Comments by "Nick Nolte" (@nicknolte8671) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.

  1. The uploader cites the first volume of Richard J. Evans, but doesn't cite the second or the third volumes. I wonder why. Oh, that's right. Because the second volume completely contradicts what he's saying. You know. When Nazis actually come to power and start applying their agenda. "All this had been achieved by a growing state direction of the economy which by 1939 had reached unprecedented proportions. Whatever the propaganda messages about the battle for work might claim, Nazi economic policy was driven by the overwhelming desire on the part of Hitler and the leadership, backed up by the armed forces, to prepare for war. Up to the latter part of 1936, this was conducted in a way that aroused few objections from business; when the Four-Year Plan began to come into effect, however, the drive for rearmament began to outpace the economy’s ability to supply it, and business began to chafe under a rapidly tightening net of restrictions and controls. More ominously, private enterprise started to be outflanked by state-run enterprises founded and funded by a regime increasingly impatient with the priority accorded by capitalism to profit. Yet none of this, whatever critics suspected, represented a return to the allegedly socialist principles espoused by the Nazis in their early days. Those principles had long been left behind, and in reality they were never socialist anyway. The Third Reich was never going to create total state ownership and centralized planning along the lines of Stalin’s Russia. The Darwinian principles that animated the regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and Party were the guiding principles of politics and administration." Note that this book is actually peer-reviewed and cited over 900 times by academics. No one in academia will ever bother to review or cite this video.
    10
  2. 8
  3. 8
  4. 8
  5. 7
  6. 7
  7. 7
  8. 7
  9. 6
  10. 6
  11. 6
  12. 6
  13. 6
  14. 6
  15. 6
  16. 6
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26.  @peanutlover5998  "GROUPS OF INTERESTED PRIVATE PARTIES EXERCISES STATE POWER" Written by 2 German economic historians with PhDs, published in an economic journal and cited 76 times. TIK's video - cited 0 times and will never be cited. "First, one has to keep in mind that Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard. Private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. Therefore, it is not astonishing that Otto Ohlendorf, an enthusiastic National Socialist and high-ranking SS officer, who since November 1943 held a top position in the Reich Economics Minostry, did not like Speer's system of industrial production at all. He strongly criticized the cartel-like organization of the war economy where groups of interested private parties exercised state power to the detriment of the small and medium entrepreneur. For the postwar period he therefore advocated a clear separation of the state from private enterprises with the former establishing a general framework for the activity of the latter. In his opinion it was the constant aim of National Socialist economic policy, 'to restrict as little as possible the creative activities of the individual. . . . Private property is the natural precondition to the development of personality. Only private property is able to further the continuous attachment to a certain work.'" Otto Ohlendorf, an economist, was actually hanged in 1951 for his role in the Holocaust. Alas, he was a tru(tm) believer of capitalism.
    5
  27. 5
  28. 5
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47.  @cheapbongs  "After this confession of his belief in the superior race of factory-owners and directors, Hitler went on to declare that rentability must always be the standard of the industry (how differently Gregor Strasser thought on this point!), and when Otto Strasser contradicted him and praised the autarchy of a nationalist economist system, Hitler abruptly interrupted him and said: "That is nothing more than wretched theorism and dilettantism. Do you really believe that we can ever separate ourselves from international trade and finance? On the contrary, our task is to undertake an immense organization of the whole world in which each land shall produce what it requires most and in which the white race -- the Nordic race -- shall take the leading part in administering and carrying out this vast plan. Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years. At this point Gregor Strasser, who had been listening to the discussion, declared that economic autarchy must unquestionably be the aim of National Socialism. Hitler beat a retreat. Yes, he agreed that autarchy must be the ultimate objective in, say, a century. Today, however, it was impossible to cut loose from the international economic system. Once again Strasser let fall the word "Socialism." Hitler replied: "The word 'Socialism' is in itself a bad word. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialized, and only to mean that it could be socialized if industrialists were to act contrary to the national interests. As long as they do not do that it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system." "
    4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 4
  87. 4
  88. 4
  89. 4
  90. 4
  91. 4
  92. 4
  93.  @TheImperatorKnight  “The sublime term “free trade” is part and parcel of Viking economics. The Prussian, i.e., socialist term would be “state control of the exchange of goods.” This assigns to trade a subordinate rather than a dominant role within the complex of economic activity. We can understand why Adam Smith harbored a hatred of the state and the “cunning beasts called statesmen.” Indeed, government officials must have the same effect on tradesmen as policemen on burglars and naval cruisers on the crews of private ships.” (Spengler, "Prussianism and Socialism," p44.)" Oh mi gosh... He's literally praising free trade here as being "part and parcel of Viking economics", i.e. what he associates Germany with. He's criticizing socialists for their term which rightly describe "free trade" for what it is - something controlled by the state. He then goes on to quote Adam Smith and praise him, because Spengler is basically a classical liberal. He's railing against the heavy hand of the state as well. Read it again, this time very, very slowly. The sublime term... Do you think he's being ironic or what? It's also quite clear he's actually agreeing with Adam Smith here. "We can understand why Adam Smith harbored a hatred of the state and the 'cunning beasts called statesmen.'" Why are you quoting excerpts from the book which undermine your position? Again, read the quote above. "The governments, everywhere in the world, have since 1916 become more and more rapidly dependent on them and are obliged to obey their orders if they do not wish to be overthrown. These brutal interventions in the structure and meaning of economic life they must either accept or carry out themselves. . . . The natural centre of gravity of the economic body, the economic judgment of the real experts, was replaced by an artificial, non-expert, party-political one. . .Have not the men with creative economic talents, those who sustain private economic enterprise, been sacrificed to this dictatorship . . .? (Spengler 1980: 145–6).'"
    4
  94. 4
  95. 4
  96. 4
  97. 4
  98. 4
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. "After this confession of his belief in the superior race of factory-owners and directors, Hitler went on to declare that rentability must always be the standard of the industry (how differently Gregor Strasser thought on this point!), and when Otto Strasser contradicted him and praised the autarchy of a nationalist economist system, Hitler abruptly interrupted him and said: "That is nothing more than wretched theorism and dilettantism. Do you really believe that we can ever separate ourselves from international trade and finance? On the contrary, our task is to undertake an immense organization of the whole world in which each land shall produce what it requires most and in which the white race -- the Nordic race -- shall take the leading part in administering and carrying out this vast plan. Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years. At this point Gregor Strasser, who had been listening to the discussion, declared that economic autarchy must unquestionably be the aim of National Socialism. Hitler beat a retreat. Yes, he agreed that autarchy must be the ultimate objective in, say, a century. Today, however, it was impossible to cut loose from the international economic system. Once again Strasser let fall the word "Socialism." Hitler replied: "The word 'Socialism' is in itself a bad word. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialized, and only to mean that it could be socialized if industrialists were to act contrary to the national interests. As long as they do not do that it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system." "
    3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 3
  142. 3
  143. 3
  144. 3
  145. 3
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 3
  149. 3
  150. 3
  151. 3
  152. 3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172.  @stefanlaskowski6660  You got your definitions all mixed up. "Right-wing politics supports the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies." So, the Aryan race is above all else in N/zism. To sin and pervert the so-called "Aryan" race is to commit the greatest sin, as Hitler said. "Strasser said that he did deny it: National Socialism was an idea which was still in evolution, and in that evolutionary process Hitler certainly played a specially important role. The 'idea' itself was Socialism. Here Hitler interrupted Strasser by declaring that this so-called Socialism was nothing but pure Marxism. There was no such thing as a capitalist system. A factory-owner was depended upon his workmen. If they went on strike, then his so-called property became utterly worthless. At this point Hitler turned to his neighbour Amann and said: 'What right have these people to demand a share in property or even in the administration? Herr Amann, would you permit your typist to have any voice in your affairs? The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity -- a capacity only displayed by a higher race--gives them the right to lead."
    3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. You've been parroting N\zi propaganda for years? Why? Unwittingly or wittingly? "When I think back on these many doleful figures and place-seekers who altered their own views and became Hitler followers to obtain material things, I know that respectable people can feel only shame for such men: a totally sad chapter of self-serving rogues. Leaders within the large industries and banks, the nobility, major farmers, teachers, public officials, all these noble characters who showed little understanding for [the laborers in] the social process before 1933, were suddenly converted and transformed and became spirited supporters of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP). White-collar and blue-collar workers [Stirn und Faust] went arm-in-arm. Meaningless phrases were thrashed around day and night until the laborers lost their backbone, forgot their political schooling, and gave up their independent work spirit. The conservatives and reactionaries had their greatest triumph when the common worker gave up and sank to the level of a slave. The A to Z of this “socialist” creation was to craftily draw the “Old Fighters” away from the capitalistic class. The Nazis offered unimagined possibilities, with Hitler impressing the upper classes with fairy tales about world domination: a vision to which the German has absolutely no resistance. So the largest military buildup of all times came about and, of course, the desired war. The German people will someday sleep off this intoxication, but the hangover will not go away as easily. When the curtain finally opens and the theater is visible to the audience without impostors and stage directors, there will be a frightful awakening. Never in the history of a nation have the guilty ones been more evident than now. It may be that one or the other bandit will have a higher degree of blame, but in general it is the entire bunch that is guilty. In my view the people of industry and the military officers will be at the head of the line. With few exceptions, they went through thick and thin with Hitler and gave him counsel." Friedrich Kellner, July 27, 1941
    3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. Two Nazis so far referenced this video to me to say that Nazism was really socialism. Of course, that's nothing but Nazi propaganda. "Berlin, November 22, 1943. In Munich, the well-known Pan-Germanic pioneer, the National Socialist author and journalist, Count Ernst zu Reventlow, died at the age of 74. With the passing of Reichstag Deputy Count Ernst zu Reventlow on November 20, the National Socialist movement has lost one of its earliest and most valuable protagonists. [...] Source: 'Graf Reventlow gestorben,' VB-Sud, November 23,1943, p. 2. Count Reventlow was already accountable to every German - before and during the First World War - for his animal lusting after power. The heavy suffering and damage brought about by Kaiser Wilhelm II owed much to Reventlow’s concept of the German Empire’s superiority. This type of person, with his exaggerated nationalistic convictions, generates intolerance, arrogance, strife, and war. The organizations that established themselves by saber rattling and caused the entire world to go after Germany prayed to power and identified war as a healing agent for the people. They even went so far as to declare war was decreed by God, and a long period of peace would be a national mishap for Germany. This Count Reventlow (formerly a naval officer) was a warmonger, war fanatic, and glorifier of war, who brutally championed the right of the strongest, and therefore always demanded a 'vigorous' foreign politics. This chauvinist did not fall victim to the people’s anger in the revolutionary days of 1918, and that encouraged Reventlow to reshape his politics into a more presentable form for the people. Like every other extreme national politician, he found his way to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He, the scion of old hereditary nobility, from then on embraced 'socialism'! It was plain to be seen the NSDAP leaders intended to shape their socialism into a special format; otherwise these noblemen would not have so completely gone over to them. National Socialism is the greatest swindle of all times, using the word 'socialism' in its name to beguile the working masses. I once read (in 1933 or 1934) an article by Count Reventlow in a trade union newspaper, where he said the workers before 1933 had been blinded and deceived by their union leaders! Of all people, the Count an advisor to the German workplace!" Friedrich Kellner It's now wonder every conservative (social and economic), every classical liberal, the Protestant and Catholic parties voted for Hitler.
    3
  218. Here are some facts the uploader doesn't want to hear. The Nazis wanted to privatize industries vital to the war effort during the war itself, that's how ideologically blinded they were. "A second cause has to do with the conviction even in the highest ranks of the Nazi elite that private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress. The principle that Four Year Plan projects were to be executed as far as possible by private industry was explicitly motivated in the following way: 'It is important to maintain the free initiative of industry. Only in that case can one expect to be successful." Some time earlier a similar consideration was expressed: 'Private companies, which are in charge of the plants to be constructed, should to a large extent invest their own means in order to secure a responsible management.' During the war Goering said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be 'strengthened.' Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would 'give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare.'" Know why the uploader's lying? Because he's a "libertarian" or at least calls himself one (he's nothing but a classical liberal fraud). So why the lie? Because every single conservative and classical liberal fraud voted for Hitler to become a dictator. That's why.
    3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231.  @Alte.Kameraden  Meanwhile you are yet to cite a single source and defer to a video that has been debunked over and over and isn't a source in and of itself. All the while uncritically parroting Nazi propaganda. "Available sources make perfectly clear that the Nazi regime did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible. In the prewar period that was the case, for example, with the big German banks, which had to be saved during the banking crisis of 1931 by the injection of large sums of public funds. In 1936/37 the capital of the Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank and Dresdner Bank in the possession of the German Reich was resold to private shareholders, and consequently the state representatives withdrew from the boards of these banks. Also in 1936 the Reich sold its shares of Vereinigte Stahlwerke. The war did not change anything with regard to this attitude. In 1940 the Genshagen airplane engine plant operated by Daimler-Benz was privatized; Daimler-Benz bought the majority of shares held by the Reich earlier than it wished to. But the company was urged by the Reich Aviation Ministry and was afraid that the Reich might offer the deal to another firm. Later in the war the Reich actively tried to privatize as many Montan GmbH companies as possible, but with little success."
    2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243.  @Alte.Kameraden  Why were industrialists tried and convicted in Nuremberg, namely in the Krupp, IG Farben and Flick trials for their involvement in the Holocaust and the Nazi regime? Because groups of interested private parties exercised state power. Fascism and Nazism shelter the existing order. "Facing the demagogic trend, [political] liberalism is the form of suicide committed by our sick society. With this perspective it gives itself up. The merciless, embittered class war that is waged against it finds it ready to capitulate politically, after having helped spiritually to forge the enemy’s weapons. "Only the conservative element, weak as it was in the 19th century, can and will in the future, prevent the coming of this end (125)." What Spengler refers to as “conservatism” is thus simply a means to shelter liberal society from itself, rescue the economic order from the suicidal tendencies of its politically liberal “protectors.” Like Donoso, Spengler palpably shows how “conservatism” and “anti-liberalism” are not necessarily motivated by opposition to capitalism or a longing for the socioeconomic order predating it, but can come precisely to succor the economic liberal order in its hour of greatest need. Conservatives are thus willing to toss out the bathwater of political liberalism to save the baby of capitalism." Conservatives are willing to do away with democracy and resort to fascism to rescue capitalism, or the economic liberal order. Or what's known in the US as the fiscal conservative order.
    2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263.  @vl8962  "As Southerners became increasingly isolated, they reacted by becoming more strident in defending slavery. The institution was not just a necessary evil: it was a positive good, a practical and moral necessity. Controlling the slave population was a matter of concern for all Whites, whether they owned slaves or not. Curfews governed the movement of slaves at night, and vigilante committees patrolled the roads, dispensing summary justice to wayward slaves and whites suspected of harboring abolitionist views. Laws were passed against the dissemination of abolitionist literature, and the South increasingly resembled a police state. A prominent Charleston lawyer described the city’s citizens as living under a 'reign of terror.' "Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Presbyterian minister Benjamin Morgan Palmer, originally from Charleston, gave a sermon entitled, 'The South Her Peril and Her Duty.' He announced that the election had brought to the forefront one issue – slavery – that required him to speak out. Slavery, he explained, was a question of morals and religion, and was now the central question in the crisis of the Union. The South, he went on, had a 'providential trust to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of slavery as now existing.' The South was defined by slavery, he observed.'It has fashioned our modes of life, and determined all of our habits of thought and feeling, and molded the very type of our civilization.' Abolition, said Palmer, was 'undeniably atheistic.' The South 'defended the cause of God and religion,' and nothing 'is now left but secession.'"
    2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. ​ @macias7125  You need a history lesson: "As Southerners became increasingly isolated, they reacted by becoming more strident in defending slavery. The institution was not just a necessary evil: it was a positive good, a practical and moral necessity. Controlling the slave population was a matter of concern for all Whites, whether they owned slaves or not. Curfews governed the movement of slaves at night, and vigilante committees patrolled the roads, dispensing summary justice to wayward slaves and whites suspected of harboring abolitionist views. Laws were passed against the dissemination of abolitionist literature, and the South increasingly resembled a police state. A prominent Charleston lawyer described the city’s citizens as living under a 'reign of terror.' "Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Presbyterian minister Benjamin Morgan Palmer, originally from Charleston, gave a sermon entitled, 'The South Her Peril and Her Duty.' He announced that the election had brought to the forefront one issue – slavery – that required him to speak out. Slavery, he explained, was a question of morals and religion, and was now the central question in the crisis of the Union. The South, he went on, had a 'providential trust to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of slavery as now existing.' The South was defined by slavery, he observed.'It has fashioned our modes of life, and determined all of our habits of thought and feeling, and molded the very type of our civilization.' Abolition, said Palmer, was 'undeniably atheistic.' The South 'defended the cause of God and religion,' and nothing 'is now left but secession.'" Basically, southern conservatives were a bunch of proto-fascists.
    2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383.  @Alte.Kameraden  You support this. I know you do. "Earlier, the Law Regulating National Labor of January 20, 1934, known as the “Charter of Labor,” had put the worker in his place and raised the employer to his old position of absolute master—subject, of course, to interference by the all-powerful State. The employer became the “leader of the enterprise,” the employees the “following,” or Gefolgschaft. Paragraph Two of the law set down that “the leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.” And just as in ancient times the lord was supposed to be responsible for the welfare of his subjects so, under the Nazi law, was the employer made “responsible for the well-being of the employees and laborers.” In return, the law said, “the employees and laborers owe him faithfulness”—that is, they were to work hard and long, and no back talk or grumbling, even about wages. Wages were set by so-called labor trustees, appointed by the Labor Front. In practice, they set the rates according to the wishes of the employer—there was no provision for the workers even to be consulted in such matters—though after 1936, when help became scarce in the armament industries and some employers attempted to raise wages in order to attract men, wage scales were held down by orders of the State. Hitler was quite frank about keeping wages low. “It has been the iron principle of the National Socialist leadership,” he declared early in the regime, “not to permit any rise in the hourly wage rates but to raise income solely by an increase in performance.” In a country where most wages were based at least partly on piecework, this meant that a worker could hope to earn more only by a speed-up and by longer hours."
    1
  384.  @Alte.Kameraden  Pretty much what TIK advocates -- neo-feudalism. And you. You're a bootlicker as well. "Deprived of his trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike, the German worker in the Third Reich became an industrial serf, bound to his master, the employer, much as medieval peasants had been bound to the lord of the manor. The so-called Labor Front, which in theory replaced the old trade unions, did not represent the worker. According to the law of October 24, 1934, which created it, it was “the organization of creative Germans of brain and fist.” It took in not only wage and salary earners but also the employers and members of the professions. It was in reality a vast propaganda organization and, as some workers said, a gigantic fraud. Its aim, as stated in the law, was not to protect the worker but “to create a true social and productive community of all Germans. Its task is to see that every single individual should be able … to perform the maximum of work.” The Labor Front was not an independent administrative organization but, like almost every other group in Nazi Germany except the Army, an integral part of the N.S.D.A.P., or, as its leader, Dr. Ley—the “stammering drunkard,” to use Thyssen’s phrase—said, “an instrument of the party.” Indeed, the October 24 law stipulated that its officials should come from the ranks of the party, the former Nazi unions, the S.A. and the S.S.—and they did." -- William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" You are such a bootlicking liar. So much for your Labor Front. You disgust me.
    1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. "After this confession of his belief in the superior race of factory-owners and directors, Hitler went on to declare that rentability must always be the standard of the industry (how differently Gregor Strasser thought on this point!), and when Otto Strasser contradicted him and praised the autarchy of a nationalist economist system, Hitler abruptly interrupted him and said: "That is nothing more than wretched theorism and dilettantism. Do you really believe that we can ever separate ourselves from international trade and finance? On the contrary, our task is to undertake an immense organization of the whole world in which each land shall produce what it requires most and in which the white race -- the Nordic race -- shall take the leading part in administering and carrying out this vast plan. Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years. At this point Gregor Strasser, who had been listening to the discussion, declared that economic autarchy must unquestionably be the aim of National Socialism. Hitler beat a retreat. Yes, he agreed that autarchy must be the ultimate objective in, say, a century. Today, however, it was impossible to cut loose from the international economic system. Once again Strasser let fall the word "Socialism." Hitler replied: "The word 'Socialism' is in itself a bad word. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialized, and only to mean that it could be socialized if industrialists were to act contrary to the national interests. As long as they do not do that it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system." "
    1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405.  @baigandinel7956  "After this confession of his belief in the superior race of factory-owners and directors, Hitler went on to declare that rentability must always be the standard of the industry (how differently Gregor Strasser thought on this point!), and when Otto Strasser contradicted him and praised the autarchy of a nationalist economist system, Hitler abruptly interrupted him and said: "That is nothing more than wretched theorism and dilettantism. Do you really believe that we can ever separate ourselves from international trade and finance? On the contrary, our task is to undertake an immense organization of the whole world in which each land shall produce what it requires most and in which the white race -- the Nordic race -- shall take the leading part in administering and carrying out this vast plan. Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years. At this point Gregor Strasser, who had been listening to the discussion, declared that economic autarchy must unquestionably be the aim of National Socialism. Hitler beat a retreat. Yes, he agreed that autarchy must be the ultimate objective in, say, a century. Today, however, it was impossible to cut loose from the international economic system. Once again Strasser let fall the word "Socialism." Hitler replied: "The word 'Socialism' is in itself a bad word. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialized, and only to mean that it could be socialized if industrialists were to act contrary to the national interests. As long as they do not do that it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system." "
    1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437.  @FirstnameLastname-do1px  "Juxtaposing the two elements of Spengler’s worldview, a market economy geared towards national greatness, we get a political combination which should objectively be termed “national capitalism,” or, maybe, “Prussian imperialism.” Socialism in any meaningful sense just does not come into it at all. In fact, socialism is precisely that which is expurgated at both levels: at the economic sphere since it impedes growth, and at the “great” political sphere since it posits peaceful international coexistence, which would make impossible the Spenglerian endorsement of imperialism. Socialism is but the traitor that must be driven out of the fortress. We can now understand why Spengler himself, in his later years, explicitly took the air out of his former “socialism”: “Here a great education is necessary, which I have called Prussian and small politics might be called ‘socialistic’—what do words matter!” (210). But why did Spengler, being for all practical purposes a capitalist, use the term socialism in the first place? Why couldn’t he have just brandished a project of “Prussian Imperialism,” which would have represented his views infinitely better than the banner of “Prussian Socialism”? It is not difficult to guess the answer, unless one is straightjacketed by an approach that construes fascists as forthright. Capitalism had scarce little popular appeal after the First World War and amidst protracted world economic crisis. A much better prospect for supporters of capitalism lay in feigning to embrace socialism, so as to infiltrate it inside an ideological and political Trojan horse and defeat it from within." -"Sorceror's Apprentice", Ishay Landa, 2010, pages 69-70 An actual historian. With an actual doctorate. An actual professor in a university. An actual book that was reviewed by other historians and cited dozens of times. Must be part of a cultural Bolshevik conspiracy.
    1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "The next phase in the struggle would begin after the elections of 5 March. If the N\zis were able to gain another 33 seats in the Reichstag, then the actions against the Communists would be covered by ’constitutional means'. But, ’regardless of the outcome there will be no retreat ... if the election does not decide .. .the decision must be brought about even by other means'. Hitler did not take questions from his audience, nor did he spell out exactly what was expected of the business leaders. Hitler had not come to negotiate. He had come to inform them of his intentions. And his audience can have been left in no doubt. Germany's new Chancellor planned to put an end to parliamentary democracy. He planned to crush the German left and in the process he was more than willing to use physical force. At least according to the surviving record, the conflict between left and right was the central theme of the speeches by both Hitler and Goering on 20 February. There was no mention either of anti-Jewish policy or a campaign of foreign conquest. Hitler left it to Goering to reveal the immediate purpose of the meeting. Since German business had a major stake in the struggle against the left, it should make an appropriate financial contribution. 'The sacrifice[s]', Goering pointed out, 'would be so much easier ... to bear if it [industry] realized that the election of 5 March will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years.' Krupp von Bohlen, the designated spokesman for the business side, had prepared extensive notes for a detailed discussion of economic policy, but confronted with this bald appeal, he thought better of introducing tedious details. Instead, he confined himself to stating that all present would surely agree on the need for the speediest possible resolution of the political situation. Business fully supported the goal of establishing a government in the interests of the German people. Only under a strong and independent state could the economy and business 'develop and flourish'." Business fully supported the N'zis. No force was used to induce them whatsoever. They went willingly and profited mightily from it. For a period of a dozen years. After the war, some industrialists were convicted for helping the regime. Tried and convicted in a court of law...
    1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. True, let's focus on their policies, like privatizing more industry and services previously performed by the government than any other capitalist society in the West at that time. "A second cause has to do with the conviction even in the highest ranks of the Nazi elite that private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress. The principle that Four Year Plan projects were to be executed as far as possible by private industry was explicitly motivated in the following way: 'It is important to maintain the free initiative of industry. Only in that case can one expect to be successful.' Some time earlier a similar consideration was expressed: 'Private companies, which are in charge of the plants to be constructed, should to a large extent invest their own means in order to secure a responsible management.' During the war Goering said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be 'strengthened.' Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would 'give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare.'" It's amazing, isn't it? The Nazis were so ideologically blinded that even during the greatest war in human history, they wanted to privatize industry necessary for their success in war.
    1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497.  @adamb3421  "After this confession of his belief in the superior race of factory-owners and directors, Hitler went on to declare that rentability must always be the standard of the industry (how differently Gregor Strasser thought on this point!), and when Otto Strasser contradicted him and praised the autarchy of a nationalist economist system, Hitler abruptly interrupted him and said: "That is nothing more than wretched theorism and dilettantism. Do you really believe that we can ever separate ourselves from international trade and finance? On the contrary, our task is to undertake an immense organization of the whole world in which each land shall produce what it requires most and in which the white race -- the Nordic race -- shall take the leading part in administering and carrying out this vast plan. Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years. At this point Gregor Strasser, who had been listening to the discussion, declared that economic autarchy must unquestionably be the aim of National Socialism. Hitler beat a retreat. Yes, he agreed that autarchy must be the ultimate objective in, say, a century. Today, however, it was impossible to cut loose from the international economic system. Once again Strasser let fall the word "Socialism." Hitler replied: "The word 'Socialism' is in itself a bad word. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialized, and only to mean that it could be socialized if industrialists were to act contrary to the national interests. As long as they do not do that it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system."
    1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529.  @Arkancide  Went to college, supposedly studied philosophy, can't construct a single rational argument and back it up. "Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party." Enjoy repeating N/zi propaganda dude. "Their identity was a secret which was kept from all but the inner circle around the Leader. The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it. Throughout the latter half of 1931, says Dietrich, Hitler 'traversed Germany from end to end, holding private interviews with prominent [business] personalities.' So hush-hush were some of these meetings that they had to be held 'in some lonely forest glade. Privacy,' explains Dietrich, 'was absolutely imperative; the press must have no chance of doing mischief. Success was the consequence.'" - William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" No wonder why so many industrialists (capitalists) were tried and convicted in Nuremberg (IG Farben, Krupp and Flick trials) for their role in the Holocaust, their profitting from slave labor and their role in the N/zi regime.. No wonder why US industrialists financed the N/zi regime - they rightfully recognized that their investments would be protected. No wonder Texaco supplied oil to f/scists in Spain. Corporate profits skyrocketed 4 times when comparing 1928 and 1938. Like I said. No wonder.
    1
  530. 1
  531.  @Arkancide  "and not I" Seems like they didn't teach you the object pronoun of the first person singular in college, which is "me". Over-reliance on experts... Oh my gosh, I'm "over-relying" on people who have spent decades studying the subject matter. How dare I? What an anti-intellectual thing to say... Guess who else is an anti-intellectual propagating cultural Bolshevik conspiracy theories: ""Those who control the past, control the future, and the Marxists control the past. Since the Cold War era, if not much much earlier, socialists have invaded the universities, and have been miseducating the youth. Think about it. Who writes the history books? Public, socialised, state academic, historians. And who teaches in these public, socialised, state schools? People who believe in socialised control of the means of production. These socialised state historians and these socialised state academics have the most to gain from have the most to gain from the further expansion of the public, socialised, state sector. So they're pushing a false narrative of history, a false narrative of the news, a false definition of the words we use in everyday language, like: state. All as a way of defending "real socialism": the state. They've spun history through the lens of class warfare, gender warfare, racial warfare, calling this "social science." They've warped society into misunderstanding the true nature of socialism and capitalism. Most don't even know the meaning of the terms and when you point them out, backed by a host of sources and examples from their own literature, actual evidence, you get told: "You don't know what you're talking about."" No, this isn't some N/zi peddling cultural Bolshevism conspiracy theory (in modern terms, cultural Marxism), it's TIK saying this in one of his videos." It has been clearly demonstrated who's appealing to (invalid) authority (the form of this argument which is fallacious) in this case, yet you continue to persist in your fallacies.
    1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1