Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Mark Felton Productions" channel.

  1.  @TheBelrick  "It is this two way control that means that Fascism is a merger of state and private interests." You seem to be confusing Fascism and National Socialism, but they are two different things and you are talking about the latter. In both ideologies, there was no merging. There was only the State and its interest. There were no "private interest", and businesses were nationalized and told what to do, for the well being of the State.
    5
  2.  @Charles-k9g5y  "National socialist are not socialists" Wrong. By definition they were. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    4
  3.  @skwisgar8840  " one isn’t even socialism. " Wrong. They all were different types of socialism.
    4
  4.  @skwisgar8840  "what are you trying to get at that communists and national socialists are the same thing" No. They are rival and opposing socialist ideologies, and disagree on how socialism should be implemented.
    4
  5.  currantbun2166  "The rebranding to 'National Socialism' was deliberate false advertising -" Wrong. It wasn't. The name signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. “At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it "National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.” — Adolf Hitler Munich - Speech of April 12, 1922
    4
  6.  @TheBelrick  "fascism: merger of state and corporations. " Actually there was no merger of any kind. You are referring to a common misquote. There was only the State and Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
    4
  7.  @rickglorie  : "National Socialist parties were inherently right-wing" Wrong. They had nothing to do with right wing of any kind. They were far-left socialists.
    3
  8.  @Ghreinos  "You don't know what a socialist is." Socialist is a person who subscribes to a soci alist ideology, however making such generalization is usually not preferred, just like people who prefer capitalist economy are not usually called just "capitalists", since there are many capitalist ideologies.
    3
  9.  @jkorshak  "was a hybrid of free market and central planning. " Wrong. There was no free market nor markets of any kind, and there cannot be such a hybrid in the first place. They had a centralized and planned economy.
    3
  10.  @jkorshak  "Nazi German did NOT advocate collective ownership or even government ownership. " They advocated for socialism, not Marxism. They advocated for government control over the means of production, which ended up being almost identical to the USSR under Stalin. Government 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. This is what we now call a Command economy, which by definition, is part of the socialist economic system.
    3
  11.  @skwisgar8840  "so you don’t know the difference from marxists socialism lol typical" Marxism is also one of the branches of socialism, just like National Socialism was, and Fascism for that matter.
    3
  12.  @skwisgar8840  "They weren’t socialists they were national socialists" You are not making any sense. National Socialism was socialism on a national level, hence the name in the first place. It was one of the branches of socialism.
    3
  13.  currantbun2166  "They were as far from Socialists as you can get." Wrong. They were a textbook example of socialism. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    3
  14.  currantbun2166  " (hence the smooth continuity of companies like Krupp, Mercedes, Bayer etc.)." All nationalized and either directly owned by NSDAP or individually by its members, or the owners were members of the NSDAP already.
    3
  15.  currantbun2166  "and never even did basic socialist things like nationalising industry" Wrong. They did. They specifically nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi 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 socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … 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 Hitler, Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
    3
  16.  currantbun2166  "attacked and persecuted real Socialists" There is no such thing as "real socialist", not to mention, both Lenin and Stalin persecuted other socialists after the October Revolution.
    3
  17.  @TheBelrick  "You can witness fascism in the fictional movie Schindlers list" Schindler was in Germany, and they didn't have Fascism there. They had National Socialism.
    3
  18.  @TheBelrick  "No, go read the guy who invented Fascism..." Already have. He merged nothing, unless we count the "classes".
    3
  19.  currantbun2166  "They were as far from Socialists as you can get."_ Wrong. They were a textbook example of socialism. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    3
  20.  @jkorshak  "itself a marriage with corporate interest in support of the nation." There was no such marriage. There was only subordination and the interest of the State.
    3
  21.  @jkorshak  "They were enormously "right wing." As far right as it can get. " Wrong. They were totalitarian far-left socialists. They sit on the right side of Marxism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. As far-right as you can get, would be Libertarianism. Extreme right would be Anarcho-Capitalism.
    3
  22. "how right wing were the Nazis?" None. They were far-left socialists.
    3
  23.  @whiteknightcat  "By definition, Nazism is about as far right as one can get, " Wrong. Nazism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on ethnonationalism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind. As far-right as one can go, that would be Minarchism or Night-watchman state. Extreme right would be Anarcho-Capitalism.
    3
  24.  @Weimerica8841  "Why are you so desperate to cast it as left wing?" By definition he was.
    3
  25.  @rickglorie  : It was a socialist party which focused more on nationality and a mythical race instead of "classes". Simple as that.
    2
  26.  @maxfan1591  "They suppressed unions, " They nationalized them into one single nation wide union known as the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front). The DAF created a single overarching labor union. Essentially all German workers and employees in every economic sector belonged to the DAF. For example, farmers were coordinated into the Reich Food Estate. While traditional unions prioritized workers’ rights, the DAF emphasized national economic goals above personal well-being.
    2
  27.  @maxfan1591  "The Nazis protected private property. " Wrong. They didn't. Owning property was made conditional and private property rights were abolished with the Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933. The Nazis suspended a number of articles of the Weimar Constitution; Among these were Article 115 and Article 153. Article 115 said: "The dwelling of every German is his sanctuary and is inviolable. Exceptions may be imposed by authority of law." Article 153 also guaranteed property. Obviously, they did not confiscate everyone's property, however all property always could be confiscated by the state and a certain amount was. Industry was divided into 13 sectors and placed under the control of the state.
    2
  28.  @maxfan1591  "They were all politically, socially and economically conservative" Wrong. They were neither. They were anti-conservative, since they didn't want to preserve the status quo nor did they want to bring back Monarchy / Kaiser.
    2
  29.  @maxfan1591  "The Nazis were not left wing. " Wrong. They were far-left socialists.
    2
  30.  @yuval5628  " Privatization increased drastically once Hitler was in power. " Wrong. There was no privatization of any kind under Hitler and the Nazi regime. It was never a thing. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society and societies occupied by Nazi Germany from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.
    2
  31.  @Ghreinos  "And no he didn't called himself a soci alist in M ein Ka mpf. " Yes, he did and especially in his second book. "I am a Germ an nation alist. This means that I proclaim my natio nality. My whole thought and action belongs to it. I am a soc ialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate..."
    2
  32.  @Ghreinos  "A soc ialist wouldn't put ... " Except both Lenin and Stalin also did. Every soci alist regime has put their political riva ls into some kind of camp.
    2
  33.  @Ghreinos  "but that doesn't makes him soci alist." Again, you cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soci alist. That's what made Hit ler a socia ist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socia list leftist as he believed in strong central gover nment control.
    2
  34. "There was nothing soci alist about Hit ler and his party ." Wrong. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soci alist. That's what made Hit ler a socia ist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socia list leftist as he believed in strong central gover nment control. Hit ler outright declared himself a socia list in Mein Kampf, just not the M arxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his social ism from the rest of the Mar xist crowd.
    2
  35. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soci alist.
    2
  36. No. Both Fascism and Communism were socialist and anti-capitalist ideologies.
    2
  37.  @EmsionProductions  "The nazis were not socialists" Wrong. By definition they were. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    2
  38.  @EmsionProductions  "If Hitler and his party were socialists, why did he not work with them and instead have them all killed?.." Are you people really this simple minded? Ever heard of political rivalry? The answer to your question; for the same reasons why the Bolsheviks had the other socialist factions killed off after the October Revolution. Ever heard about it?
    2
  39. ""Changed its name in order to win over those on the moderate left" is exactly what we we taught in college in the mid 80s." Well Hitler himself was very open about these things, and the name change signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” — Adolf Hitler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978), p. 26
    2
  40. It's not a matter of belief. It's a historical fact, hun. By definition they were socialists. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    2
  41.  currantbun2166  " (hence the smooth continuity of companies like Kr upp, Mer cedes, Bayer etc.)." All nationalized and either directly owned by NS DAP or individually by its members, or the owners were mem bers of the NS DAP already.
    2
  42.  currantbun2166  "They were as far from Soci alists as you can get."_ Wrong. They were a textbook example of socia lism. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a soci alist leftist as he believed in strong central gover nment control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    2
  43.  currantbun2166  "attacked and persecuted real Socia lists" There is no such thing as "real soci alist", not to mention, both Lenin and Stalin persecuted other socialists after the October Revolution.
    2
  44.  currantbun2166  "and never even did basic soci alist things like nationalising industry" Wrong. They did. They specifically nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi 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 socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … 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, Hitl er's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
    2
  45.  currantbun2166  "In practice, they claimed that Socia lism was part of the Jewish plot..." Wrong. They had no problems with social ism. They claimed that both capitalism and marxism/bolshevism were "Jewish ploys" to take over Germany.
    2
  46.  currantbun2166  "to make them at least sound like they might appeal to nearly everyone. "_ They didn't want to appeal to everyone. They specifically wanted to appeal to other soci alists, who were of the globalist mindset. “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” — Adolf Hit ler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978), p. 26
    2
  47.  currantbun2166  "The rebranding to 'National Soci alism' was deliberate false advertising -"_ Wrong. It wasn't. The name signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. “At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it "National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.” — Adolf Hit ler Munich - Speech of April 12, 1922
    2
  48.  @greggiles7309  : Well true. National Socialism believed in the socialization of the German people into a harmonious, racial, community free from "Jewish exploitation". The ideology itself would still be on the far-left, as it was nothing more than a rival socialist ideology to Marxism, and to Fascism in a sense. Both Nazism and Fascism were classified as 3rd position movements, because they refused both capitalism and marxist variation of socialism, i.e. the "class warfare".
    2
  49.  @MadRobexe  : 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. Libertarianism / Minarchism and all the ideologies based on Classical Liberalism are on the far-right side. Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on ethnonationalism. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    2
  50.  @Ghreinos  "he funded industrialist families like Quandts and Krupp" Nationalized, subsidized and part of the NSDAP.
    2