Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.

  1. Nazi did not preserved private property, Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. -Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution. As Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. If Nazis suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to own property in the Enabling Act, Private property didn’t exist de jure.  The property seized of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of even Aryan was not de facto guaranteed.  Even if you argued that Nazi preserved private property by didn’t fully enforce the Fire Decree of 1933 and remove all private property within Nazi Germany. That is true, yet it is still not enough to refute Nazism from Socialism. As this situation should also applied to Soviet Union, PRC, Cuba and any other communist states. Cuba actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies. PRC didn’t nationalise private firms not until“Public-Private Partnership"(公私合营) campaign in 1956, 7 years after they took the power. Vietnam abandoned Agriculture Collectivisation since 1988. Soviet permitted household plots since its foundation and officially permitted the selling of the products produced from the household in private garden markets since 1971. (Soviet Promoting Private Farm Markets,Theodore Shabad, The New York Times, March 16, 1972) All those communist states also infringed the existence of private ownership arguments you used to refute Nazi Germany, yet they and their ideologies can still be classified as Socialism. Not to mention all those modern liberal socialists, like the Orthodox Marxists of the Weimar Republic,that co-existed with the Free Market.
    2
  2. According to the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx recognised advocators for social policies in the interest of capitalists and Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, which are still within the spectrum of Socialism. “ … We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form. The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. … A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
    2