Changes

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands. A common misconception is that the NAZI party was socialist but in fact only there name that had anything to do with socialism. They were in fact Fascist which is the complete opposite of Socialism.     

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands. A common misconception is that the NAZI party was socialist but in fact only there name that had anything to do with socialism. They were in fact Fascist which is the complete opposite of Socialism.     

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}}

In the United States many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism.  In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>

 

Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism.  In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>

When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold.  When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold.  When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.