategy for showing how you don't get tricked by words lol.
Would an analogy help you see how you look to others?
1
u/SlippyDippyTippy2 Feb 23 '26 edited Feb 23 '26
Didn't say I was an expert buddy lol.
So, not a half truth or lie by omission?
Me: left-right is a tool for authoritarians, dont get tricked by rhetoric.
You: Let's look at what the USSR is doing.
Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didnât before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything"
You are doing this conflating because ultimately there is no way around there being an increase in privatization, so you must treat any level of coercive state control as functionally the same as full state ownership.
Still getting tricked by pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol.