Hitler did not like either. Actually, Communists were one of the first people to become victims of German concentration camps. With socialism, well, that wasn't one of Hitler's traits. He is an example of what happens if someone is never in physical contact with another person. (at least, no contact for a long time.)

- Actually, Hitler was well aware of the German Social Democratic party (which was, and still is, the primary German socialist political party; they are usually called SPD, which is short for the German for "Social Democratic Party of Germany")- as a German politician, he had to deal with them, at least until the Nazis were able to come to power and eliminate them. The SPD was another of the first parties to be banned using the powers granted by the Enabling Act of the 1933. Its members were imprisoned or forced into exile.

According to pure Marxist theory this is an impossible condition. Capitalism sets up the conditions for Communism, then Communism totally and completely automatically replaces Capitalism at the right historical time. This is a totally deterministic and inevitable transition that cannot be avoided anywhere in the world, according to Marx.

capitalism: wages, production for sale, class ownership of the means of production

The landowners give the sharecroppers enough money to live on.

Adolf Hitler was an advocate of capitalism. On his route to power, he courted rich industrialists, who saw the theat of a militant communist movement in post 1st world war Germany as a threat to their position, and so backed the fascist and and anti trade union movement created by Hitler.

Hitler openly admitted his use of the word 'socialist' (in the name of his national socialist movement) and the use of red in propaganda, was an attempt to tap into the support that left wing ideas had gained since the economic downfall prior to the Treaty of Versailles. Although an advocate of state intervention in the economy, Hitler was a friend of big business, and his suppression of communists, socialists and trade unionists in seeking to break the organised labour movement, was proof of this.

In conclusion, fascism was merely an extension of the capitalist system. Rather than see Germany move towards socialism, big business supported Hitler as the lesser of two evils. Under fascism, they could maintain their position. Communists were the first to suffer from this opportunism, and many were killed in the concentration camps, alongside the Jews, gypsies and other minorities.

Market Socialism cannot exist, so the question here is meaningless. Socialism means a classless stateless society based on production for use, with no wages or prices or money.

Capitalism. Any system in which the means of production are privatley owned and controlled by a few and the fundamental goal is the accumulation of more and more wealth for the sake of further accumulation, is capitalist despite anything else.

how does marginalization affect the family

The countries that still have socialism is Sweden and Canada.

Edit:

While both Sweden and Canada have socialist aspects within their forms of government, so many other countries have more obvious aspects or socialism as part of their governmental structure.

All Scandinavian countries work withing a social democratic frame, much like Sweden, which means that despite capitalist opportunities, they have a strong welfare system, providing a safety net for people who are out of a job. As the third pillar of said social structure, these countries have policies to ensure that no one can exploit the system, and people are required to actively seek employment if they're healthy and otherwise able to work.

Actual socialist states, with very scarce (if any) capitalist aspects include North Korea and Cuba. These countries are normally considered Communist, and while this is the common assumption, no actual communist country (as described by Karl Marx) has yet existed, and the countries which have claimed to be communist are in fact socialist countries with emphasis on government control.

Given that no modern national government is a "pure" anything, all nations have some set of laws which are Socialist in nature. For example: the United State's Social Security system is extremely socialist. The U.K.'s National Health is also socialist. France's worker rights laws are socialist. Germany's national conscription laws are socialist.

Everything is in degrees - it's not a black or white issue.

The holocaust was a systematic genocide of Jews and other social, political and religious groups at the hands of Nazi Germany before and during the WW II. An estimated six million Jews and five million non-Jews were exterminated during the holocaust. The German socialists/communists were the first ones to be sent to concentration camps for their proximity to Soviet Union and opposition to Nazi beliefs. However, they numbered much less than other targeted group. If the number of Soviet POWs (2 million) and Soviet civilians killed during the Operation Barbarossa (5.5 million) are included, the number swells to close to 8 million.

Neither, as Communism means a classless stateless society based on production for use, with no rulers or money or prices. So no economy and no politics either.

Capitalist: production for sale, wages system, minority ownership of the means of production, class division. Socialism has none of these, and there cannot be a mix of capitalism and Socialism.

Quite a wonderful question, most of us tend to read novels but fail to get any stylistica features from the same. To list just but a few, this are some of the stylistic features that artists use in trying to pass a message to us: Use of symbolism: This is where the writer/artist uses a symbol to describe, represent or characterise a person, thing or place. For instance, the use of a broken egg to describe or represent a lost society e.t.c Suspense: Is another stylistic feature used which in actual sense leaves the audience who is the reader with so many questions about what happened next. For instance "....and he was no more. Irony: This one, the writer uses to contradicting explanations. For instance, the use of phrases like "sweet sorrow". Rhyming words: This are words that have the same feel maybe due to the sound of utterance or to the way they are written. For instance "The Garden of Eden" Where garden and Eden sound the same. Sarcasm: This is where the writer gives another character the words of another and makes them sound impolite to the other party. It might involve the other party saying the same words in a way that may offend the other. For example, a person dressed clumsly might be complemented for dressing well. Satire: Is more like sarcasm however, it mostly deals with actions unlike sarcasm which deals with words. However, both are geared towards offending the other party. Other stylistic features or stylistic devices as they are called , will be discussed with time because in reality, they are so many and can consume much time to exhaust at one go.

Italian socialists who differed with the main-line Socialist Party's anti-war (WWI) stance as well as hard-line nationalists. Also, many Fascists were war veterans. Fascism was a strange, convoluted mixture of right-wing symbolism (nationalism, respect for figure of authority) with a left-wing execution (totalitarian rule, view that elites have an enlightened dedication to the common good).

The countries that follow a capitalist ideaology are already key players in the cause of capitalism themselves. Everyone in a certain nation like that, plays each and every small role of capitalism. Just by being greedy or successful in high finance is a key role in capitalism. Businessmen, economists, and certain positions in government legislation all control the cause of full-fledged capitalism.

During the Russian Revolution in the early 1900's, the Mensheviks (which translated in Russian means the smaller ones or the tinier group). The Mensheviks were the rich elite of Russia and they fought against the Bolsheviks or the larger ones. The Bolsheviks were the serfs and peasants which rose up against the rich elite, similar to the earlier French Revolution. The Bolsheviks made up most of the Russian population and eventually won the civil war raging on in Russia based on their large numbers.

Both yes and no. Norway have a mixed economy, taking advantage of the best sides of capitalism and socialism. There is no problem starting your own private company, and there is a lot of private companies in Norway. But the government owns several key companies, like the postal service, railroads, Telenor (a large telecommunications company) and Statoil, one of the worlds largest oil company. The government also run most schools and hospitals.

it is just progressive

i like what the person here wrote.. when i first saw this question i though it was stupid. i think before one ask this question, they must understand the definition of "progressives"

progressive:change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are,especially in political matters