Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History" video.

@destubae3271 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
3
@pooyahasani6772 Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938
2
@pooyahasani6772 You’re obviously not a national socialist or anything that requires any thought.
2
@The Philosoraptor I can understand your confusion. I’m from a place you’ve obviously never heard of where nothing is ever purely one thing or the other called “the real world.”
2
In other words he repurposed the term to mean something completely different from its historical use by leftists.
2
@schreckpmc I think it’s more than being contrarian. He’s trying to project his own rather fanciful cult libertarian ideology onto the entire sweep of world history and say that either your agree with him or you’re a socialist.
2
Don’t “pretend” that socialism has a fixed definition so that we can include things that are not Socialism in it but do stipulate that capitalism has a fixed definition and it can only be a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist definition, Right? In this context it’s important to ignore the entire history of capitalism as it arose from within authoritarian regimes.
1
@pooyahasani6772 If you think what he's saying is correct you're a terrible National Socialist, the kind that Hitler would've defined as fatally corrupted by Bolshevism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight No that’s called capitalism in the real world. There’s never been an instance in history where the state has intervened in the economy unless there’s been no state at all.
1
@92ladderley Except that Hitler actually scaled back worker rights protections that were put in place in imperial Germany in order to kowtow to the German industrialists.
1
@freedomordeath89 No they did not. Hitler actively opposed seizure of private property by the government
1
@freedomordeath89 LOL “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler This is called a “direct contradiction” of what you said. Care to try again?
1
@Karpaneen Every kind of state has intervened to some extent in the economy since the late 19th century including imperial Germany in order to save capitalism. A state intervening in the economy is called “government.”
1
@Karpaneen No Hitler moved Germany further away from the left by privatizing more industry, glorifying private property and eliminating workers rights protections and labor unions. Of course he added controls over the economy during World War II just like the United States and every other major belligerent in the war. But the Nazis were actually late in mobilizing their economy for war production compared to the United States.
1
@Karpaneen Hundreds some of them are identified by name here http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
1
@TheImperatorKnight That would also describe virtually all historical capitalism. It would describe just about anything but outright anarchy. Governments have always intervened in the economy long before any of the ideas of Socialism existed
1
@nationalsocialist6590 The Chinese are indeed authoritarian capitalists like the Nazis in practice. But unlike the Nazis they pay lip service to an ideology that is completely at odds with what they do. Hitler didn’t try to hide his support for private property or opposition to Bolshevism. And even today a lot higher percentage of industry is still owned by the state in China than in Nazi Germany.
1