Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pqunit "Because they fundamentally believed in private ownership of the means of production."
Wrong. They didn't. Not only did they abolish private property rights via Reichstag fire degree during 1933, where the article 153 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteed private property, with expropriation only to occur within the due process of the law... but also Hit ler states in his table talks on September 3, 1942, that land was “national property, and in the end only given to the individual as a loan.” Hi tler only recognized private property insofar as it is used according to the principle “common benefit ahead of private benefit,” which means that if it is necessary in the common interest, the state has the right at all times to decide the way, the extent to which, and when private property is used, and the common interest is, of course, defined by the state.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eedragonr Hi tler and his NS DAP were the State. NS DAP members were State employees. For example this is what happened to Junkers:
"When the Na zis came into power in 1933 they requested Junkers and his businesses aid in the German re-armament. When Junkers declined, the Na zis responded by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies, under threat of imprisonment on the grounds of High Treason. In 1934 Junkers was placed under house arrest, and died at home in 1935 during negotiations to give up the remaining stock and interests in Junkers. Under Na zi control, his company produced some of the most successful German warplanes of the Second World War."
- Wiki
And even the Time magazine wrote about Na zis confiscating businesses back in the day:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by H itler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Social ism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Na zi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Comm unism."
- "Adolf Hit ler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eedragonr "What industry ever have the Na zis nationalized and confiscated?"
Every major industry. Junkers for example, or Volkswagen or IG Far ben, or Krupp or Hugo Boss or Porsche. Every single one of the major industries were either owned by NS DAP directly, or its individual members. Either businesses bent the knee to the NS DAP or the owners were replaced by Hit ler's own goons. Of course the NSDAP got lucky in the sense, that most of the CEO's were already part of the NS DAP movement.
"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 socialis ation, or what is known here as socia lism. … 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 Hit ler, Hitl er's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jordrider1917 : Muss olini never denounced so cia lis m though. After he was kicked out of the Italian PSI, which was a ma rxi st party, he denounced ma rxis m. Even according to Muss olini himself, he would always remain a so cia list. Mus soli ni also didn't come up with the fa sci st ideology... that was a so ci ali st philosopher Giov anni Gen tile.
"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a so ci ali st. You hate me because you still love me.“
— Ben ito Muss olini, Denis Mack Smith, Muss olini: A Biography (1983) p. 8. As quoted by Mus solini after he was expelled from the Italian So ci ali st Party in 1914. 1910s
"Do not believe, even for a moment, that by stripping me of my membership card you do the same to my So ci ali st beliefs, nor that you would restrain me of continuing to work in favor of So ci ali sm and of the R evolu tion.“
— Be nito Muss olini, Speech at the Italian So ci al ist Party’s meeting in Milan at the People’s Theatre on Nov. 25, 1914.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1