Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "RE: NS is Socialism | Responding to your counterarguments and Further Explanation" video.

  1. If Socialism allows for extensive privatisation, then what exactly is the difference between modern day Europe (social democracies) and Nazi Germany, apart from the obvious fascism/democracy differences? Are we socialists? The problem is; when do we call something capitalism with socialist elements and when socialism with capitalistic elements? I think calling National Socialism a form of Socialism is fair, because it had many socialist elements within it and allowed the government to direct the production output of even private companies on demand. What I think is the most problematic about your last video is how you equate it with the USSR. Stalin turned the USSR into a command economy, a completely planned economy. Stalin took away land from farmers so as to collectivise agriculture. Hitler privatised companies and even let them compete in a capitalistic style, but when deemed in the interest for the greater good of the German people the government could place an order with a company (this was for profit, but repeated non-compliance could have nationalisation of the company as a result). Hitler also did the exact opposite with farmers: he did not take it away from them, but forced them to keep it as property and forbade selling of land. In short, the USSR was collectivising and factually taking control over the means of production, or at least the grand majority of it, and National Socialism was privatising but increasing government control over private corporations. Both were trying to achieve a socialist society in which the means of production served the common good, BUT both went about it in a radically different way. National Socialism is a bit of a strange one because it allowed capitalism style freedom for companies, BUT increased government soft power over companies. It is like a conditional capitalism. You get capitalistic freedoms, but only if you occasionally (?) serve the general interest of the German people instead of just your own profit interests. The companies did what they need to do to contribute to the socialist society, and when they were "off duty" they had the full capitalist freedoms. I think you could place National Socialism between Capitalism and Socialism on the political spectrum, but it is mainly socialist. I'd say it's like modern day social democracies but the other way around: mainly socialist, with capitalist elements. Alternatively, one could say that National Socialism was capitalism with very heavy socialistic government intervention (capitalism, unless the government orders you to do X or Y). Best place would be between Capitalism and Socialism on the political spectrum
    1
  2. +Hans Connely Unless I got the definition wrong, the Nazis were in fact fascists. Adhered to the anti-democratic belief that one leader could lead a country more efficiently than democracy (being Hitler), heavily regulated society (example: forbade farmers from selling agricultural land), regulates the economy (privatised economy, but government could order companies around and nationalise them if non-compliant). Ticks all the boxes
    1
  3. +Acceleration You have right and left wing policies on very varying subjects. An ethnostate is right wing, but that doesn't mean that that ethnostate can have left wing economic policies. In fact, left wing economic policies are most logical in an ethnostate: you create a society that cares about one another because of their strong cultural ties, therefore individuals will happily work for the greater good of their ethnostate in the socialistic fashion. In National Socialism, the National stands for developing a strong national identity and group mentality by creating an ethnostate (right wing), but the Socialism stands for caring about other members of that ethnostate and working for the good of your fellow Aryans (left wing).
    1