Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "DW Documentary" channel.

@timmy chang: National socialism and Fascism are 2 different ideologies. Also both of them are FAR LEFT socialist ideologies.
1
@proletarian clips: Fascism is a form of totalitarian socialism that opposes capitalism.
1
@m.r4841 : Wrong. Na zis were far-left soci alists.
1
@settembrini33 : Except he is right.
1
@settembrini33 : He is right about Naz is being social ists i.e. far-left. That is a historical fact and basic W W2 history.
1
@seattlewa8500 "Racism, sexism, bigotry, antisemitism? That is far right." Those have nothing to do with right, nor left for that matter. They are not political positions.
1
Reminder that Hitl er's National Socialism was a total itarian far-left, socia list ideology based on ethnonationalism, aryan ism and antise mitism. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soc ialist. That's what made Hit ler a soci alist. He may have been to the right from the Bols heviks, but he was still a socia list leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hit ler outright declared himself a socia list in Mein Kampf, just not the Mar xist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his sociali sm from the rest of the Marx ist crowd.
1
@dex6781 " but "leftism" hasn't a thing to do with the ideologies of authoritarianism/libertarianism." The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the government. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
@dex6781 " but they didn't have a command economy. " They did. Na zi Germany had a centralized government with a centralized and planned economy, quite similar to the US SR. The government controlled the means of production and also decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. That is by definition, a command economy, where the central government dictates the level of production of goods and controls their distribution and prices.
1
@dex6781 " the na zis ki lled hundreds of thousands of marxists and social ists within their own populace, even within their own party." And? So did both Le nin and Sta lin so your point being?
1
Daily reminder that national socialism was and is a far left, socialists ideology.
1
@m.r4841 : Nope. Cope harder.
1
@Bevtone : The party opposed marxism, not left wing in general. As Adolf said: "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
1
@m.r4841 : That quote is from his interview, in 1923 by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly.
1
@m.r4841 : Has nothing to do with believing. Cope harder.
1
@Bevtone "the same interview he said " Here is the whole part: "Socialism ... is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists ... Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic ... We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." Hit ler didn't consider mar xism to be proper socia lism. In fact, he considered his National Socialism to be proper sociali sm instead. It was not a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one.
1
@m.r4841 : You have no clue what you are talking about. National socialism is a form of far left socialism. Cope harder.
1
@m.r4841 : You have no clue what you are talking about. National socialism is a form of far left socialism, and Adolf himself was a proud socialist. Cope harder.
1
@Sumdumb beats : There is no such thing as "late stage capitalism".... and capitalism works just fine in every country that uses it.
1
@thebakersbaker4724 "there was nothing soci alist about it. " You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soci alist. That's what made Hi tler a socia list. He may have been to the right from the Bolsh eviks, but he was still a soc ialist lef tist as he believed in strong central government control. Hit ler outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soc ialism from the rest of the Mar xist crowd.
1
@thebakersbaker4724 "Look up how and where the word “privatization” was coined." It was coined by some random journalist in 'The Economist" magazine. Privatization wasn't a thing in W W2 Europe. Na zis nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Na zi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung". "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words social isation, or what is known here as sociali sm. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Adolf Hitl er, Hit ler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
1