Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "Analyzing a modern fascist book "Socialism of Duty"" video.

USSR, the state, was also feeding the Nazis war material before they got attacked by Nazi Germany. Have a look at German–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
5
“Race”(not skin colour different) is also man made concept, you cannot scientifically differentiate people’s races just by their biological features.
4
Marxism was not about democracy. "Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat." ("Communist Confession of Faith") “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) Just a "socialized man," not a "democratically elected man." Marxism may start from protecting the basic workers’ right , but in reality, it ended in totalitarianism and lost of civil right, while USSRs’ workers have worsen/equal (dependent on the source of Fred Copeman account) working conditions than their Capitalist Counterpart even in Stalin era. Marxism in reality is just about socialising the working class under the slogan of “social democracy and protecting the basic workers right”. Just like Nazism is just about socialising the Aryan race under the slogans of “Social Darwinism”. If Hitler is truly believed in Social Darwinism, Himmiler and Goebbels would never able to become Nazi Party leaders because of their disabilities.
3
You just equalized the definition of Socialism and Marxism in your previous comment. Now you said they are not the same thing? [...By the term “socialism,” they didn’t mean anything that we would even remotely recognize as socialist, but rather their policy of intervening in the free market for the benefit of the capitalists. By the term “Marxism,” on the other hand, they meant social democracy and the protection of basic workers’ rights. In Mein Kampf, Hitler says that his antisemitic world view was finally formed the moment he realized that the Jews were the masterminds of social democracy. Nazi discourse was a very convenient — if cynical — way of manipulating concepts and ascribing them completely new meanings...]
3
Do I need to remind you this centuries old pro-labour school of thought is also responsible for millions of death and countless atrocities in the eastern world, where Communists actually won?
3
Don’t forget Nazi also killed hundreds of thousands LGBT, Epileptic, Schizophrenic, Manic-depressive (now known as bipolar), Cerebral ,Palsy,Muscular Dystrophy, Deaf and/or Blind people.
2
@Marko-od7eb "Socialism is not Marxism", but Marxism is a kind of Socialism. If your argument was really built on the assumption that "Marxism is excluded from Socialism", your whole argument is under the level of a Middle Schooler. I believe all those so-called "what Nazis defined" you stated were just the book's narrative, but not statements Nazi openly made. The English Translator of Mein Kampf James Murphy stated in the Translator's Introduction that "I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people." Hitler was refering the "Social Democracy"(Social Democrat) as "Marxist", not "Marxist" as "Social Democracy", that is the first logic fallacy your book made. Your claim of Nazi defining Marxism as [social democracy and the protection of basic workers’ rights], therefore, the reason behind that definition must be [nazis considered democracy the enemy and anything democratic was considered marxist therefore Jewish] was just reverse causation and slippery slope fallacy On the other hand, in the 6/3/1929 public speech, Hitler said: "If today a Communist turns to me and says you are against democracy, against the rule of the people - no, I am not against the rule of the people, I am only against the rule of the elite of the stupidity of a nation, that is all. Because I object that the representation of a nation should only be found in its stupidity, and profess my belief that the only true representation of a nation lies in genius, in its daring, in the superior reason. Put the best of the nation at its head and subject the people to their rule! As long as one gives oneself over to the mob, it is not the people who rule but the froth, not that rules which sinks to the bottom because of its value, but that which because of its lack of value swims on top and noisomely forms bubbles there. This is the only declaration against democracy which has any justification." (Zitelmann, R. "Hitler: The Policies of Seduction.) If Hitler really openly stated [nazis considered democracy the enemy and anything democratic was considered marxist therefore Jewish.] Why would he say "I am not against the rule of the people." in his speech. _________________________________________________ For [By the term “socialism,” they didn’t mean anything that we would even remotely recognize as socialist, but rather their policy of intervening in the free market for the benefit of the capitalists.] Ishay Landa alraedy assumed Nazi policy were for the benefit of the capitalists, that is a circular definition, nomatter what the Nazi do they must be capitalist, because their policy were for the benefit of the capitalists. Their policy were for the benefit of the capitalists because they were capitalist. ____________________________________________________________________ Btw I would really want to see the direct quote from any Nazi Literature that claimed [ “Socialism” means their policy of intervening in the free market for the benefit of the capitalists.] and [“Marxism” means social democracy and protecting the basic workers' right.] Nazis in your narrative were just like those 90s cartoon villains that will publicly announce: "Because we are evil, we must destroy all good things in humankind."
2
It seems what make Marxism or Fascism a religion is the fact that they are trying to achieve an intangible vague goal in real world [Communist Stateless Society with not politics and oppression(Manifesto of the Communist Party/A Communist Confession of Faith], or Society that profit would equally share amount every class["The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell] though the perfect regulation and control of economy by certain entity for both ideology[part 3, chapter 2 of Anti-Dühring,"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell]), not gaining actual material or understanding scientific phenomena (logic and empiricism also, or freedom) like the other examples you have given, which tended to able to self correct when the reality act differently to people expectation. For the tranditional religions you mentioned, their paradises are in afterlives instead of real world, you don't necessarily need to change the economic system of the society you are living in to get into paradise.
2
Almost every dictator will use both surveillance and police to control their people. You think you won’t get bombard by propaganda and secret police in conservative dictatorship like South Korea in Park’s era.
2
Nazi had never been taken over by any capitalist / banking / aristocratic interests. It has always been the National Socialism drove the the capitalist / banking / aristocratic and the whole country into the economic crisis and into the war. The war, the economy policies and the racism can all trace back to Hitler's books and his National Socialism.
2
Ex-Communist in the past like Mussolini and Hitler. Communist in the past like Lenin, Stalin and Mao. And many more (not all) Socialists/ Communists who believed Capitalism is at its end since 1800s and need to overthrow the whole system, abolish everyone private property and place the economy of the whole society(nation) under central control.
1
@Stefan-wj6mq Don't neglect the fact that "left-liberalism" ideologies also included "Critical Race Theory" and "Lesbian Feminism" which often use caused marginalisation of other minorities. While "Critical Race Theory" would often unintentionally lead to anti-write, antisemitic and anti-Asian implications, "Lesbian Feminism" is the origin of the trans-exclusionary radical feminist, the ideology which believe Trans is a threat of Faminism and needed to be deal with euphemistically. What you are saying is not wrong, but it doesn't make TIK argument not right.
1
@Stefan-wj6mq Critical Race Theory is one of the back bone theories behind Amarican civil rights movement. TERF (for trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is designated for those feminists who wish to marginalize and minimise the number of trans people, yet they are still figthing for women's right. You cannot just separate the social liberal movements from their ideologies. They are both using Marxism logic, but it doesn't change the fact that they are also the ideologies used by genuine civil and women's rights activists to fight against the conservative matrix of patriarchy and systemic racism (mostly against African-Americans). PS: Surly there are also cases that trans people tried and even sucessfully "cancel" people that disagree with their narrative. While this doesn't change the facts that some "Countries that follow the social-liberal model are provably the happiest, and one of the most advanced countries in the world.", your statement also didn't change the fact that the ideological vanguard of socially liberalism movement can be very radical and extreme.
1