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

I don't believe there is a Left or a Right when it comes to Socialism. I think it is a fallacy to claim that Socialism is a Leftist exclusive ideology, and honestly, I'm not a supporter of the Charts that try to label an economic system as politically right, left or center. Socialism can be championed by anyone, including conservatives and liberals. Marxist Socialist are obviously Liberal Socialist, who believe in Social Class Struggle, want Social reforms that benefit the lower of society. Fascist are National Socialist who want a Socialist economic but with a strong nationalist focus, nationalism in itself is often viewed as Right Wing, but yet these people are also Socialist. Socialism in itself is not limited to just one side of the political spectrum in my opinion because of this. It would be like claiming you can not be a Capitalist if you're a Liberal which is silly. Heck there used to be liberals called Red Dogs, Liberals who were center line, but considered themselves liberal, today this term is kind of being replaced with South Park Republican in the USA in particular.
5
What is to be confused? 1. Red Flag Check. 2. Militarism Check. 3. Mass Murder Check. 4. Leader with Funny Mustache Check.
4
Not really, he's very specific with the definitions.
4
What is the definition of Socialism? I grew up with Socialism being the Centralization/Nationalization of Business and Industry. France is a great example used when I was in school being it's a country that has Nationalized all Important Industrial and Commercial entities. If you own a bakery, or a tailor, of course you will still be privately owned by yourself or whomever owns it, but say you created a Internet Provider and became important enough that hundreds of thousands if not millions of French Citizens rely on your service the French Government will Nationalize and Take over your company. Meanwhile the French Government is also insanely strict on rules and regulations making it very hard for anyone to open their own business. Which has created a modern day Plutocracy in which the wealth gap in France has since skyrocketed as it's almost impossible for common citizens to rise up out of what they were born into. Which in my opinion defunks any Socialist Politician in my opinion that dares to claim they exist for the people. All Socialist states including the Soviet Union eventually turn into some form of Autocracy or Plutocracy. People claim the USA is a Plutocracy, but at least in a Capitalist Society you can go from being poor to rich far easier because of the free market. Without a Free Market it's increasingly difficult to rise one's self out of poverty.
2
@generalsaufenberg4931 I'm pretty sure Jews were persecuted by the Communist in the USSR post WWII. Mostly because of Stalin's push post WWII into a more National Socialist state vs the old Marxist or Stalinist style of Communism. Stalin openly supported Ethnic Cleansing because he believed people who were not part of "Soviet Culture" were a danger to the USSR, he already did this to Ukraine pre-WWII and post WWII because of all the ethnic groups that helped the Germans including the Tatars and Cossacks, well Stalin believed they all had to go. The USSR's idea of what is Soviet is pretty much Orthodox Russian. So of course they would eventually target Jews. The Soviet Union was one of the most successful Ethnic Cleansing nations on the planet. They rounded up millions of people and shipped them off so they could replace the populations with Russians. Heck during the occupation of the Baltic I think 300,000 people were deported, and Russians were encouraged to move in. Most of these Ethnic Cleansing programs did end after Stalin died though. But it does make Stalin look a lot like a Racial Socialist like Hitler.
2
@charlietheron8947 there is plenty to say. 1. He was a Communist in 1919. Hitler was elected as a Commisar in 1919 representing his Regiment in both the People's State of Bavaria and The Bavarian Soviet Republic. So twice, he was elected by his peers. So this means he had to have sympathies, even if some historians try to ignore it. 2. He didn't spy on these communist for the Army. He was never a spy. This is a misconceptions which stems for when he was order by his ranking officer to visit DAP German Worker's Party the predecessor to the NSDAP. He may have been a spy vs the DAP, but that happened after. But this also is what he wrote in his book, so it's likely not even true. He didn't get involved with the DAP until after the Communist were crushed by the Social Democrats. The fact both happened in 1919 is why this misconception exist. 3. Dismissing the photo and film evidence? Oh boy, I guess it must be a fraud. 4. The entire position your taking on that matter is nearly identical to what he wrote in My Kamphy Chair. (Sorry if I use the real name YT may delete the comment). So this means you're using NS Propaganda yourself. Gasp 😉
2
@beback_ Well to an extent Socialism is exactly what TIK describes it as. But the issue is, everything is in grays. For example, for True Capitalism to Flourish you would have to have a Libertarian State that handcuff's itself to keeps itself out of the business of the Citizens. Kind of like the 19th Century America, before Socialist like elements were slowly tacked on. For example the USA didn't have an income tax or social security. We didn't have really any special branches like the FBI, or CIA either. There was also no federal reserve either ie "State" owned bank at the top of the pecking order of American Banking. Is the USA Socialist because of this? If you'd ask an American from the 19th Century if the USA was Socialist if you told them all that, they would likely say "YES." But if you ask any American now as they grew up with these, they would say "NO."
2
Comrade Kabo So explain to me how every Communist and even Socialist state eventually turns into a Plutocracy or Autocracy? Including China. Because that is what Socialism seems to always lead to, and unlike say a state with a Free Market like say Capitalist States, it's increasingly difficult if not impossible for people to rise out of poverty once Plutocracy/Autocracy forms. Which is counter to what All Marxist and Socialist claim their goal is, but yet it always turns into that. Which makes me wonder if Socialism in general is "flawed" and Socialist refuse to admit it. I mean what is France Today? France claims it is a Socialist state. Yet it's a Plutocracy, and the wealth gap gets worse every year. Yellow Vest Protest being the 'working' man lower class the people that Socialist claim to champion being the ones protesting the government in France just shows how well Socialism has been working out in France. So I can ask you this one question. "Give me an example of a Socialist State that has worked?" Better yet "Give me an example of a Communist State that has worked?" And if you say "China" I hate to burst your bubble, but China is a Nazi style National Socialist state, were Capitalism is acceptable as long as it's controlled and regulated by the State, with all Corporations in China being owned by members of the Communist Party. They even have laws that force Foreign companies that set up factories and offices in China to make partnerships with Chinese companies so they have control/access to it. Which is a similar Capitalist Tolerance to National Socialist Germany, which it's Tolerated as long as someone from the Nazi Party owns/runs the Business. All Socialist states 'fail' and eventually morph into something else just so they can survive.
2
Watch the video he states quite a lot who "they" are. It would get quite repetitive if he named them in every single line whe talking about them. And if I told you, you'd find an excuse not to watch.
1
@samrezvani3299 Just tell him to watch TIK's Hitler's Socialism video. Goes into depth on everything he has said.
1
@samrezvani3299 Waiting too long and you'll turn blue.
1
@samrezvani3299 I couldn't resist the joke though.
1
@samrezvani3299 I was hoping a video on Marx's influence on National Socialism.
1
@charlietheron8947 TIK doesn't misinterpret Socialism. Socialist Misinterpret socialism. You forget, that Socialism in the 19th Century was not a unified ideology, nor did socialist themselves really come to a conclusion on what Socialism actually was. It's why you have so many contradicting sometimes even hostile movements all calling themselves Socialist. This was even before the National Socialist ever exist. TIK's interpretation of what Socialism is comes primarily from Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism,. which are STATE CENTRIC Socialist movements. Which if that is what Socialism is, then Fascism and Nazism fall perfectly inside that kind of Socialism. Even today Socialists as a group have not come to a conclusion on what Socialism even is. I run into so many self proclaimed socialist who have contradictory ideas on what Socialism is. Some of which actually support TIK's idea of what Socialism is, just they deny his evidence, I've seen the arguments. I mean you even just tried to do the same thing "Dismiss the Nazis they can not be trusted!" Even though TIK has presented so much evidence of Nazi Socialism that it's kind of a joke to say the Nazis lied about being Socialist. Heck in some of his later videos it's seemingly more likely that Nazis lied to big business, not the workers. Shock Even the Finnish Bolshevik which TIK has posted a few times and himself made a video response to a few of TIK's videos idea of Socialism, is very similar if not identical to TIK's. Just he dismisses TIK's findings. UshankaShow a former Soviet Citizen now a Libertarian Socialist uses the EXACT definition of Socialism that TIK uses, and is openly against that kind of Socialism, wanting a more libertarian society with a capitalist economy but just with social welfare. Then you have Animarchy another Youtube channel run by a Socialist who literally spits in the face of all State centric Socialism and considers them not real Socialist. Which I'm using him as an example for that whole contradiction thing, and literally thinks Anarchy is some how Socialism... Showing 3 different Socialist channels all which are different kinds of socialist and are openly critical toward the other.
1
@charlietheron8947 TIK literally quotes one of TheFinnishbolahivik comments on his videos with the screenshot to prove it, and he straight up said Socialism is State ownership. Ushanskashow who was a former communist not by choice but... also said Socialism is State Ownership. In fact he says it a lot. Ushankashow despite growing up in the Soviet Union was banned from the Communist Reddit group because he would answer questions about the USSR that well the moderators of that group didn't like. Reason why is Fundamentally all Common/Social/Group control is State Control. It's quite dishonest of any Socialist to say otherwise. Society is too complex for there not to be some form of centralized authority. Unless you want to de-evolve society itself to a far more primitive state which will lead to the deaths of billions. When you advocate for Social Control, that Centralized Authority will be the primary body that dictates over it no matter what. I mean, how does the Group take control of the means of Production? It would require some form of authority, and then enforcement, it would require a State. Enforcement would be needed as well as you will have to police to people to prevent capital gains, which is why groups like the Soviets dictated how many cows you could have, too many cows would equal you're too wealthy and a hoarder, or capitalist pig... Socialism in practice requires a State and is State Socialism. Ideologically it may not, but ideologically vs practicality are two different things. Ideologically every Christian must be pure, but in practice all Christians are sinners. I mean why do you think every large socialist regime goes through massive teething issues, sometimes mass murder and starvation, or total economic collapse? Because the Ideology doesn't blend well with Practical reality. So must adapt/change itself to work. So in Practice, no Socialist State will be the Ideal Socialist State it means Ideologically Socialism WILL NEVER BE what Socialist want it to be. So when you see something you don't like it's not real socialism. But in reality it IS SOCIALISM. Because Socialism in Practice vs Socialism in Faith are two different things. In reply to your bullets. 1. So the Soviet Union were not Socialist for murdering/arresting countless people? Removing entire groups of people from society? Mass forced migration, mass arrest, mass killings, forced starvation. Ethnic cleansings on a scale that would make the National Socialist blush. I mean you do know the largest ethnic cleansing in European history happened under Stalin's watch right? Estimated between 10-20 million people were uprooted from their homes by the glorious soviet union. Large numbers of which were forced to migrate to Labor Colonies in the Middle South and Far Eastern provinces of the USSR so they were out of the way of the "Heart Land" so the Glorious soviet people could have their Worker's paradise with some homogeny ethnically/religiously to boot. PS, this started with Lenin, just Stalin was the biggest implementer of it, and it didn't end after Stalin's death either. 2. Actually Hitler did, TIK provided proof of the Nazis Collective Farm Program, and the Nationalization and Socialization of Business and for everything not directly controlled by the state was forced to follow the will of the state, as Hitler called it Synchronization ie putting in line. I mean some of this stuff is basic shit... yet socialist are blind to it. I used to be a Fascist because I KNEW Fascism was a form of socialism, not because it was in opposition to socialism... and that was back in 2001. Since I've abandoned nationalism and socialism neither are appealing to me anymore. I would highly suggest looking up National Syndicalism, or Fascist Syndicalism, Fascist Corporatism, or just Corporatism in general. So you understand why when Fascist talk about Corporations they're not talking about Private Ownership. I mean the fact you people don't understand Corporations, and why it's called "Going Public" when a company Corporatizes is beyond belief, and actually blame it on Capitalism which is more comical. You explain Corporations with terms like Crony Capitalism ie a State under the control of Corporations/big business, when actually Corporations require the cooperation of the State to even exist to begin with and that is BY LAW they can not form without the blessing of the State. It isn't the Corporations that Control the State, it's the Corporations controlling entire sectors of the economy on behalf of the State, and the state can prosper off it. It's easier to regulate/tax large corporations than smaller private business. About private ownership, Corporations are also collectively owned by millions of people, so I guess by Collectivist Dogma all Corporations are Socialist entities. In fact I think one form of Common Control called Equity falls in that category.
1
@charlietheron8947 sighs Corporatism: "Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American legal and pop cultural parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. However, the Cambridge dictionary says that a corporate state is a country in which a large part of the economy is controlled by the government. Corporatism developed during the 1850s in response to the rise of classical liberalism and Marxism, as it advocated cooperation between the classes instead of class conflict. Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism, and Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy advocated the collective management of the economy by state officials by integrating large interest groups under the state; however, the more democratic neo-corporatism often embraced Tripartism." Honestly like how Wikipedia removed the Syndicalist section of their article on Corporatism, yet forgot to remove it from it's related ideologies list. Corporatism branched off Syndicalism... but they sadly since removed that bit. I guess more people are catching onto it so they decided to scrub that association. Also wasn't privatization. As he actually says in this video, you people claim you can not take the Nazis at their word when they say they're Socialist yet you openly say it's okay to take them at their word when they use the word Privatization. Similar to when the Nazis dismantled the Weimar Republic, they didn't dismantle the State, they put it under new management. Privatization was a term used, but it was actually a reorganization, and Nationalization, but under a NEW NATION. When the Nazis took power in 1933 they didn't control everything, even after Hitler was given absolute power, they chose to in turn weed out all elements of the old government by literally dismantling it. This Privatization everyone screams about was literally the Nazis taking organizations, and putting them in the direct control of the Nazi Party. As Richard Evans quotes they were sold or handed over to organizations within the party itself. TIK Literally list a large percent of those organizations. They didn't shut down unions, they nationalized them directly into the party. They didn't shut down welfare or charity, they nationalized them directly into the party. List really goes on and on, and he list a large chunk of it. The Nazis use of Privatization wasn't Privatization. Being the Nazis were the new State, it was really Nationalization. As TIK described so well "It was a slight of hand." It's ironically why Nationalization and Synchronization are the proper terms to use to describe their "Privatization."
1
@charlietheron8947 PS btw That quote you used of Hitler is correct. But you're judging it from a Marxsonian position. But Socialism can allow private property. You can literally google many pro socialist who explain it well. It is why the Nazis used the phrase Synchronization often, Gleichschaltung. Confiscation isn't necessary if the property is already doing the will of the state. Which is why their Privatization program wasn't Privatization as they transferred control to loyalist and corporations which were part of or associated with the Nazi party itself. All that mattered was the Party's control and influence. Marxism and Marxist branches of Socialism are against property. Which is again why Fascist adopted Corporatism as an Alternative to Syndicalism.. they were still Socialist but abandoned the Class nonsense of Marxism.. and by abandoning Classim it wasn't necessary to cease property, all that is required is control, business owners can still on paper run their business but now they're doing it on behalf of the state.
1
@charlietheron8947 And now that is utter Bull Crap. Marx even created a term describing these kind of socialist calling them "Bourgeois socialism" So they date back to the 19th Century..... So they existed at the time of Marx himself.
1
@charlietheron8947 Yes but they're not all anti property. =P
1
@charlietheron8947 That is a catch though. Corporations couldn't refuse to cooperate. The Nazis abolished private property rights in 1933. Meaning the State had all the legal means it needed to nationalize any business it wished which did not cooperate with the wishes of the central state, and it did when it wanted to. There is no better example of this when Hugo Junkers refused to hand over all of his patented aircraft designs to the newly established Nazi Regime. If it is like you said, he could of just "NOT" cooperated... issue is he didn't cooperate and the government took his business from him and handed it over to a party loyalist. Even I.G. Farben being another good example, they supported many political parties leading up to the 1933 election, including being the largest contributor to the Nazi Party. But this was entirely tactical, a common practice many companies still do today, which they will often donate to opposing political movements hoping regardless which wins, they will have enough favor to have some sway over them. Despite I.G. Farben being a POST child of anti Nazi Socialist and their evil corporate greed, they often ignore the fact that the company was forced to let go of a large percent of it's board members because they were Jewish. Even though the Nazis promised when getting their support that they wouldn't well purge the company... so ya they lied to I.G. Farben. I mean if I.G. Farben had successfully BOUGHT the NS Party, you'd think... that it's leadership wouldn't of been purged by that said same party which they supposedly had bought with evil capitalist money. Issue is, people don't realize that Fascist Corporatism is a TOP DOWN system, the STATE has absolute authority. So NO Corporations don't own/buy out the state and NO, they couldn't just refuse the cooperate.... in a Fascist Corporatist system. Even in Italy this was the case, it was a heavy top down state run system.
1
@charlietheron8947 I like how you bring up points that TIK has absolutely crushed into fine powder in later videos. I'd highly suggest watching TIK's videos, as every point you made are addressed and crushed multiple times throughout them. HItler's Socialism Counting the Denialist Arguments (Every point you made is in this actually) Hitler was a Communist in 1919 (you he got rid of the socialist is laughably destroyed in this one as well, as he said, there are a million counter arguments to it) The Revolution guaranteed inflation - BankWars: Weimar Hyperinflation Episode 2 (same story, seems socialist don't even know what factions in Germany were even socialist to call socialist or willingly lie about it) 1. "btw all socialist elements of the nazi party where purged during the night of long knives" TIK successfully destroys this argument in half a dozen videos so fine that it might as well be baby powder. Most recently the "Hitler was a Communist in 1919" video. But he does so also in the Weirmar Inflation Part 2 video, and "Hitler's Socialism Countering the Denialist Arguments." It's an anti Nazi's were a Socialist lie that has perpetuated for 3/4ths of a century. It was LITERALLY MADE UP! The fact people still believe it is irritating. I never believed it as Rohm in particular was killed for a lot of reasons, including pleasing the German Army. They literally wanted the SA removed, and it's how Hitler gained their support. They were afraid the Nazis were use the SA to replace the army because in 1933 there were MORE members of the SA than there were Active members of the German Army and the SA was militarized. He wasn't killed because he was a Socialist, he was killed because doing so would ensure that LAST resistance in Germany, the German Army would swear loyalty to him if he does, it was entirely a strategic political move. 2. I can call him a Socialist because apparently, you don't know shit about the German economy in the 1930s, even before the war even started. Corporations are not Capitalism, and I don't care what some Socialist say. Corporations are owned by a multitude of people, which places them in collectivized category vs privatized category. They're publicly traded companies they're outside the realm of the private sector. There is a reason the phrase "Going Public" exist. Either they're Privately owned Companies or they're not, and in the case of Corporations, no they're not privately owned companies. Also you contradict yourself in this regard. If the State is telling Business what to do, then the Business are not able to seek profits at their own free will, which means there is no actual free market, without that free market you do not have the economic liberalism required for Capitalism to function. So even if Corporations are an example of Capitalism, it's still not capitalism. Doesn't matter if they make profits or not at this point, as they only make as much as allowed, or 'gifted' to them by the state as the state controls all the natural resources that the business need to operate, and yes, the Nazis controlled the flow of Iron, Coal, and all other resources, all business were literally reliant on the Nazi Party, and had no choice but to do what the Party said. Best part, which I just remembered. Some Socialist seem to understand that Corporations are not Capitalist and flounder trying to describe the differences of Capitalist and non Capitalist Corporations because Capitalist ones don't actually exist.
1
@charlietheron8947 But you already used Propaganda as evidence in your comment before last, by your own logic how can I take you seriously? 🤔 I also do not get where your getting Stalinist Academia from. He literally uses books from all sides including from historians he does agree with. 107 sources in his Hitler's Socialism Countering the Denialist Arguments video alone. And yes, Hitler "was" (keyword) once a communist. He presented proof of it from multiple different historians including ones you'd likely agree. It's just not talked about, film and photographic evidence also exist. TIK mentioned he wasn't going to make a video on it until he was 100% sure that it was true. He did make that video, so he is 100% confident in it's validity. He also said considerably more than Socializing the people, perhaps you should actually watch the videos instead of dismissing them. You obviously haven't, which is why you're using arguments he already countered. Btw Spengler called Hitler's Nazis Bolsheviks in disguise in his final book in 1934 as they betrayed the promises to protect private property and business already by then, something they promised they wouldn't do. So.. a few years before the War economy measures you so gladly use to deny it. They also dismantling the Weimar State and put all social programs into the hands of Party Organizations. So.. they also Abolished the old State. Hehe
1
@charlietheron8947 Coincidentally TIK addressed every point you just tried to make to counter the points I made. Perhaps you should watch that Hitler Was a Communist in 1919 Video. He accurately predicted such a response. Also not just photo but film evidence.
1
@124deaper1 I never argued he was a Communist post 1919, just that he was in early 1919 and likely for a few years prior. We tragically don't know too much about him his views from before, or during the war. Which is why even Richard Evans resorts to using Hitler's own book to fill in the gaps. Flaw with that is he obviously lied about his pre 1920s life as Hitler never mentions being involved with the Communist in any capacity in it. Even against his will as some claim to explain why he was. It's fun that he was also elected because that implies the Vets her served with viewed him as ideal to represent them in the Soviet. So it makes the spy argument or he was always anti Communist fall flat on it's face. There were a number of NSDAP members who were also part of the Bavarian Soviet Republic including Schreck, founder of the SS, and the infamous Sepp Dietrich of the SS.
1
@124deaper1 Something interesting I remember after reflection. But I do remember watching a documentary about a famous Tea House in Vienna. A Socialist speaking house so to speak which Socialist would often visit. It was like a pilgrimage. Known visitors were Lenin, Bukharin, Eisner, and surprisingly Hitler. Remember he himself claims he didn't get into Politics until 1919.
1
1. A Liberal doesn't = Socialist. 2. A Conservative doesn't = Capitalist. 3. A Conservative can be a Socialist, and a Liberal can be a Capitalist. 4. Considerably more Liberals however are socialist when compared to Conservatives. 5. National Socialism, was a conservative form of Socialism, but was still Socialism. But it did uphold many conservative values, unlike Marxist Socialism. Socialism is a government centric economic system, and there is no written rule that states it's Liberal or Conservative. Socialism however is championed by Ideologues, and most Ideologues are Intellectuals, and most Intellectuals are Liberal.
1
@K Local police are locally paid. Some communities even have volunteer fire and police. It is the State Police which are paid by the State. Our town as a Local police Station and Sheriff State Police Station. One is State and the other is Local. Most towns surrounding us also have volunteer fire departments and even a few volunteer police in the smallest towns nearby which can not afford full time employment for them ie the town pays for Local law enforcement and other services not the STATE not even the Province (State).
1
I find it sad that when I look up videos trying to counter argue this one. There are two. Comment Section of one is fill with Fascist Symbolism, and the other video's comments are filled with Communist Symbolism. Really makes their videos sound credible just because of the supporters that follow them. hehe
1
6:22 I think if you ever remake this video for whatever reason, that you should include Cartel on that list. Because many are using the word "Cartel" to explain Nazi Collectivization/Nationalization. In spite of the obvious fact that Cartel, League, Union, Syndicate etc are all Synonyms of each other. Sadly now that Cartel is the new buzz word to explain Nazi's socialization of the means of production, it needs to be used more often in conjunction with other "UNION" Synonyms otherwise the Sheep who believe it will not get the hint.
1
I like how the beginning of this video comes full circle almost two years later with the Hitler Was a Communist in 1919 video.
1