Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Why they don't tell you about Hitler's "Shrinking Markets" problem" video.

  1. Well it's not very hard to be against an anti-democratic and authoritarian system that had concentration camps and "progression" programmes that usually led to millions of deaths.
    5
  2. No.... collectivisation is not just any group owning the means of production, it is a huge group owning the entire means of production of a country. You can't compare the proletariat or the German race to bloody shareholders controlling a company together because "hurr durr both are groups". The shareholders are seen as the bourgeoisie under these systems. Under socialism there is collective ownership of the means of production and EVERYONE, from the owners/managers of the factories to the workers, has a share in it. Essentially it means the means of production are no longer used in the interest of generating profit for individuals (something both Marxism and NatSoc hated), but are from then on used in the interest of the working class or the German race as a whole. Shareholders employ the means of production for themselves, to generate profit, that is not socialism. Collectivised factories in the USSR are used to benefit the working class as a whole (both the managers and the workers), in Nazi Germany they were used to the benefit of the German race (both the owners and the workers), in fascism they were used to the benefit of the nation (both the owners and the workers). In all three systems, the government created policies directing how the means of production would be used and what all the wages would be, etc. The government decided what was in the interest of the working class/race/nation and the corporations followed that. In theory you can even have a fully planned economy, but if the government still employs the means of production to generate profit and not to collectivise the means of production for a class or race or whatever, it is still capitalism. Socialism is not "government does stuff" or "groups do stuff", it is about collectivisation and the eradication of the capitalist idea of individuals owning the means of production and using it to their own personal benefit if they like.
    3
  3. There are plenty of professors supporting TIK's point of view that National Socialism was a form of Socialism, even though he could have portrayed it in a better way in this video. So no, western education does not circumvent the idea that NS could in many ways be seen as related to socialism. The problem is that there is also a surprisingly large amount of marxists in universities that are not willing to acknowledge this and with ideologues you never know whether they are being honest or twisting facts to fit into their world view. There is literature on NS being seen as socialist, and literature on NS being seen as capitalist, it both exists in the west. Overall, National Socialism is a bit complex because it shares elements of both, but especially from socialism.
    1
  4. Yeah that's a pretty poor explanation of Hitler in those schools. Almost makes him sound like a comic book villain... The real question is WHY was Hitler anti-Slav and anti-Semite? Because he believed there was a race struggle going on in which the interest of one race is always counter to the other. He believed that because of shrinking markets he needed autarky to ensure the survival of the German race (i.e. to ensure Germany was fully self-sufficient and could feed itself and produce industrial goods for itself). He believed nations (races, in his mind) would have to fight to achieve self-sufficiency by grabbing enough resources to form an autarky and that the races that would fail to do this, would go extinct as they would starve. National Socialism is also anti-capitalist and shares the same criticisms of owners of the means of production exploiting the workers as Marxism does. At the same time Nazis were anti-Marxist because of their egalitarian and globalist views. So, why anti-Slav hatred? Well, Eastern Europe had agricultural lands Hitler needed to form a Germany that could feed itself, so he planned to pretty much murder out the Slavs from Eastern Europe and take it as Lebensraum. So this is associated with the idea of autarky and that different races had to fight over resources to feed themselves so they could survive. Slavs had resources Germans needed to become self-sufficient, therefore they were the enemy and had to be fought. Another factor is the USSR that Hitler hated. Essentially, in Hitler's mind it was "either the German race starves out due to lack of agricultural lands, or I take agricultural lands from the Slavs and they die out". And, why anti-Semitism? Considering the Nazi idea of different races struggling over resources to survive, the idea of members of a different race living within German society is nothing short of parasitical. They believed the Jews' very existence in Germany was them being parasitical on the survival of the German race. They believed that to survive, the German race needed to control a certain amount of resources or else they would eventually starve to death. So there could be no other races competing for those resources from within German society. Because race = nation in National Socialism, you can't have two races mingling in one area. Every "nation" would have to be racially pure and using the means of production and resources to further the survival of that race. The German race didn't want to use their resources to further the survival of another race, the Jews. They were their competitors. Another factor that made their hatred for the Jews even worse was the fact that Jews were overrepresented as businessmen. So they were not only seen as a foreign race benefiting from German resources, but also as a foreign race directly exploiting the German race/workers for their own survival/monetary gain. The Jews were pretty much the ultimate example of what National Socialism was against. I think it's very sad that schools today essentially teach "he was just insane" because that doesn't properly portray how screwed up and dangerous the National Socialist ideology is. Hitler was not "just insane", he followed a very clear and consistent ideology. An ideology we should understand to avoid. When you call Hitler "just a monster", people are more likely to question why Hitler really did what he did or even deny it altogher because it's pretty illogical unless you understand the ideological reasons he did it. That is the danger of not properly teaching the ideology of Nazism and why it leads to more holocaust denialism: because without understanding the ideological reasons behind it, killing 17 million people is so random and so illogically evil that some start to question "this is so absurd, did it even happen at all?".
    1
  5. A cover for what? You're trying to tell me Hitler just randomly wanted to kill Jews for no reason and invade the USSR for fun, even though he literally shared a consistent ideology that explains pretty much everything he did from the war to the holocaust and the way he designed the economic system?
    1