"Someone compared Marx with Hitler...
Blahahahaha... Sniff.. HAhahahahahaha...
Fact: Despite the name of the Nazi party Hitler's Germany was in fact capitalist in nature. What's Ironic is that at the time Nazi's and American's had much more in common than any other Allied power. Basically Hitler took power under a certain ideal and then changed the whole damn system. Do your homework Capitalist."
First, no, that isn't a fact. I've done far more homework than you have; you're relaying propaganda.
Second, I wasn't comparing; however Marx was far more evil than Hitler: Marx makes Hitlers and Stalins possible. Ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler mirrors Marx. They were both collectivists, they were both statists, they were both altruists. No coincidence that Hitler killed a lot of people, and Marx' philosophy has killed a frightening number of people (hundreds of millions over the 20th century).
Statism means the concentration of power in the state (political leadership), at the expense of liberty. Kant, Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Hegel, Mao, Lenin, Mussolini, etc. all share the same philosophical principles, collectivism, statism, altruism. Care to do the math on their combined death toll? If you are unwilling to accept reason: then just look at the results. America in its 225 year history has yet to have a dictator, a king, etc. It is the aspect of capitalism (the only political system compatible with freedom) present in America that has made that possible; as capitalism gets removed, it becomes more and more likely that a fascist leadership will develop in America.
If you want a more specific comparison: USA & the KKK, vs Germany & the Nazis; capitalism made it impossible for the KKK to seize actual power (it gave men like Martin Luther King, JR an opportunity to defeat the ideology of the KKK) - the lack of capitalism in Germany made it easy for the Nazis to seize power, by merely chanting some vague promise (more space, more whatever).
Communism is unjust in practice because it is unjust in theory. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; that is unjust and evil in theory, and so it is unjust and evil in practice. The USSR didn't fail because they didn't practice communism purely; it failed because if it had, there would be noone left to practice it, i.e. communism to be pure must kill everyone (because it is a system of sacrifice, and the ultimate sacrifice to make is your own life).
Fascism, nazism, socialism, communism are merely flavors of same philosophy: irrationalism. They all sacrifice human lives on the "public good" altar (the real meaning of that phrase, is the good of some at the expense of others; i.e. that it is ok to violate the rights of some people, and those some are defined by the gang in power - for the communists it was the burgeois specifically, and everyone in general).
No, Nazi Germany wasn't capitalistic (not even close); a capitalistic system has never existed, only 'mixed' systems have. Capitalism is a social (political) system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
Capitalism is a system that holds there are only individual rights (not 'collective rights'); Nazism is a political system that denies individual rights (and holds that some individuals have the right to violate the rights of other individuals); thus they can't both exist at the same time, that alone proves you wrong, but I'll go further. The Nazi party controlled all aspects of life (including economy); thus it wasn't capitalistic. As Friedrich Sieburg (a Nazi writer) stated: "There are to be no more private Germans," this is contradictory to capitalism, again you're wrong. Or to quote Robert Ley, another member of the Nazi leadership "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fullfillment in this service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany, is somebody who is asleep." Again, this is contradictory to capitalism.
The Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production (they allowed pretend ownership, which wasn't ownership, because the State still held absolute control); thus it wasn't capitalistic (private ownership of the means of production is essential to capitalism, it cannot exist without such). The Nazis demanded that the government run the economy; Nazis held legal ownership to be irrelevant, what they declared is their right to control the property and the ownership. The Nazis held that one could 'hold' property, but that The Party had the right to do with it as it pleased; thus it wasn't capitalistic. Under nazism, collective ownership is de facto, under communism collective ownership is de jure; neither are compatible with capitalism.
In Germany, the Food Estate, the Estate of Trade and Industry, and the Labor Front, took control of the economy. This again proves Nazi Germany wasn't even remotely capitalistic. All prices, wages, and interest rates were fixed by the central authority. The Nazis worked hard to keep an appearance of a free market, they completely failed however. Businessmen retained the responsibility of production, but gained none of the benefits. The State determined the purpose and conditions of the production, and reaped the benefits of it (the benefits were put toward destruction). In one form or another, the State expropriated all profit; this is anti-capitalistic. Germany had so many controls, directives, taxes, welfare organizations and fees, special provisions, economic policies, compensations, reliefs, freezes etc. that it is quite ridiculous that you could even bring your mind to think it was capitalistic in any sense; you either lack knowledge, or are mentally deranged.
Or better, I'll let Hitler prove me right, that Germany was not capitalistic:
"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our socialism goes far deeper."
"The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Or to quote Goebbels: "To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." There certainly is no doubt that fascism, communism, nazism, socialism have sacrificed hundreds of millions of individuals to the 'whole' the 'total' the 'collective.'
Also, notice that Hitler states "possessions" (i.e. property) as being outworn; that is, his philosophy is anti-capitalist down to the root. When Hitler says the right to property is outworn, he is saying freedom is outworn.
"Yes, Germany has produced some of the most evil men in history, but I'm not sure why you rank Immanuel Kant up there with Hitler."
Because Immanuel Kant (and to a lesser degree, Hegel) made Marx, Hitler, Stalin, etc. possible (they were the philosophic products of Kant). Kant's philosophy swept through Europe like a disease; and Europe exploded with two massive wars. Europe was a mess on philosophic principle; and the philosophic principles that dominated the 20th century were that of Immanuel Kant (and his philosophy remains popular; pragmatism is an Americanized version of Kant's philosophy).
Capitalism for the relatively short period it was being spread produced the longest period of world peace in modern history, from the end of the Napoleonic wars, to the beginning of WW1 (roughly 100 years), at which point the statist regimes (which had been gaining power) exploded into conflict.
Kant, Marx, Hitler all share the same philosophical foundation: that humans are there to be sacrificed (and no coincidence, that is what has been achieved when their philosophies have been put into practice). Kant provided the philosophic foundation, Marx applied it to the political realm, and Hitler, Stalin etc. put it into action.
Immanuel Kant is the man that undercut most of the last remnants of reason that existed in Europe (left over from the Renaissance); his philosophy helped produce the most irrational political systems ever devised. Kant's goal was to save the philosophy of self-sacrifice - and he did.
Kant created the philosophy of social subjectivism; that is, if the 'collective' or 'group' wants it to be so, it is so; if the group wills it to be, it will be; if the collective wants there to be no absolutes, there are none; etc. Previously, individual subjectivism had existed, that stated if one desires it to be so, it is so (regardless of whether it breaks the law of identity or not); Kant took that and applied it to the group. Marx taught a form of social subjectivism, on the basis of 'class struggle,' the Nazis took social subjectivism and applied it to race.
This is why the social subjectivists always fall back to "the greater good" or the "public good" or the "good of the greatest number," because they believe if one wants to make the impossible possible, the best shot at it is to get the greatest number of people to 'will' it into existence.
No amount of 'willing' will break the law of identity however; reality cannot be conned.