Even National “Socialist” Hitler Understood Market Economy Principles

Sharing is Caring!

by Chris Black

The only reason Hitler’s economy had any weight behind it was because he left the vestiges of a market economy intact, he just choked it through heavy taxation, interventions and redistribution policies, some of which I’m fine with (loans/tax breaks for working families for example) others probably not so much.

Socialist China learned this lesson the hard way.

They too had your miracle “socialism” and it went to hell, so they switched to a mixed market economy in the 70s which has brought them to commanding heights.

Socialism is a universally failed economic system that few people are still attempting today (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela).

These economies are so restricted that they can’t survive without massive subsidies from China, Russia and other ex-commie nations.

East Germans had dismal socialism (the purest form) for 50 years and they eventually voted it out.

If I were to put a modern-day leftist (libtard/Democrat/what have you) and a Marxist in a room to talk about economics, they’d probably agree on everything, radical egalitarian redistribution.

You can have a market-based economy with restrictions and regulations that serve the racial/national interest.

But leftist-fascist spergs, inspired by Marx, want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in pursuit of a utopia that doesn’t exist.

Leftist spergs want you to believe there’s a meaningful difference between Socialism and Communism.

See also  Prepare yourself: 'The U.S. housing market is at the beginning stages of the most significant contraction in activity since 2006'

There ain’t.

Every communist will use the terms communist and socialist interchangeably.

The USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. The goal of socialism is the abolition of private property and the implementation of “collective ownership” of the means of production (which always amounts to nothing more than state-monopoly).

Attaching the word “national” in front of the word changes nothing (every communist state was “national” too) if the end goal remains the same: elimination of all forms of private commerce and private property and state-ownership of all business, state-control of all economic affairs.

That’s what the USSR, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, East Germany, Tito’s Yugoslavia, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe all had.

If you can’t explain any meaningful difference between those economies and that of Mussolini or Hitler, then they’re the same.

The only thing that made China grow in this equation was the market capitalism that they implemented in 1970s.

Free enterprises are driving its growth, not the state.

It’s no coincidence that the growth coincides exactly with Deng Xiaoping’s free market reforms.

It’s guys like Jack Ma starting major companies that created all the wealth. The Chinese state just sucks off these private companies to feed itself and then take credit for it.

See also  Australia, China and Japan's economy slowing down

If they kept on the socialist path of Mao, they’d be stuck back in the stone age.

Imagine attributing China’s growth to what turned it into a shithole in the first place: economic socialism.

Diehard commies won’t ever drop the cope that “socialism” is why China is rich today.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.