At this point I am nearly convinced that most antisocialists seriously think that capitalism is just when good stuff happens. Even if we had the most obvious and unambiguous example linking capitalism to atrocities — the Kill Corp. employing somebody whose job is literally just to go around and massacre innocents for the sake of shareholders and mad $$$ — antisocialists would still be scratching their heads wondering what that has to do with capitalism. While so far I haven’t seen anybody unkiddingly say that orgasms are capitalism and stubbed toes are socialism, there isn’t much left stopping antisocialists from making that call either.

Nazis nationalized most of their war industry and still went to war.

This is very, very misleading. Just because a business falls under state‐ownership doesn’t mean that the businessman’s autonomy is gone. Quoting Clarence Y.H. Lo’s Business Collaboration within the Nazi War Machine: Corporations and the State in the Austrian Semiperiphery:

During the [Third Reich’s] military buildup Gustav Krupp was chosen Führer der Wirtschaft (leader of the economy) in the “alter kruppscher Tradition” (old Krupp tradition) and later pledged not to offend [Fascism] (Manchester 1968:354, 367). In response to [Berlin’s] demands, Krupp increased its military production from RM 50 to 150 million between 1937/1938 to 1940/1941 (Manchester 1968:369; Overy 1994:136–38).

Gustav Krupp personally lobbied Hitler between 1941 and 1943 for a special law that would change the Krupp Aktiengesellschaft corporation into a family enterprise that would pay no capital gains tax (which would have been RM 70 million) when Gustav Krupp passed ownership on to his heir (Overy 1994:140). In return for the family tax exemption, increased depreciation (raising profit, James 2012:202; 207), and interest‐free state loans, Krupp was willing to have his armaments production determined by [Axis] officials.

The [Fascists], dependent on Krupp, were glad to see collaborative arrangements reducing the uncertainties (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978) of military supply (Overy 1994:137,139, 140).

Furthermore, businesses that were beyond ‘state ownership’ still made substantial contributions to the Fascist war machine, and the presumption that the Fascist state micromanaged everything has a more serious consequence as it pardons capitalists involved in atrocities:

The point is that industrial behavior under [Fascism] cannot be reduced to simple structural explanations. Even within the context of a dictatorship that demanded high levels of production for war, industrialists made choices as individuals. They approached the SS for cheap labor; they decided whether to buy a Jewish company at a fraction of its value; they determined how forced and [neo]slave laborers would be treated in their factories.

(Source.)

I suppose that this is only quibbling, though. The fact of the matter is that the Fascist empires never reduced let alone abolished capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production.

Palestine is only important because it represents another coalition of the oppressed for them to colonize [and, from a more sinister POV, Israel is THE epitome of Western imperialism, all legacies of which must be overturned]. […] It doesn't matter the agent, except that a radical imperialistic reactionary group like Hamas/IRGC/Hezbollah is actually the perfect anti-duhring for Western dominance, since you have to assume the guise & tactics of the enemy in order to repeal it. […] The co-opting of causes makes sense, since in order for Marxism to be coherent & defensible in its totalitarianism, you have to view all relation through the same aesthetic (class struggle); and there seems to be an at least latent awareness on behalf of Marxists that this aesthetic needs to be forced on others. ("You don't understand the way in which you're oppressed; therefore, it's up to us to liberate you in the way that you are truly meant to be liberated." Note as well that the aim of the movement itself is not liberty [bad; individualistic], but liberation [good; collectivist].)

I hope that I don’t have to explain how terrible this reply is.

The USSR, a Communist regime, spent 15-20% of GDP on military purposes; likely higher by some estimates. The US spent 5% during the same cold war period, and a bit less today. That includes military foreign aid. The facts paint the opposite conclusion.

The U.S.S.R. increased its military spending to forcibly neocolonize somebody else’s land…? Oh, whom am I kidding. Of course antisocialists believe that.

I could go on, but I’ll stop here so as to prevent further testing your patience.