Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Desperate historians try to defend the Nazi "privatization" myth" video.

You're fundamentally wrong. Marxism didn't really start taking roots in the Socialist movement until the mid 19th Century. Socialism has been around since the 18th Century. The first generation of Socialism, dubbed later by Socialist as "Utopian Socialist" didn't even mention Class, or the Working Class in their ideology. Being Utopian Socialist is considered the Foundation of all modern Socialism, it heavily implies Socialism isn't about the Working Class. However, Marxism is. Marxism is a branch of Socialism that rejects Utopian Socialism for a Class Theory of History, and a Socialist system built around Worker Control of the means of production. So your definition of Socialism is literally Marxism not Socialism. There are also other versions of Socialism that pre-dates Marxism as well, Conservative Socialism also came before Marxism, Marx himself called it Bourgeois Socialism. However this was also not built on Class or the Workers. So we have two forms of Socialism alone which pre-dates Marxism which isn't about Worker's Control. So you're literally as blatantly wrong as you could possibly be. Socialism didn't start with Marx, nor do Marxist hold a Monopoly on the term Socialist. So Socialism MUST BE more than just Worker's Control, being Worker's Control doesn't apply to earlier forms of Socialism. I think the reason why you think it's so similar to Feudalism is because Socialism technically is even in a "Worker's Paradise." I'd suggest watching videos on Ushanka Show about life in the Soviet Union from a person who grew up in the Soviet Union. Basically saying Socialism is Worker Control is literally a fallacy and proves ignorance to the evolution and history of Socialism itself.
6
Eastern Europe was enslaved under Marxist Socialism, and Central Europe became dominated and still are dominated by Social Democrats. All Socialist. Just one worse than the other.
2
They rely on contradictions. You can often find them on Wikipedia as well... They're so pervasive that even Wikipedia can not white wash them all to make an argument. Even TIK's critics can not. Ran into one two days ago who said "None of the authors TIK uses supports his position. Only a few radical Libertarians." Paraphrased of course. Basically saying None..... but a few.... then dismisses those few as nonthing but Radical Far Righties so they don't count.... Even though Libertarians are not exactly Radicals.
1
To be honest your 3 points apply to Marxism as well, and I'd argue against it applying to Fascism itself, but Nazism. Marxism divided society into groups, and even pushed for violence against them. Most Communist regimes are blatant proof of the hostility. You're just going to ignore the Capitalist and Bourgeoisie? Only difference here is Social Class vs Racial Class. Fascism ignored both and advocated using Nationalism to bring everyone in society together as one body regardless of religion and regardless of class. It's quite opposed to Us vs Them which is a core of almost all collectivism.
1
@mateuszwesoowski9583 I must have misread what you wrote.
1
1:12 honestly don't think Socialist know what Liberal means by claim State Control = Liberal? Utopian Socialist claimed Socialism to be the Opposite of Individualism and Individualism is the core of Liberalism. I mean seriously? "Liberal minded bureaucracy of the Reich's Ministry..." "It insisted that all institutions of the Reich had to strictly apply those regulations." Because we know handcuffing the private Individual is Liberalism. 😕
1
@juliantheapostate8295 Socialism isn't Liberal, no matter what way you try to spin it. Definitely if you're talking about economics. For example Economic Liberalism, the most Liberal form of Economics is literally Capitalism under a different name. So if Capitalism is Liberalism and Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism, then Socialism can not be Liberalism. People forget, Liberalism = Individual Liberties (Liberties, Liberty, Liberal etc). Being the original Utopian Socialist considered Socialism to be the opposite of Individualism, just about in every way or form, socialism is not Liberal. For how authoritarian and even often totalitarian Socialist Countries become, it's so blatantly obvious Socialism isn't Liberal that anyone who still thinks that today are f***ing stupid. Lastly, West Germany had a lot of help rebuilding it's economy post war. So they had a lot of help from the outside as well. Unless you're saying "Liberal" as in Capitalism saved Germany. =D
1
@calvinjohnson948 To be frank State Capitalism doesn't exist, it's a Marxsonian criticism of none Labor Centric Socialism.
1