Sunday, October 15, 2017

Shut Yer Yap: How to Starve Yourself Rich (A Numismatic Exorcism)

             Nought is clear, lest we view it through the Lens of the penetrated stone.

            Nought is clear, but that the study of rai (also known as raay, fei, the Yap Island stone coin, and on the international currency market, YIC) is essential to all future study and understanding of numismetaphysics.
This is why some more study of rai shall be necessary before we continue to our main subject, cryptocurrency.

In his 1991 paper “The Island of Stone Money”, Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman (Uncle Milty himself) discussed the similarity between the practices of marking gold stored in Federal Reserve vaults to signify a change in ownership, and the practice of marking rai for the same purpose.
In the paper’s conclusion, Friedman writes how important myth – “unquestioned belief” –
is “in monetary matters”. He continues, “the money we have grown up with… appear[s] ‘real’ and ‘rational’ to us”, while “The money of other countries often seems to us like paper or worthless metal”, even if its purchasing power is strong.
This ought to demonstrate to any savvy investor that talk of “the gold price”, “the iron price”, etc.TM, is bull hockey in your pocket. Moreover, that the value is in the Eye of the (Arthurian) Stone. This is the maieutic source of currency’s value. So, then, if we are, indeed, destined to play a Game of Stones, we must ask ourselves whether it should, in particular, be a game of birthstones.
Do not let your Eyes be deceived; after all, The Book is made of paper (though it may have gilded edge). And the Almighty Emperor’s Commodity Fetish Records 999- Economic Unit Note be of paper.
So what, then, distinguishes The Book from gold? The Book from the Note, or the Note from gold? Gold from the Heart? Only the Beholder of the Light. Only the Truth and Truth of the One who makes the Promise to pay to the Bearer on demand. The Bearer of Light teaches that the Word is only as good as the heart it is printed on. Thus, the Word backs gold and paper alike. The Promise backs their value. This is what I saw through the flames.
But just as importantly, and to answer the Question directly, gold is alone among these in one key aspect: it cannot be burned for heat in an emergency. Aside from Friedman’s probably subconscious allusion to this phenomenon, that this fact makes gold inferior to the Book, the Note, and the Heart for use as a currency, has not yet been noted by mainstream economists. Thus, the Jungian Shadow cast by the spectre of gold has cast a scintillating Skynet to blind nearly all of the scientists of modern currency. This is to be remedied, for We know where the real gold is buried.

So, then, cryptocurrency. Currency reclaimed from the crypt. Is it a current currency, or not?

 Does the immortality inculcate (charge) a presence – a life – into the currency, or does its deadness (however imagined or falsely perceived) subvert its value as a “living document”? Only the numismancers know for sure. The answer might explain why we still have pyramids on our damn “money”. The only way to get through the Eye of the Rai, in a manner of speaking (and, also, quite literally), is by Numismancing the Stone.
We love our money like we love our own flesh and blood. After all, it’s backed by our own flesh and blood, isn’t it? Just as sure as the paper you’re printed on, just as sure as your dossier will survive you, if it backs your currency, then symbolically, it is your currency. We may say “I like money” or “I<3$” (now a publicly traded company), but how many of us would be willing to kill, or even die, for our money, and for its value?
One major determinant in the value of rai is the grandness of the story which can be told about one rai; what happened to it on its way to Yap from the distant island on which it was quarried. Aside from the size of the coin (ranging from 3 inches to 12 feet in diameter), whether those transporting it survived a storm, or whether a famous sailor brought the coin to the island, may boost its value.
Most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, rai may have high value because many people die bringing them to Yap, or (perplexingly) because nobody dies bringing them to the island.
This is why we must either kill many people, or else die (and take many others with us), in order to continue to bogusly inflate the value of our currency. Just as in the balancing act between relying on ubiquitous use and widespread acceptability vs. scarcity and uniqueness as the driver of currency’s value, it could not be clearer what we must do for our money, for our “own” flesh and blood.
That is why we must fight this currency war – and we shall fight them; on the Banks of every river, in every trench and every Bank vault – if we are to procure for our posterity a Currency of Blood. It is all for the sake of STABility. Remember, you’re worth more dead than you are alive, right? Just don’t go about trying to prove it, though. I mean (say it with me)… Just You Buy It!(R)

This leads us to our next topic: how to strike it rich without working.
For example… take me… please! I don’t do shit, I make money. Read The Tao, be The Master, make shit happen. I mean… I get paid to make money.
I know we’re told that high earnings, and a lot of money, and rewards, are the inevitable result of hard work. And that if a man does not work, neither shall he eat. But I’ve eaten without being required to work for it, and I get paid to sit around and do basically nothing at my job.
That’s why I attribute all of my success and earnings to hard work. To do so may go against everything I’ve observed, but everyone else thinks it’s true, so I don’t object, because it’s all I can do to keep from shouting from the rooftops that it should be legal to steal from me. This is the Root of the Hole in the Coin. But back to my financial advice.
Are you starving, freezing, poor, broken? No, you’re not. You only feel that way. And for you to project your feelings onto my rights is unconstitutional. It’s a violation of my rights!
‘Ey, if you’re poor, spend less money. If you don’t want to pay taxes, then just refuse to pay taxes, or else stop working. If you can’t find work, get a job. If you’re disabled, work harder! If you can’t afford good food, eat garbage! If you’ve frozen stiff in your apartment, just walk away from the apartment and the landlord! I mean, if you’re in chains, break out! Amirite!?
As I suspect Jesse Ventura (Master of Mixed Metaphors) must have pontificated at some point, “Ask for work. If you can’t find work, ask for bread. If they don’t give you bread, steal bread. If you can’t steal bread, let them eat cake. And if you can’t have your cake and eat it too, then the proof of the pudding is in the eating of the cake bread pudding.” Man can live on bread alone! But only if we learn to Leave Breadney Alone.
These are the only paths to stable, rising financial gains. …Chris Gaines.
You’re welcome.

Oi, fucker, why do you think they needed to punch holes in Jesus’s hands for the Crucifixion? Well, how else are you going to insert his employment chip? I mean, Everybody Loves Revelaymond. Furthermore, is Jesus the type to charge rent for the privilege to occupy – and use – his holes, for whatever purpose we may imagine?
This is why I say, to fuck a hole in your money is to fuck a hole in yourself (as a reminder, the hole represents built-in debt). This is what it means to be unable to worship both God and Mammon (profit).
After all, the holes in Yap Island stone coins are not for the insertion of poles as axles, but only as transportation devices. To repeat, Fred Flintstone was not driving his moneymobile around Yap, that’s not in the historical records. Again, rai are as small as 3 inches; yet for some reason the holes are retained even at that size, though their light weight makes the use of poles unnecessary for transportation.
So, then, why not fill the hole with something else, such as your hopes and dreams? Your fears? A nice ottoman or a duvet? A sword? Your balls? The Resonating Light? Why not shove a jewel in there, make it nice and pretty? Remember, there’s more than one way to “charge” your purchase. Do some sacred services and an incantation, turn it into a portal so its demons can escape. Do a thing.
As Milton Friedman suggested, and as Emperor Ryan explains, “money is a magic[k] fetish”; an object believed (unquestioned) to possess a sacred, intrinsic, imminent value, including, often, a spiritual one. Emperor Ryan continues: “bank magicians use transference to charge paper into currency”. The money is charged much in the same way in which a sigil is charged.
Hence, voodoo economists are in good company; although a small but significant faction of them are currently waging a covert currency war against their fellow voodoo economists, as well as against the bank magicians, who favor the anthill (ANT) over the “petrodollar-weapondollar coalition” (USD). For more information, read the works of Jonathan Nitzan.
What all this means is that it is our dedication to refraining from questioning the value of our money, and the validity of our government’s public debt, which gives our currency much of its value. It is our suspension of belief which exalts our money to such heights. But, be assured, dead moneys cannot reign.

What do the smallest denomination of rai stone, a cross, and the Hand of God have in common? You can string all of them onto a necklace. But nobody cries when you do it to some rai. Remember: “Don’t cry; scry!”
Thus, the Punched Hand (or wrist) is, by all indicators, the best form of currency, but also, with its fingerprints, it can easily suffice as a form of INDENTification. Fingerprinting only makes human hands a more viable currency, due to its identifiability. A fingerprint is like a serial number, printed with a communion wafer printing press onto a slab of human dough; the Bread of Life, Sacred Manna from Heaven. It’s Time to Make the Donuts.
Even without fingerprinting, the early 2000s government of Afghanistan managed to run successful elections. They did this by taking the fingers of people who had already voted, and dyeing them with ink, and making sure nobody votes who already has ink on their hands. How nice it would be if we could use this idea to ban people with blood on their hands from participating in the democratic process!
So there you have it: The Hol(e)y Human Hand – the Hand of God – is like a bagel in its completeness, its roundness. It is a perfect currency; the Hand does not even have to be transported in order to serve as a useful currency, nor does it need to be separated from the body for the same purpose, nor must it be moved (and removed) in order to denote that its ownership has changed. Remember, idle hands are the Devil’s playground.
But to see the Light through the Lens of the Eternal Bagel – and to understand the artistic concept of negative space – will teach us that without the (w)hole, we are hollow and incomplete, yet complete in our incompletion. Can we be whole without the hole? Only by holding together our Hands, and our Money (which are one and the same), may we answer these questions. After all, without holes in our hands, how are we to be bound together? How are we to be strung up?
This currency – the Hand (or even the Finger) – is the Sigil which we must charge. It is the sigil which we must read in order to fully understand (that is, stand-under) the charges.

In 1948, Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj (freedom) for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.” This is the test we must apply when choosing a currency.
To be required to work in exchange for our needs, eludes the truth; that in order to work comfortably, our needs must first be satisfied. The hole in our hands is the key; just like the Afghan election, to get what we need, all we should have to do is show our hand. Why, nearly all of us recognize the meaning – the value – of a Hand, or a Fist, held high. So, too, the Finger. It says “I AM A MAN”. …Or “Fuck you”. Same thing.
This is the Shibbolethic Talisman which was foretold in the ancient scriptures (i.e., articles 1 through 4). As I’ve explained, currency is, necessarily, a talisman, or fetish (magickal object). For a currency to additionally serve as a shibboleth is to use that currency, and to set the societal rules of the marketplace around it, in such a way as to cause its usage to create and cast a distinction between those who know the Hand not, and still worship dead money, versus those who recognize the Hand, and its meaning; its monetary and spiritual value.

I’ll take Gandhi’s advice.
Years ago in Nashville, I met a man who was selling newspapers about homelessness. He asked me for a donation, in order to, in his words, “relieve the stigmata of homelessness”. He meant to say “stigma”, but his choice of words reveals all.
The big questions in all of this are: With what will you fill such an outstretched, truly empty, punched hand? Will you be as a Doubting Thomas, and insert a pole, in order to transport and trade the unit of currency?
Most importantly: What do we have to offer one another, if all any of us has is our own outstretched empty hand?

I have no gift to bring, pa-rum-pa-pum-pum

Written and Published on October 15th, 2017

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Debunking the Top Six Claims That the Nazis Were Socialists

          I’d like to debunk, once and for all, the six claims that are most commonly used to support the idea that Nazis were socialists. I’ll explain why I believe Nazis were not socialists, socialists aren’t Nazis, and Nazism and socialism aren’t the same thing.

I need to qualify before I start: I don’t mean to refer to the Soviet Union every time I use the word “communism”. Other communist systems have been proposed and tried. If you don’t believe that communism can work without becoming totalitarian, look up the Paris Communes, the town of Mondragon, Spain, or the Rojava territory in northern Syria.
            Based on my observations, when communism and socialism fail, it’s often because some Western, capitalist, or imperialist nation bombed or invaded it, or overthrew its democratically elected leader or government, or interfered in its elections, or sabotaged it, aided terrorists or rebels in the country, sometimes all of the above.
American conflicts with other nations often stem from, and involve, competition over resources, but more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, refusal of a country to open their markets to American products (as well as refusal to open their lands and natural resources to outside investors and developers).
Learning from these conflicts, and seeing what happens when tariffs are raised, we see how easily sanctions can escalate into trade wars, which escalate into cold war, and sometimes even hot war. Most communists want to abolish markets as soon as possible, and in my opinion, that - conflict over markets - is one of the root causes of the economic conflicts between the more capitalist N.A.T.O. countries and the more anti-capitalist periphery.
But onto the task at hand: debunking claims that the Nazis were socialist.
Here’s the first claim: “Nazism is short for national socialism, and that makes it socialism”.
It’s true that that’s what it’s short for, but just having the word socialism in the name doesn’t necessarily make it socialist, doesn’t make the system mostly socialist, doesn’t prove real socialism was intended or achieved.
            John McCain runs as a Republican, but does he represent the true values of republicanism? Bernie Sanders calls himself alternatively a Democrat, a socialist, or a democratic socialist; does that make him one or the other? Isn’t that for the democrats and socialists to decide, aren’t they the ones who best know the difference?
            Is the Patriot Act patriotic just because the word is used in the name of the law? Take Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Does using those words prove that Obama cares, that patients are really protected?
            To say that Nazis are socialists because they use the word socialism, is like saying that the monkey-bird is a monkey because it’s got the word monkey in it. Insisting that it is, doesn’t make it any less a bird.
             Yes, “national socialism” was the term used; the full name of the Nazi Party was the nationalsozialistiche deutsche arbeiter partei, or National Socialist German Workers’ Party. In the early 1920s, Hitler spied on the German Workers’ Party, then infiltrated it, won its trust, and changed its name so as to add ‘nationalsozialistiche” up-front, making it the N.S.D.A.P..
            This was done, as I will demonstrate throughout the rest of the video, as a ruse, to lure socialists into the Nazi Party, in order to boost its popularity, the number of members in its ranks, and its police and military power. The Nazis were not socialists; they were profoundly anti-socialist; they cared about workers only in so much as was necessary to work them to death.
That is not the goal of socialism. That may have been what Lenin and Stalin wanted (for some people), but the new socialists and communists understand that it’s not a crime, or shameful, to avoid unnecessary work and unnecessarily difficult labor. The word “socialist” was included in the full name of the Nazi Party because the Nazis saw it as a way to trick socialists into joining the party, and then betray them.

Here’s the second claim: “Nazis were socialists because they had a socialist economy”.
This is false. Nazis hated socialists and viewed them as political tools. The Nazis did not practice socialism, nor did they achieve socialism. They weren’t trying to achieve socialism, they were lying.
The Nazi economic policy was not socialism, but dirigisme, D-I-R-I-G-I-S-M (and in some languages it ends with an E). Dirigism is about the direction of economic affairs by the government. It involves a significant role for the state in the ownership and management of firms and resources. Dirigism is based on the “Colbertian mercantilism” of French economist Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Colbert advocated state power to pass protectionist measures to support firms, and interventions in the economy, which most socialists and advocates of free markets despise.
Dirigisme was the economic system used in the Falangist regime of Franco in Spain, the Fascist regime of Mussolini in Italy, and the Nazi regime of Hitler in Germany. Dirigisme is the economic system most closely associated with 20th century WWII European ultranationalism. I would loosely describe fascism as the political expression of the economic system of dirigisme. That’s what Hitler and the Nazis practiced – dirigisme, not socialism.
Dirigisme and central planning can be capitalist, or socialist, or even a mixed economy. Dirigisme, as enacted in Nazi Germany, was a far-right expression; as far-right as you can go without cutting off trade with even your best trading partners.
I should note, as a reminder, that not all socialists are Marxists, and Marx didn’t invent socialism. So if you want to criticize socialism, you may or may not be criticizing something that Marxists want as well. It could even be argued that Marx was not really a socialist, because he was influenced by classical liberal economists such as Adam Smith.
The Nazis did not have a socialist economy, they had a dirigist economy. Some Nazi Party members did want socialism, but they were nowhere near in charge of the party, and so, they became its victims.

            The third claim: “Nazi Germany was a mixed-economy, it was half-socialist”
            The mere presence of a government, or public services, or a welfare state, or unions, does not make a system socialist. Supporting the rights of only ethnic Germans, and providing public services to solely or mostly them, is certainly not what Marx meant by “workers of the world unite”; he wanted cooperation across language and ethnicity. Socialism is an economic system – societal control, management, or ownership of the means of production – and the Nazis used a different economic system, dirigisme.
            I can’t think of a time I’ve ever heard about a Nazi – politician, soldier, sympathizer, or activist – start an anarchist commune, help build a kibbutz, nor lobby for the abolition of interest, profit, nor landlordism altogether. True, the Nazi Party did advocate debt forgiveness - and even the abolition of usury, ground rent, and land speculation - but they wanted those things to primarily benefit the German people, certainly not the nearly 20% of its population which were deemed "sub-human" and "inferior".
            Nazis weren’t economic moderates or mixed-economy; they favored autarky – that’s autarky with a k, not a c-h – this means economic independence and self-sufficiency for the nation. It involves protectionist measures to benefit domestic industry; with workers working, for wages, for firms that operate on a for-profit basis. And it features limited privatization of state industries (that is, the selling-off of state resources to private owners in-name, while the state retains control over it), and a heavy role for state and its interference. Sound familiar?
In addition to all that, however, Nazi economics featured rationing. In extreme cases, the country cuts off trade with the rest of the world, leading to what’s called a closed economy. To describe this as a communist one would be a stretch, because the Communist Manifesto calls for international cooperation, however it doesn’t exactly call for international trade, because that would be to legitimize the idea that markets are still necessary, an idea with which most communists would disagree.
A mixed economy can be libertarian or authoritarian, but either way, a mixed economy involves a regulated market, with about half the firms being either cooperatively run E.L.M.F.s – “egalitarian labor managed firms” – and other firms that practice the principle “cost the limit of price” – basically, that they operate on a not-for-profit basis, and reinvest any excess product back into the company, to help workers and consumers and the community.
The mere presence of unions and a welfare state – even a strong welfare state – does not necessarily guarantee or prove that a country (or state, or community) is socialist, or that it’s trying to be one, or anything. It’s certainly not socialist if it has heavily regulated union activity, lots of banned union activities, and a poorly managed, inefficient welfare state. Socialists don’t want those things; neoliberals do.
Socialists want cooperative management of the means of production, and they want to keep all they produce, so that a welfare state is unnecessary. Neoliberals want a welfare state so they can use it to scheme, defraud it, enrich themselves, and sabotage the poor to create a state of artificial dependence. That is not what socialists want. I’m not trying to go out of my way to defend socialists, neoliberals, and Nazis, it’s just that what each of them believes is getting blurred together and confused, and that helps nobody.
Nazis weren’t half-socialist, they didn’t have a mixed economy; they practiced one of the many forms of capitalism – dirigist mercantilism – therefore, they were on the right. They traded with some of the biggest international corporations at the time.

            The fourth claim: “Hitler explicitly stated that national socialism was socialist, and wanted to create a uniquely German form of socialism.”
            If you believe that, then most likely, you saw a quote on the internet that was attributed to Hitler, but was actually said by someone else.
            Here’s the purported Hitler quote that the “Nazis are socialist” proponents often bring up: “We are socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system…”.
            Gregor Strasser said that, not Adolf Hitler. Gregor and Otto Strasser were brothers, the leaders of the left-wing “Strasserist” faction within the Nazi Party. Strasserism combined anti-Semitism with socialism, and the opposition to both German capitalism and Jewish capitalism. This stands in contrast to what Hitler wanted, which was to combine capitalism with anti-Semitism, with a socialist fa├žade.
            When people present this quote as proof that Hitler was a true socialist, they are sharing the words of a man who was murdered on Hitler’s orders, in a mid-1934 purge called the Night of the Long Knives. The purge was led by Ernst Rohm, leader of the S.A. (Sturmabteilung; Stormtroopers, also called brownshirts), the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party.
            Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels promoted socialism - while subtly subverting socialist principles to Nazi ideas, by conflating society with the state and the nation – as a way to lure working people into the party, to boost its ranks and grow its strength, power, and influence.
            Propaganda Minister was literally Joseph Goebbels’s job title. His office was called the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. You can’t trust someone like that to adhere to socialist principles just because he claims to be a socialist. Nazis lie, that’s what they do. Mussolini did the same thing to Italian socialists as Hitler and Goebbels did to the Strassers, as Franklin D. Roosevelt did to Norman Thomas and Henry George before him; they stole all their good ideas, repackaged them as worker-socialism with subtle undercurrents of ultranationalism, and left-wing paternalism and patriotism, and destroyed the ideals of socialism, and murdered socialists along with them. Musssolini, by the way, described fascism as “the merger of state and corporate power”, saying that it should more accurately be called corporatism.
Lastly, “A uniquely German form of socialism” more aptly describes the Strassers than Hitler and his ilk. In the Ukraine, Nestor Makhno fought the Soviets in his attempt to found a uniquely Ukrainian form of socialism. The Strassers, Makhnovism, social nationalism, and integral nationalism are all terms which would be of interest to someone looking for actual attempts to combine (or reconcile, synthesize, or sublimate) socialism and nationalism, rather than to simply disguise nationalism as socialism.
            Hitler never articulated a vision of National Socialism which could rightfully described as anywhere near approaching actual socialism; it doesn’t even resemble failed or collapsed socialism. Hitler and Goebbels did overtly claim to be socialists, but that quote was from Gregor Strasser, who supported socialism, unlike Hitler, a fraud of a “socialist” who murdered socialists and destroyed everything socialists stand for, arrested communists and social democrats, and banned most unions.

            Claim number five: “Nazis were socialists because they had a state, and socialism is statism”.
            Anyone who believes that a state is what makes something socialist, probably also believes that, as the meme says, “socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more socialister it is”. A state is a political arrangement, while socialism is an economic system. Statism and socialism are not the same thing.
Yes, there is state socialism, but there is also libertarian socialism, and socialist expressions of anarchism, and the goal of socialism is anarchist communism. The leftists’ and Marxists’ idea of the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) is profoundly different from the way Nazis, other authoritarians, and most conservatives understand it. Most on the left want to convert the bourgeois Westphalian nation-state to a more democratic, populist, and internationalist one as soon as possible, only using the state to facilitate the transition for as long as they have to.
Marxists don’t exactly "support the state"; certainly not the way it is currently structured. On the contrary; just like political libertarians do, Marxists see the state as a temporary tool to achieve a better state of affairs. The question, for revolutionary purity’s sake, is how long that should take, and which ideology has the better track record of dissolving the state the fastest after they have gotten a hold of it. 
            A big welfare state is not what socialists want. They want robust and diverse union activity, transitions to worker management of workplaces, and sustainable growth of community-oriented cooperative nonprofit enterprises, where those who labor retain the freedom to keep all of what they earn, with full rights to adjudge (within reason) what is the full product of their labor, and what form of compensation would suffice as its equivalent (cough, labor, cough cough).
          Socialists don’t support welfarism, they support socialism; the freedom of workers to keep what they make and earn, so that they never need to go on welfare, or establish a welfare state. It’s neoliberals who want a welfare state, while the progressives (who often depend on it) feel conflicted, and know something about it isn’t working right.
             If you’re going to criticize Nazis for controlling a state, and claim that that makes it socialist, then by that logic, Donald Trump, Obama, the Bushes, Bill Clinton, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, the Pope, me, Adam Kokesh, and everyone who’s ever agreed to abide by the outcome of a democratic election, qualify as statists and socialists; including independent parties, people who run but continue to openly espouse anarchy, et cetera.
Is that an accurate picture of reality; Ludwig von Mises standing up and shouting “you’re all a bunch of socialists”? Since when does “socialist” mean “control freak”? When I grew up, you called a control freak a Nazi. What happened? In dire financial times, both socialist and nationalist governments have been known to resort to rationing, cartels, price controls, wage controls, mandatory recycling, forced labor, the draft, gun control measures, and other compulsory, command-and-control measures. It's not only socialists, not only fascists, who do these things.
            If you want to argue against Marx supporting centralization or the temporary use of the state, that’s fine, but keep in mind that political libertarians, just like Marxists, democrats, and liberals, believe in grabbing hold of the state, to get it under control, and use it to make a smooth transition to a better society. They all tolerate, or even rely on, some level of statism, gradualism, and concentration of political power in order to achieve their objectives.
Don’t do what Goebbels recommended; don’t accuse your opponent of doing what you do. It is of no use to a diplomat if, when he criticizes another country for committing an atrocity, his own country does the same thing. Do not be guilty of that which you accuse your opponent, or your opponent will feel it totally justified to sink to your level.
Yes, the Marxist interpretation of socialism, as articulated in The Communist Manifesto, does involve the control of a state, and conversion of it to a more proletarian socialist conception of a state, during a transition period. However, simply because Nazis managed a state and called themselves socialist, doesn’t mean they really represented the interests of all of society. On the contrary, they destroyed precious freedoms and civil liberties that both classical liberals and socialists treasure. The Nazis did, by no means, act in the interest of the wider society that lived on the land they occupied.
Communism, Nazism, fascism, and state socialism are political arrangements. Capitalism, socialism, dirigisme, and a mixed economy are economic systems. Socialism’s goal is stateless communism, and there are plenty of anarchist and anti-authoritarian currents within socialism. Being in control of a state does not make you a socialist, because socialism is an economic system; just like market-oriented economics, it comes with no guarantee of either statism or freedom.

And finally, the sixth and last claim: “Nazism is a collectivist ideology, and that makes it socialism”.
Collectivism can be defined as either public or state ownership of the means of production, or as a moral worldview that supports giving groups precedence over individuals. The definition of collectivism does not perfectly overlap with the definition of socialism, and the use of the word “collectivism” may not always denote an economic system.
In the same way that "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”, Nazism may be collectivist, but that doesn’t mean that all collectivists are Nazis. And if they aren't, then we can’t safely conclude that either all socialists are Nazis, nor even that all socialists are collectivist.
Also, I’ve got news for you: if you expect to live in a civilized society, or community, or work in a workplace, or trade in markets, you’re going to have to allow for some amount of collectivism in your life. That is, unless you want to live by yourself.
Nazism and socialism are both forms of collectivism, but they’re collectivist in different ways. Nazis believe that the collective, and society, are best embodied in the nation, the state, and the segment of society with the right ethnicity and the superior blood and genetics. Socialists see the collective, and society, as the totality of peoples and lands of the world. Marx said “workers of the world, unite”, not “pure-blooded workers of the greater German-speaking realm, unite!”.  The Communist Manifesto calls for anarcho-communism through cooperation across borders and nations; a society without states, class divisions, nor currency.
Additionally, not all forms of socialism are collectivist through-and-through. Yes, Nazism, communism, socialism, statism all have collectivist elements. But there are socialists, and types of socialism, that are very individualistic, or free market, or patriotic, or even (as I’ve explained) nationalist.
Max Stirner’s idea of the Union of Egoists is one example; his writing expresses socialist and communist ideas while remaining quite individualistic and subjective. Austromarxist Otto Bauer supported self-determination of individuals into non-territorial nations; his idea is called “National Personal Autonomy”, and it combines social democracy with individualism and nationalism. There’s also socialist anarchist Emma Goldman, and many other anarchists with both socialist and individualist views, such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner. Henry George, and mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, each attempted to explain how property and communism could coexist.
During World War II, German Christian Democratic Socialist Sophie Scholl was executed after leafleting her criticism of Hitler’s reckless military tactics, but she demonstrated her patriotism in her messages by lamenting the needless loss of a third of a million German troops in the Battle of Stalingrad. The philosopher, and well-known critic of totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt, is often described as a socialist, even though she openly criticized multiculturalism and the welfare state.
Socialism can be individualist, that it can be patriotic or even nationalist, and that it can even accommodate markets and coexist alongside private property and the privacy of personal freedom. Socialism and capitalism are when the economy features (respectively) public and private ownership of the means of production, not necessarily when all property is managed one way or the other. That means that private capitalism and public socialism can co-exist side by side in peace.
If socialism can be free – and if it can tolerate, accommodate, or even borrow some ideas traditionally thought to come from the right, then that means that socialism can be combined with ultranationalism (as in the Strassers), but also that socialism can be combined with anarchism (as in the anarcho-syndicalism of Rudolf Rocker). It also means that just because someone says the Nazis used socialism, doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t mean all socialist experiments have Nazi goals. And certainly, not all attempts to create a mixed economy end in Nazism.
Considering that 1% of American firms are cooperatively run, if you’re going to claim that means we have a mixed economy today, then I’ll hold you to that, as long as you’ll admit that means socialism and capitalism can coexist. I know I’m talking about a heavily regulated economy, and yes, I do think it would be easier for them to coexist without the state to get in the way.
Capitalism, socialism, and even nationalism are not necessarily statist; we only associate nationalism with statism because the major mode of actually existing nationalism is the modern nation-State. It hasn’t always been that way, and it doesn’t have to. You can learn more by looking up terns like proletarian internationalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism, national syndicalism, national anarchism, and synthesis anarchism.
That’s why it’s preposterous to claim that “all Nazis are collectivists, and all collectivists are socialists, therefore all Nazis are socialists”. Many Nazi sympathizers claim to despise all forms of collectivism, while failing to see the collectivism inherent in their world-view.
It is intellectually dishonest to blur Nazism, nationalism, statism, socialism, and collectivism, together as if they were the same thing. In my opinion, people do this as a way to over-simplify the set of political and economic ideas that are not as individualist (or libertarian, or free-market, or capitalist) as the system they desire. I see this as over-simplification, which is intellectually irresponsible.
Not all socialism is statist; not all socialism is collectivist. Nazism is a political system, and socialism is an economic system, while collectivism can be defined as either public or state ownership of the means of production, or as a moral worldview that supports giving groups precedence over individuals.

So there we have it: Nazism is not socialism.
It’s hard enough to get liberals to understand that Ludwig von Mises wasn’t a Nazi, but rather a Jew who had to escape Nazis, and that the “austrofascist” he worked for (Austrian president Engelbert Dollfuss) actually banned the Nazi Party in Austria, and was killed by Nazis in 1934. However, his troops fought armed socialists earlier that year, and at a time when each socialists and fascists in Austria had mixed feelings about Anschluss (unification) with Germany. Does that make Dollfuss a Nazi? Maybe. Mises? Probably not. This is, by no means, easy to explain to the average person who’d call a Libertarian a racist.
I know that the things I talk about can be some extremely complex to a lot of people; how socialism, nationalism, libertarianism, et cetera, intersect, what they have in common, how and why they’re confused with each other. I do appreciate people reading the entirety of what I have to say on matters like this, and I hope I’ve provided accurate information. I welcome criticism about it.
In my opinion, believing that Nazis were socialists, or that Nazism is a freer or milder political system than the ones we typically find practicing socialist economics, are major stumbling blocks to understanding the economics and history of the 20th century. To believe that Nazis were socialists is to believe that all socialists are evil authoritarians. If we want people to be properly educated, this will not do.

Some liberals will try to defend the idea that, because, back in the 1930s, The Economist magazine called Hitler’s policies “privatization”, that somehow means that all advocacy for private property rights, however defined, are secret codes for Nazism.
As if it’s not hard enough to criticize liberals for believing this, I also have to point out that Nazi sympathizers are often stupid enough to fall for this neoliberal propaganda, such that when they’re asked to more thoroughly explain their beliefs, they’ll support privatization, and even privatization the way the Nazis did it, seemingly unaware that it’s the state that performs that privatization, and that privatization does not necessarily result in either more complete private property rights, freer markets, or more financial freedom, which are what true conservatives are supposed to value.
If you can’t refuse to let the police into “your home” or “your business”, then it’s not really yours, and it’s not really private property. That goes whether they’re looking for you, your money, your possessions, evidence, your family, and, most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, Jewish people. Nazism had state-directed privatization, not real private property rights, not free markets.

I have to debunk one last claim, not because it’s common (it’s not), but because it borders on being offensive: “the worst thing about Nazism is that it’s socialist”. To me, this suggests that the person who said it believes that genocide is preferable to socialism, maybe even that genocide is the inevitable outcome of socialism. In fact, the same person who said this, also wrote that “genocide is only possible with mass institutional property rights violations; i.e., socialism”.
Yes, “mass institutional property rights violations” do make genocide easier to carry out. “Private property violations” is nowhere close to the actual definition of socialism. To say that socialism has to involve violations of private property rights is someone’s opinion, it’s subjective, and it depends a whole lot on how you define each one of those words (private, property, and rights).
To have mass property violations, you have to first have property protections. Yes, states can violate, and have violated people’s property rights in order to commit genocide, but to say genocide is only possible with mass institutionalized private property violations, is to suggest that our tribal ancestors never slaughtered other tribes en masse until the state made it possible, which in my judgment does appear to be the case.
That, as well as the fact that not all socialism is statist. Moreover, socialists would argue that it is the opposite economic philosophies – dirigisme and capitalism – which disregard private property rights. The deprivation of the workers’ rights to the full product of their labor, their negotiation rights, rights to union activity, rights to adequate compensation, a say in how their workplace is managed, a share of the company, and the right of a man to keep his land, community, and environment safe from people who want to pressure him to sell it so it can be stripped and exploited to destruction; are these not “private property rights”?
Hasn’t capitalism destroyed every notion we have that men and nature are more than just resources to be bought and sold? Haven’t capitalists destroyed property rights more than socialists have?

Saying “Nazis are socialists” is an insult to everyone who’s ever taken an interest in making sure we have a just economic arrangement; that workers’ rights to just compensation, and a safe and healthful work environment, be respected.
They say, “Nazis are socialists, because socialism and statism are the same thing”. Sometimes they’ll even cite the fact that Hitler was elected democratically, as a way to falsely equate representative democracy with socialism. This is to describe everyone who has ever run for political office as Nazis, and it is to describe the entire democratic process, and perhaps even voting itself, as Naziesque. And the democratic process, and representative democracy, came around a long time before the Nazi Party did.

Nazis betrayed socialists. Saying socialists are Nazis is like calling a hostage a criminal for cooperating with his captors, and then mocking him for being murdered by them. Yes, socialists fell for the “national socialist” dodge, but so did, for a time, America, Churchill, and Time Magazine (and especially the Bushes and Brown Brothers Harriman, until the Trading With the Enemy Act put an end to that).
The Nazis were corporate capitalists, and so are the Bushes. Nowhere in this video have I implied that Nazism and free markets are the same thing, nor that capitalism and the free market are the same thing. I do this because I don’t want anyone to conflate authoritarian right-wing economics with libertarian right-wing economics, and I don’t want that because I don’t want anyone to do the same with left-wing economics.
The economics, and the history, of everything that happened in the 20th century, will be so much easier to understand if the “Nazis are socialists” and “socialism is statism” crowd would see the world clearly for a moment, stop scaring people about what socialism is, and that the communism it wants is always authoritarian and results in mass murder. Don’t stoop to defending the Holocaust because you need to prove Stalin was a worse guy than Hitler. Nobody in their right mind thinks Stalin or Hitler did more good than harm to the world.

Socialism is not Nazism. If we elect Bernie Sanders and he implements socialism, he’s not going to kill all the Jews. If you think he will, then I will suspect you of wanting to kill Jews, because you’d have to be crazy, and as big a liar as Goebbels was, to allege such a thing.
I would really enjoy it if I could stop living in the non-stop internet World War II re-enactment, where there are Nazis and Soviet Communists everywhere, that you’ve created because some crazy politician has whipped you into an offensive or defensive frenzy.
One last thought: I don’t know if Richard Spencer is telling the truth about whether he supports “universal health care” (whatever that term means), but I’d suggest staying open to the possibility that he’s lying. But remember, too, that people define universal health care different. Trump at one point said he wanted universal health care. Who knows what either of them could mean by it; keep Obamacare? Universal care or universal insurance? Replace Tom Price with a student of Mengele? Too bad we can’t trust Trump or Spencer to tell us the truth about what universal health care means to them.
But if Spencer or Trump support something that they call universal health care, that fact alone is not going to make them socialists; the only thing that would make them socialists would be to change 80 to 100% of their world-view. Most socialists would likely advocate something they’d call universal health care, but the definition of socialism is societal management of the means of production; it says nothing about whether there should be a welfare state.
It is the prerogative of socialists today - not anybody else - to decide whether a welfare state is what socialism means, and to decide whether Democrats' criticism of certain unions is valid, and what to do about it. Socialists must not allow Alt-Righters and Nazi sympathizers – nor the saboteurs of the socialisms and communisms of the past – to tell people what socialism is and what it isn’t.
The whole difficulty in all of this revolves around trying to tell whether a self-described socialist is really telling the truth, and really a socialist; one who sees a free communism – not widespread discrimination and destruction – as socialism’s ultimate goal. The last thing that is going to help us understand all of this is to lump-together several ideologies, call them "collectivist" to distinguish them from whatever brand of supposed individualism you prefer, and base your entire argument on free word-association.

For counterpoints to the arguments I have presented here, please read George Rausman's November 2005 essay "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian":

or watch the 2016 video "The Nazis Have Socialist Roots", featuring Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle:

and to learn more about my views on the relationship between neoliberal democracy and Nazism, read my January 2011 article "Obama and Hitler: Compare and Contrast":

Image not created by author

Incidentally, the purported Hitler quote in the above image is actually attributable to Joseph Goebbels. But if you keep claiming that Hitler said it, and repeat that lie over and over again, then eventually people will believe it.

Post-Script by the Author, October 10th, 2017:

Since the main body of the text include quotations by Joseph Goebbels and Gregor Strasser that were misattributed to Adolf Hitler, I find it necessary and helpful to include in this post-script some of the man's (Hitler's) own words on the matter.
In a 1923 interview with George Sylvester Viereck of The Economist - edited and republished in Liberty magazine in 1932, and The Guardian in 2007 - Hitler made the following comments on socialism, communism, and National Socialism:

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

Although some may be prepared to take these comments as proof that Hitler was a socialist; this is not so. What we call socialism today may or may not necessarily correspond or overlap with, the primitive form of communism which Hitler described (which, as Hitler points out, does not advocate the abolition of private property). This should make Marxism and National Socialism distinct enough.
In case I've still failed to make my case persuasively, I feel that the singular Hitler quotation "I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists" should more than sufficiently demonstrate that his plan was to distort and twist the ideals of the day's popular German Marxism, and rebrand it as a fascist, corporatist ideology, supporting racist ultranationalism and opposing internationalism, creating a parody of workerist socialism, which ironically allows for the joint exploitation of workers by the representatives of state and capital.
This is not to say, however, that none of those accusations can be leveled at Lenin and Stalin; many can. But debating the merits of Bolshevism vs. Nazism is not the primary focus of this article.

Image not created by author

For first-hand information on Nazi ideology, read the Nazi Party's original 25-point platform at:

For a counter-point to the views presented here, read George Reisman's 2005 article "Why Nazism Was Socialism, and Why Socialism is Totalitarian", for the Von Mises Institute:

For another counter-point, read David Gordon's 2009 article "Nazi Economic Policy" for the Von Mises Institute:

To read my thoughts regarding the similarities between Nazism and neo-liberalism, read my 2011 article "Obama vs. Hitler: Compare and Contrast":

Originally Written on September 29th, 2017
Expanded on September 30th, 2017
Edited on September 30th, and October 4th, 10th, and 14th, 2017
Post-Script Written on October 10th, 2017

Originally Published on September 30th, 2017