Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming" video.

  1. Don't worry Socialist will just reject the definition of State, and claim Socialism has nothing to do with the State, or fall back on "Socialism is Worker Controlled!" Which is the issue I actually had the other day. Two days of back/forth discussion, and the guy's final defense really was "Definitions change over time rawr!" Which would mean no Socialist was ever a Socialist as Socialism's definition is always changing. He was so bankrupt in his defense that when I brought up Utopian Socialism, and later Ferdinand Lassalle when referring to Socialist who either always had or eventually rejected the Marxist Class view of the State. He used the word "Gay" and how the meaning of that word changed over time. Even though I can still use the word in proper context like "The man won the sweepstakes and gayfully ran down the street." And you and I would understand it completely. ie the Meaning hasn't changed, it just has alternate uses now, and it's old meaning just became less common. What is worse, he also admits that Socialism for one movement may not mean the same thing for the other. So it was easy to ask "Since when did Marxist have a monopoly on the Word Socialism?" Of course he didn't answer that question. The person basically rejected the idea that Socialism is anything but Worker Control of the Means of Production, even though there is so much evidence that proves otherwise. Even Social Democrats advocate for State Control, not "Worker Control" and guess which is the most popular socialist movement? Social Democracy. Then when resorted to mentioning he is only proving Ludwig Mises right by claiming the definition is ever changing. Of course by even mentioning the name Mises was like a sin and the guy used the fact I even said the name Mises as a Rebuttal in spite I mentioned him knowing Socialist consider him a hack and that he was only supporting Mises by holding his position. He used the fact I mentioned his name even in the slightest as a form of proof I had no idea what I was talking about. That I did a rebuttal to myself by even saying the name Mises. So I just gave up after that. The level of denialism is just nuts. I literally brought up many of the arguments you presented in this video. All this because the guy mentioned you and called you a Hack and I begged the differ.
    18
  2. Excellent comment.
    14
  3.  @oscartang4587u3  To be frank most socialist need to go back and redefine what Socialism is because the definition often used can easily be applied to almost any regime with enough power to control the economy. Which ironically makes them look like idiots when they deny the Nazis are socialist. Which is ironically why I like TIK's definition of Socialism, which is Social Ownership. Social Ownership doesn't exactly exclude private ownership if the private owners are part of the social group that controls the economy. If you've noticed almost all Socialism is about "A" Social "Group" Rising up and taking Control of the Means of Production from the "Other." For example, Marxism and all variants based off it, it's about the "Working Class" Rising Up and taking Control of the Economy and State from the "Land Owners" if you use plain English instead of their rubbish religious rhetoric. But, if you refuse the accept the concept of the Working Class, or Classes in General, you pull the rug right out of Communism and most Variations of Socialism along with it. As without it, it can not function at all. Which is why Marxism has utterly failed in the USA, with the Adoption of Neo Liberalism or more accurately Classic Liberalism since the 1980s. Where people were raised to view people as individuals vs rather than "Groups" as a result almost all collectivized movements lost power, including trade unions as everyone by the late 90s wanted to take charge of their own lives, and it's hard to do that when you're part of a union of sorts. This is interestingly why the Left as switched to Racial and Gender Politics, they need "New Groups" to fight for Social Control, if they want their Social Revolution. They've lost the war for the Working Class, as those often deemed as the Working Class are in support of their opposition anymore. It's fun seeing how horrific of failures Marxist and Socialist in General have been in the USA. Feminism it's about giving women more power in the economy, business and short, but doesn't exactly mean total social control, or collective ownership. Feminist use a lot of Marxist rhetoric reworded around gender boundaries. But it's basically Gender Marxism. But all that matters to the radical elements of feminism is Women Dominate Society, that's their goal. Not exactly equality. Modern CRT, when I literally hear them say "Race Consciousness" it's hard to not refer back to Marxist who say Class Conscious. So you know those who support it are reading off the same hymn sheet yet again. Again it's just Socialism rebranded with a "New" Social Group, this time a Racial. Ironically not that dissimilar to Nazism in that respect. It's sad when you see Liberalism actually being the enemy of these groups as well. Liberalism is about Individualism and Individual Liberties. This is why the Left has since coined the term Neo Liberalism, because it's hard to argue against Right Wing Liberals, who are actual Liberals when they call themselves Liberals. Because the things they support are Liberalism in it's purist forms. So of course they created Neo Liberalism as a means of demonizing Liberals who are opposed to their "Revolution." Going so far to calling them Far Right, which I find funny, being Far Right means anything they want it to mean anymore, either Anarchy or Totalitarianism? Which is it? lol
    5
  4. Which is an Oxymoron. You're saying State-None State. By default if it's Totalitarianism it has nothing to do with Capitalism. By calling it capitalism you're saying the economy is being run by the private sector. But by calling it the State you're implying it's being run by the Public Sector. Basically it's a True False logic Fallacy. Either it's one or the other it can not magically be both. To emphasis how much of one it is. Many Socialist are still arguing right now whether the modern CCP's China is either Market Socialism, or State Capitalism. Which heavily implies that the only real difference between the two is which regime socialist like or not and want to associate it with Socialism or not. Basically Socialist who like the CCP/China call it a Market Socialist system, while those who hate it call it a State Capitalist system. The fact Market Socialism and State Capitalism are that easily interchangeable implies they mean the same thing, relatively. Like when someone says Public instead of State. They mean the same thing but use two different words to describe it. In turn State Capitalism is just Socialism that Socialist dont like to admit is Socialism.
    5
  5. cracks knuckles The first Fascist/signers of the original Fascist Manifesto of 1914 the "Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista" Pardon by bad translation the Fascist International Revolutionary Action. Was signed by Marxist Syndicalist, Anarcho-Syndicalist and National Syndicalist of which most were members of the Italian Socialist Party. Mussolini was kicked out of the Italian Socialist party for supporting this Manifesto of course he didn't co-create it. The manifesto mostly advocated for Italy to get involved in the Great War hoping that it would accelerate the Revolution by weakening the existing Nation States. Basically it was signed by socialist who switched from an Anti War Stance to a Pro War stance. This Manifesto inspired the later "Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria" of 1919, which was the founding Manifesto for what would later become Italian Fascist Party. SO NO, you're completely wrong. Fascism has EVERYTHING to do with Socialism. It was FOUNDED BY SOCIALIST. They didn't magically stop being Socialist because they called themselves Fascist. Even the word Fascism literally means Unionist in a a broad sense, and they placed the good of the community above individual needs... which is totally NOT CAPITALIST. And you know there is a contradiction in this narrative because between 1919, and 1921 the Fascist magically go from being considered Far Leftist historically to Far Right by mainstream historians. What is comical is how often I see them saying Fascism is deeply rooted in Revolutionary Syndicalism, and just because someone throws National onto a name like say National Syndicalism automatically makes it "Far Right." When nationalism, heck even the word conservatism has little to do with the left or right of the political spectrum. Of course many will try to convince people otherwise. People on the left hold some of the tightest conservative views I've ever seen unyielding, and spit on the concept of Liberalism almost daily. Yet... they're on the left. There is a reason TIK used the word Commiservative and omg did that made me laugh as I wish I thought of it.
    5
  6.  @CANNNIBALIX  The banks become Socialist when they're controlled by the State. From the 1848 Communist Manifesto "Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly."
    4
  7.  @hobbso8508  Rubbish. The first Socialist Conservative Socialist where National Focused. Marxist are Class Focused. Nazis Race Focused. They're X Group, often excluding Y and Z. It's easy to prove such a claim wrong by simply asking what happens to people who don't want to be Socialist when such Society is formed. They're often oppressed, arrested, re-education, or worse. There hasn't been a Socialist regime that has successfully included everyone.
    4
  8.  @hobbso8508  PS what do you think happens during the Social Revolution? Those deemed incompatible are removed from Society. It only includes everyone AFTER the Social Revolution cleanses Society. 😉
    4
  9.  @hobbso8508  Keyword "can" which means not exclusively. Great job. 👍
    4
  10.  @hobbso8508  It isn't for the Aristocrats, Nobility, Land Owners, Peasant Farmer, Business Owners, Liberals of most varieties. Just about everyone in society which holds personal or moral reasons to object. Even if say Democratically, you're still implying the Majority get to force their will onto a Minority. That Minority isn't doing it willingly. 😕 that's not INCLUSION. Hence the phrase "Group Tyranny." There is no way around it either.
    4
  11.  @hobbso8508  Also, btw. The last argument about "Group Tyranny" is actually an argument I've seen Revolutionary Socialist present when claiming they're against Democratic Reforms. Viewing themselves as the Minority who are OPPRESSED in a democratic system which they've failed to hold a majority, so resort to violence.
    4
  12. TIK makes it quite clear what National Socialism is, and what Socialism is, what Marxist Socialism is and what Fascism is in his videos. National Socialism is Socialism, but so is Marxist Socialism. They're variations of Socialism, built off the core of Socialism itself. They're not the same ideologies. So calling Socialist Nazis, isn't correct. They have to want to make a Racial Socialist State to be Nazis. That is the distinction. So yes, the Nazis are Socialist, but just because the Nazis are Socialist, doesn't mean all Socialist are Nazis. It's a very simple principle. You can argue that since both Fascism and to an extent the German Worker's Party which Nazism was built upon, were also built originally on Marxist Socialist principles, and most Socialist today including Democratic Socialist are as well. We can argue that nearly all Socialism in the modern age however are Marxonian at their core. Even if they hate each other. Including National Socialism, Fascism, the Communist, Syndicalist, Corporatist, Social Democrats, and the list goes on and on. So it may not be accurate calling Socialist Nazis, it is very accurate calling Socialist Marxist as it's influenced them all and in cases like Fascism directly branched off of already existing branch of Marxism. ie a mix of Anarcho-Syndicalist, National Syndicalist and Marxist Syndicalist were the signers of the first Fascist Manifesto in Italy in 1914.
    4
  13.  @elLooto  They'll likely fall back on "It's State Capitalism!" Even though Socialist are fighting eachother still whether China is Market Socialism or State Capitalism which implies the difference is so vague that there is no difference and it's just in the context of whether they like that regime or not.
    4
  14. Issue is I'm pretty sure a few of those history channels would agree with TIK, I've seen them commenting on this channel before, like wishing him well when TIK needed a break from making videos. So you know a number of them keep an eye on his channel as a result. Issue is a lot of history channels ignore the economic and political aspect of history for the very reason you see TIK getting blasted by critics.
    4
  15.  @markfrederikbaksrensen8574  But the evidence doesn't point to "Jews actually deserved to die in the holocaust." But the evidence does support that the Nazis were Socialist. So you're point is not invalid.
    3
  16. You can argue he was a Marxist up until the summer of 1919. He may of been a Marxist since his time in Vienna, being he was a common patron of a number of Coffee houses including Socialist hot spots like Cafe Central. If you want to know when he likely first became a Socialist/Marxist I believe those roots lay in Vienna. However like Mussulini, just because he was a Marxist then, doesn't mean he was later. Great example, when Mussulini became a Fascist one of his former friends and also signers of the first Fascist Manifesto from 1914 also joined the Anti-Fascist. So you have two Marxist Syndicalist who supported Fascism at first but split to two different camps by the 1920s.
    3
  17. and Socialist dismiss him as a Hack. So they will never read it and dismiss anyone who references Mises.
    3
  18.  @hobbso8508  Which implies Not Always Democratically which means Not Always Inclusive. Just like to make yourself look foolish.
    3
  19. I don't think it's "Want" more so than they themselves don't know what Socialism is. A position TIK has taken often. Socialist often flounder at defining Socialism. Which is the Social Ownership of the Means of Production. Every other Socialist will give you a different interpretation on how "Social Ownership" is defined. When you go through the history of Socialism, you see it's a common problem, as when Socialism as an ideology was still being established, everyone was arguing over what Social Ownership even means, even today this hasn't been completely resolved, so you have lots of fractured Socialist opposed to each other who have different ideas of Social Ownership. Which is why you have a hard time finding two Socialist randomly on the internet who have an agreed opinion on what "Social" Ownership is because, there is a high chance they're from two different socialist camps. When I was a Socialist it was ironically something I never noticed, until I started arguing with socialist. I've seen Socialist defining Communism as Socialism, ie using the common definition of Communist and calling it Socialism, while using the definition of Socialism for Communism, likely someone who thinks the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, so take the USSR as an example of "Not" Socialism. Next day I will run into someone who says State Ownership of the Means of Production is Socialism, and openly supports the idea, and says they're a Social Scientist, and will argue how the Nazis didn't have State Ownership of the Means of Production. etc etc etc etc You know how it goes.
    3
  20. He actually countered your counter argument quite successfully in his video titled "TIK's definitions are wrong!" (about Socialism & Capitalism).
    3
  21.  @ComradeLuna69  I don't know where you got that from his 1st 5 minutes because those 1st 5 minutes contradicts your criticism. So I'm going to say you didn't watch the video or, you fail at basic comprehension skills. I can tell that because you believe Socialism is Worker Class Ownership of the means of production. That isn't Socialism, that is Marxist Socialism. So you are blatantly wrong. Just about any location you look up the definition of Socialism will not say Worker Control, they might INCLUDE worker control as an example, but not an absolute. So not only did you fail to understand TIK in the 1st 5 minutes and based your entire argument off that. You also yourself don't know what Socialism itself is apparently.
    3
  22.  @ComradeLuna69  But Social Democrats are Moderate Socialist. So they're Socialist. In fact Utopian Socialism had a heavy influence on Social Democracy, along side Democratic Socialism. Btw Utopian Socialist didn't believe in Class Division, and THEIR Socialism pre-dates Marxism. In many respects a lot of groups branched off of Utopian Socialism, and don't even use the word Socialism within their movements today. Including Nationalist. Despite how much Socialist like to deny it. Utopian Socialism is also the foundation of most Religious Socialist movements who do not see Classes, but followers of the faith. They're also still around as well. Though some Religious Socialist movements do support Marx's classist views, they view the Faith as a means of creating a classless Society, not the Workers. So there are so many ways to prove you wrong in that statement quite easily. Basically you're implying Marxist have a Monopoly on the word SOCIALISM which is a bankrupt position to hold, as it flat out ignores all the other socialist movements from the 18th, 19th and 20th century who didn't follow Marx's ideas, at least not completely, and there are PLENTY. Before Marx the concept of Class within Socialist ideology really didn't exist or at the very least wasn't a pillar of Socialist ideology. Even today not all Socialist movements based their ideology on Class. A great modern example of this are Black Nationalist in the USA. They replaced the Workers vs the Capitalist with skin colors. Similar to how the Nazis did. Basically becoming Racial Socialist rather than Class Socialist. There is even a wonderful quote from Harold Cruse when he basically said that they had no time to wait on the Marxist. Basically saying if they waited for Marxism to succeed their people would be dead. Despite most academics refuse to call them Socialist, they still wave the Marxist Fist, but painted black.
    3
  23.  @ComradeLuna69  TIK addresses that in this very video you're commenting on. It's a Fallacy. By that logic the Nazis are not Fascist because they went after the Austrian Fascist. They're not Capitalist because they arrested/imprisoned hundreds of business owners. They're not Christians because they imprisoned hundreds of clergy men. By the same logic Lenin wouldn't be a Socialist for going after the Mensheviks. Rosa Luxemburg wouldn't be a Socialist for going after the Democratic Socialist. See the issue? It's a bad argument. You're mixing up political rivalries for power vs what they actually believed or wanted. He also uses an example of the British Labour Party's definition of Socialism vs their actual political rhetoric, so even if Norwegian Socialist definition includes Worker Control like the British Labour Party, in the end they're still fighting for Public/State Control. I can not remember if that's in the Definition video of Labor Union video but.... it's an accurate assessment. As often, it's political juggling. Say Society, Public, Workers, but in the end it circles back to State Control regardless. Which is the primary point TIK made in the definition's video on what Socialism means. Pretty much regardless what Socialist define it as, it will circle back to State Control. This is why Bakunin referred to Marxism as a Cult of the State, regardless of Marxist rhetoric, as that is what it would come down to when it practice. And guess what, every Marxist country turned into a State top down bureaucratic nightmare. There has been few exceptions. Even in the Nordic States you have what can be best described as State Corporatism.
    3
  24. Well there a few kinds of Nazis today. 1.) Legit Nazis who actually study Nazi Literature. From a video a long time ago they even openly advocated abandoning all Nazi symbolism because the realized people were scared of it, so sadly these kind of Nazis seem to have started moving under ground years ago. 2.) Pseudo Nazis who do it for the larps and are racist, yet can not even pronounce basic German chants/phrases and march with Tiki Torches. ie they have no idea what Nazism is they just wave the flag to ticked people off, and because they hate anyone who isn't of what they view as white. Pretty much your stereotypical Neo Nazi and skin head. 3.) National Bolsheviks which I call "Communazis" who think Nazis are capitalist but believe the racist nonsense so think they're merging Communism and Nazism together by removing it's Capitalist elements because they believe Marxist propaganda about the Nazis... so basically they just end up being Nazis under a different name and should be viewed as nothing but another variations of Nazis. btw these are very popular among Nazi like movements in Eastern Europe. Their banner is literally a Nazi flag but with the Hammer/Sickle 4.) Modern day Racial Socialist like CRT Advocates are also a good example of the Rediscovery of National Socialist rhetoric but with new enemies. The fact I've seen some of them say the lighter someone's skin tone the less evolved they are is troubling, but don't worry they fly a different red banner so it's okay.
    3
  25.  @colebehnke7767  National Socialism dates back to the 19th Century long before Hitler. It's almost as old as Marxism itself. But yes, Socialism has nothing to do with Marx's Class Theory of History. Utopian Socialist or more accurately "Pre-Marxist Socialist" didn't consider the concept of class as important to Socialism. Marxism to an extent is literally just Socialism with Class sticky tapped on. Just like Nazism sticky tapes race onto Socialism.
    3
  26.  @felix.z4823  But they often do. Saying it's beyond the 'scope" of their channel which is often the answer I got when asking questions to say the TimeGhost Crew, isn't satisfying, as political and economic questions are often more important to answer than military, as they're the catalyst to such decisions in the first place. They can not grasp the wars they're making videos for without at least talking about the subjects. So not making any videos on such subjects is fundamentally ignoring them. I know TimeGhost didn't when they made their video about the Nazis not being socialist, but the video is so terrible that it's pretty much not a video about the Nazi's and how they handled economics but a video almost exclusively about Hjalmar Schacht. Which makes the title of the video kind of misleading. It should of been a video called Hitler's Banker. But sadly it's one of the few they tried and they played it as safe as possible sadly. Falling into the Nazi Cartel Trap, while focusing almost entirely on One Man, the Banker.
    3
  27. No one loved east Germany, which is why so many tried to fee it to a point the USSR made the East German government erect a wall to trap their citizens in. When you see images of 1980s Dresden with a few city blocks still in rubble, still not rebuilt from the end of the war. Even the completely broke former British Empire made out better than that.
    3
  28. Conspiracy Theory much?
    2
  29.  @CANNNIBALIX  Since when is everyone put on board? No socialist movement has ever done that.
    2
  30.  @CANNNIBALIX  And that explains how Socialism includes everyone? All you did was make Socialism look like a sham that fell a part within less than a life time. lol
    2
  31.  @CANNNIBALIX  Imagine 1940s and 50s Czechoslovakia when it was occupied/governed by the Nazis, and later the Communist, with only a tiny rest when it actually had it's own independent government. Meanwhile the person saying the Nazis are not Socialist is calling this time period a Socialism DREAM. Claps slowly
    2
  32.  @CANNNIBALIX  Actually, the legitimate government was the Czechoslovak Republic. She was reestablished right after the war from 1945-1948. But the Soviets armed a coup that overthrew it. The Czechoslovak Republic was run by the Czech National Socialist Party, not associated with the Nazi Party. So the Communist didn't care about the fact, and replaced it forcefully with the Czechoslovak Soviet Republic. And if you think that Soviet Republic was a "Free" independent country you're literally lying to yourself. No Soviet Republic under the thumb of the USSR was free. Also to add insult to Injury the Czech Communist Party that replaced it had a long history of antisemitism in the 1930s, so I doubt they changed in the slightest when they took over in the late 40/50s. The fact you're spouting Kulaks like the Nazis would the Jews just highlights how full of BULL crap you actually are. Good job sounding exactly like a Nazi would when referring to their perceived enemy as cockroaches. Kulaks are victims in a system that you claimed was "For Everyone." Obvious, it was not if people fled for their freedom or even lives in many cases. Perhaps those "Good" years you speak of were funned by the stolen property of emigrants? A policy that Lenin and Hitler conducted. Basically anyone leaving the country had all property, money and valuables taken off them. You blame profiteers but like under Lenin, and Hitler that stolen wealth runs out, and those good years were NEVER going to last. Which is why both of them launched wars of aggression against their neighbors.
    2
  33.  @CANNNIBALIX  "there was no fucking soviet republic u absolute idiot, we werent part of soviet union, we were given back the territory taken by nazi germany and the Munich treaty orchestrated by the French and British in 1938" Tell that to Hungary when she tried to leave the Soviet Union's control.
    2
  34.  @CANNNIBALIX  Starting to think we are speaking of completely different events. lol
    2
  35. The fact you're here implies you're competent enough to look beyond the mainstream. So that is more than most people.
    2
  36. It also created a corruption vacuum that often forms within Socialist like regimes. Something Korea still suffers from today. Basically to get anything done in a State Regulated Economy pretty much requires 'bribing' officials. It creates an environment of corruption just to get around the bureaucracy of the State. This is why so many planned economies end up being so horrifically corrupt. Basically during their "Socialist" days Corruption was the Economy. If you wanted a bottle of Vodka off the books, you'd go to the black market or accept a bribe as a Taxi driver to keep quiet where you're taking your Party Official who has a prostitute in the back with them, etc etc etc etc etc. By the time said Socialist regime collapses, or voluntarily changes to a more open economy, that corruption culture just doesn't go away. Sadly this is what South Korea faces today. It's what modern day Russia also faces, and China as well, with corruption off the charts. I try to tell people, in a Socialist economy Corruption is the Economy. There isn't an easy way of getting things done in a Socialist economy without Corruption. There are too many middle men, so the middle men have to be bribed to look the other way.
    2
  37. Fun fact recently, Metatron an Italian History teacher who moved to the USA recently actually did a video on whether the Nazis were Left or Right Wing. He didn't say which they were but left it up to the viewer but brought up a lot of points people argue over, and well stated the facts. In fact he even points out the very concept of Left and Right isn't the same from where he came from vs what it is in the USA, and even words like Liberal in central Europe including Italy is more associated with Classic Liberalism and more cultural Conservative people than what Americans view as Liberal. Meaning even the Left/Right political spectrum will not be the same from place to place. Basically saying it's kind of rubbish without actually saying it's rubbish at least when viewed at in an internationalist fashion. It was very amusing seeing another Youtuber saying almost exactly what TIK has been saying, though he didn't call the Nazis Socialist in the video per se. From Private Property, to Marxist also being Racist, he actually ticked most of the boxes "TIKHistory" brought up with nearly the same answers to those boxes.
    2
  38. Well Woke are a bunch of Racist under the mask of Anti-Racism so Woke kind of works.
    2
  39. You just failed in the worst way possible. What do you think Socialism does? Ignore the Socialist rhetoric used to convince the masses (sheep) and look at what Socialist leaders do when their movement gains power. Don't listen to what they say and look at what they do. It's pretty simple.
    2
  40.  @tg4678  Funny because everything you listed the Nazis did do. 🤣 Btw his 5 hour long version of this video he brings these things up in detail. The past year he's made individual videos in Trade Unions, Privatization, Nazi Welfare State. Much of it isn't even disputed by historians just bad definitions of Socialism are used to pretend they're not or State Capitalism the favorite Motte and bailey fallacy fallback for the last line of defense by Denialist.
    2
  41. Oswald Spengler literally referred to the Nazis as Bolsheviks in Disguise in the last years of his life. Some of his writings eventually found their way on the Nazi's Naughty List as well. Which is ironic because a lot of modern Socialist use Spengler's Prussian Socialism as evidence the Nazis were not Socialist because his writings are so wildly different than how they view Socialism.. yet the Nazis only openly supported Spengler's views to get support from Conservatives. Within less than 1 year in power Spengler's opinions of the party took a complete 180 as they betrayed most of the Conservative values they claimed to have supported. Including rights to Private Property which TIK points how so many times throughout his videos.
    2
  42.  @in39484  "Spengler created notes for the second volume of the Years of Decisions under the keyword "DiG" (Germany in danger) . In it he settled accounts with National Socialism and put it on a par with Bolshevism , which he had previously described as the greatest of all evils on the political level. On the other hand, in these notes he maintained his admiration for Mussolini." From the German Wikipedia page, which isn't as BS as the English one. To be blunt he never wrote that book because he died in 1936. But in his notes people can get a picture what he would of likely included in it. Being the Nazi Party banned his last book, it likely wouldn't of been published anyways. I've heard the quote of the Nazis being Bolsheviks in hiding attributed to him, though I don't know exactly where it came from. But he did compare the Nazis to the Bolsheviks.
    2
  43. If Hitler was a Fascist why did he assassinate the Fascist Party Leader of Austria? Arrest most of it's leading members? If he was a Conservative and Nationalist why did he forcefully through bullying/intimidation force all his former allies to disband their political parties after 1933/34? Sorry that argument doesn't work. By that Logic Lenin isn't a Socialist because his Bolsheviks where hostile to the Mensheviks. That the German Communist wouldn't be Socialist because they were Hostile toward the Social Democrats, and vice versa. So Rosa Luxemburg was never a Socialist either. It's a dumb argument. To be blunt. If a Collectivist movement, or Socialism in General there can only be ONE Party. Either Socialist ally and create one large party which often leads to smaller parties slowly getting weeded out anyways over time as they dissolve within the greater party, OR they absolutely crush all collectivist opposition. You can not have a Socialized Community if you have political opposition.
    2
  44.  @roccotom1864  Irrelevant. Socialism isn't about equality.
    2
  45.  @rtg5881  "If he was NOT a socialist, how could there even have been concentration camps or a war or indeed a nationstate?" We currently live in Nation States. Nationalist won the collectivist war all the way back in the early 19th and early 20th Century before any Marxist Socialist, Fascist or Nazi regimes ever existed. They succeeded in the creation of their Nationality centric State. We for the most part are still in that world today. We see this repeat over and over again. Where the Marxonian Class war idea always seems to fall to the way side when compared to the greater good of the Nation. The idea of the Nation always seems to triumph over it and take precedent. It's why even regimes like the Soviet Union, the CCP and North Korea despite their Marxist red Banners resorted to forms of Ultra Nationalist at many points in their history. You even see Racial Nationalism in all three. USSR under Stalin and his Population Transfer Program, ie a massive ethnic cleansing of the western territories of the Soviet Union. Later Russification policies of the USSR after Stalin to slowly create one "Ethnicity" ie one Nation. CCP's near eradication of none Mon Chinese languages/cultures, and the most recent concentration camps for religious minorities. Even in North Korea were something as simple as marriage is restricted by Race/Ethnicity as interbreeding is a crime. Basically the only difference in the end in my opinion between Fascism, Marxism and Nazism, is their banners. Because in the end they all turned into the same nonsense, some just cranked different aspects worse than others.
    2
  46.  @roccotom1864  Oh yes btw. Soviet Union: Stalin Population Transfer Program was used by the Soviet State to remove undesirable Ethnic Minorities from their Western Territories. Even after Stalin's death the Soviet Union continued a policy of Russification of Eastern Europe right til the day it collapsed, ie slowly eroding culture and language of occupied lands so the USSR would create a Mono Ethnic Culture. Communist China, made speaking Mon Chinese pretty much mandatory. Today many ethnic groups some which numbered in the millions before the CCP too power in China now only have a few thousand ethnic speakers and they're dying off. Despite saying openly they protect over cultures within their borders the State has been doing the opposite inwardly. It is also well known Religious minorities have faced heavy ostracization and now days deportation/expropriation and may even find themselves in Concentration Camps. North Korea, Literally has Race based Laws on the books. All marriage for example is restricted by Race/Ethnicity. Czech Communist in the 1920/30s were very Antisemistic is another good example. To say that Socialist movements can have or often have nothing to do with race, or care about treating people with Equality is just a Talking Point. In practice all that matters is the Social Majority. While Minorities often Suffer or face ostracization. Which isn't equality. Basically the equality argument is bankrupt and always has been and always will be. As the UshankaShow stated which is hosted by a Former Soviet Citizen who does public speaking in US Colleges and is an Author. "Soviet Union achieved equality. Everyone was equally poor." ie he took a jab at people's claim the USSR made people equal, or cared about equality. It was all about party privileges while everyone else lived in poverty.
    2
  47.  @roccotom1864  Communism and Fascism are not opposite extremes. The 1st Fascist Manifesto was the Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista written in 1914 with most of it's chief signers being members of the Italian Socialist Party. By 1919 a revised more Nationalist version called Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria with Mussulini as part. Still considered left wing by most mainstream historians. So not only the first but also second Fascism were left Wing Socialist. Only in 1921 with the formation of the Italian Fascist Party under Mussulini is Fascism some how like MAGIC considered a far right wing movement. But only because they were in opposition with the Italian Socialist Party not because they were not Leftist still. Left Wing Academics and Activist did the usual tactic of slapping Far Right onto something that was never. By calling it far right you're claiming it's Anarchist and Capitalist. If the right is about Capitalism and Selfishness then the ultimate ie extreme of that is Anarcho-Capitalism. So how does State Corporatism, National Syndicalism, Trade Unionism, Totalitarianism have anything to do with FAR RIGHT? The Italian Fascist understood this, which is why Gentile referred to the old Aristocratic Capitalist State as a Liberal State. Because without a Liberal State, without Liberal Values like Individual Rights, Private Property, Capitalism can not exist.
    2
  48.  @rtg5881  Only reason Nationalism has anything to do with the right is only because the middle Post keeps moving farther and farther to the left. That and you have Civic Nationalism which isn't really about Nation as in culture or identity. Like being an American Constitutionalist your Nationalism is upholding founding principles of American Law, not exactly the Territory, Flag etc. Ironically why so many American Nationalist are Libertarian and Anti State as their idea of Nationalism isn't the Nation State but the documents and principles it was founded on.
    2
  49. ​ @oscartang4587u3 and they've ignored it intentionally. Evidence is blatantly clear yet they magically miss it.
    2
  50. I know critics do not understand what Totalitarianism is. By admitting the Fascist and Nazis are Totalitarian is literally admitting they're Socialistic. Often resorting to the argument that Socialism is "Worker Control" as a fallback point. Which isn't true when you look at the history of Socialism and find the very concept of Worker Control is Marxism and Marxist do not hold a Monopoly on the Word Socialism. Even in Marxist regimes, it was never worker controlled anyways. So even within Marxist ideology when in practice, always ends up turning into Totalitarian where the State or Party which is the State. While the workers have little if any power whatsoever and were just slaves of the Marxist Socialist State. So in practice there is little difference between Fascism/Nazism and Marxism when they actually are put into practice. Only ideological differences.
    2
  51. His 2nd book is filled with economics though. So how can you say he wasn't fond of Economics? Hjalmar Schacht specifically told Hitler to avoid speaking about Economics when he was campaigning for example, because they were trying to win over industrialist at the time. Which implies Hitler's views on economics would of lost him the support of conservatives, and the aristocracy if they knew where he stood on economic subjects. This is also very likely why Hitler's 2nd book was never published during his life time. Sadly as a result though people think Hitler didn't care, nor understand economics, because Hitler avoided speaking of it to the public. So you will not find that many speeches where he addresses economics. At times he even avoids it by changing the subject when giving interviews. So of course people get the wrong idea with Hitler's views on Economics. Similar to how in Mine Kampfy Chair where he literally white washed his past including his ties to the Bavarian Communist, so much so that even historians like Richard Evans use Hitler's version of his past falsely despite that fact Hitler obviously lied about his past to gain more broader support.
    2
  52.  @Peter-vf3dl  Honestly I never seen such a long post that says just one thing "They had no economic plans." Though what I love is this contradiction. "The biggest concern however in this mind set was the dependence and shortage of ressources. The private (!) sector feared being "starved" because of the political climate, so they went along with the idea of autarky which meant simply self preservation in this case. Actually, a very capitalistic thought process ;) " Which ignores the elephant in the room. Building an Autarky requires some economic planning. Also comes off as a joke because you try to weasel in some durr capitalist nonsense. Also ignoring that they were Forced because of the Autarky wishes of the Nazi Party. So there is hardly anything capitalist about it. Also if you think the Far Right have no Economic Plans, look up Neo Liberalism, or modern Classic Liberalism. The primary Economic ideas of the Far Right. Unless you mean Neo Nazis, which I wouldn't call Far Right. Neo Nazis have about as much economic planning as Antifa, and I doubt they even read Nazi literature. PS Neo Liberalism is a Left Wing Term to kind of demonize Classic Liberalism or Right Wing Economic theories, ie like the Chicago School of Economics. That being said I don't consider the Nazis to even be Right Wing. So, much of your rants come off as weird. As TIK has tried to point out, groups like the Nazis, and Fascist are more in the line of 3rd Positionist which is how they still view themselves. But they're more closely related to the Left.
    2
  53.  @Peter-vf3dl  If it was not part of their agenda then how do you explain the Reich's Labor Front being literally installed in 1933? If the Party's economic policies were entirely reactionary to current events, why did they nationalize business and labor into one large State owned Trade Union almost on day one? Business Owners and Workers alike, participation in it was mandatory. If what you're saying is true, the installment of the Reich's Labor Front would of been, in reaction to something yes? Apparently it wouldn't be if it was created almost the moment the party came to power. Before you say the Reich's Labor Service had no power, Christian Schneider would say otherwise during his testimonies before/during Nuremberg.
    2
  54.  @ManiacMayhem7256  They also state though that it's still debates whether it's State Capitalism. But because so many commiboo shills see the red flag over China they use Market Socialism, which is literally the same thing as State Capitalism. They just use State Capitalism for regimes they don't like, and Market Socialism for regimes they do like.
    1
  55.  @elLooto  It's like they don't realize what Social Democracy is. Which exist to reform the Capitalist system into something more suitable/fair as they'd put it even if it doesn't eradicate the free market 100%.
    1
  56. So you're saying all Socialism is, is organized Crime in charge of the State? =D
    1
  57.  @Peter-vf3dl  1. Oswald Spengler would be pleased if the Reich did what you said the Prussians/German Empire did. But shortly after the Nazis took power he accused them of being Bolsheviks in disguise. The animosity between Spengler and the party butted heads so much that his criticism ensured some of his books became banned under the regime. So, no, you're quite wrong. 2. They actually had a war time economy as early as 1934/35 not 1942. That is a pro Nazi myth used to make Albert Speer's economic referms look like a miracle. Heck Socialist used to use it as an example of the superiority of Central State planning. Never forget StarTrek episode Patterns of Force which Spock praised the those Nazi economic referms and the creator of StarTrek was a Socialist. I haven't. Issue is, it's a myth. In most sectors production didn't really improve as resources did not, resources were just reallocated. For example the steel for the Navy going into Tank production. Bomber production being phased out for Fighter production. Etc. Also rationing did exist early on but the Nazis stole food from across Europe so it didn't become extreme until later in the war. So that is entirely a mute point. Civilians Automobiles really? Germany had less automotive vehicles in the 1940s than they did the 1910s. Civilian vehicles were a low priority, trucks were scarce, the famous Volkswagen never made it into production so major highways were a ghost town even during the pre-war years. The reason cars were still produced in any capacity at all was because military production was handed over to truck and heavy equipment manufacturers. It was considered not reasonable for a car company to make tanks. It's more of how they viewed industry not that they were not in a war economy.
    1
  58.  @Peter-vf3dl  PS the Volkswagen production was switched to military production years before 1942. Pretty much when the war started it was redesigned as a military vehicle and within less than a year the Kugelwagen was born.
    1
  59.  @Peter-vf3dl  I've read his essay on Spengler's Prussian Socialism. He speaks from a Marxsonian position. He successfully proved Spengler wasn't a Marxist which Spengler would absolutely agree with. ie he thinks Marxism "is" Socialism not that Marxism is a form of Socialism. So most of his talking points came from Labor based Socialist arguments. 🙄
    1
  60.  @Peter-vf3dl  Now that I have access to a keyboard. The Nazi economic success was a 'fluke,' a success to at all? I'm sorry when I saw that it ruffles my feathers. By 1938 the Nazi's bankrupted the State. By taking wealth from the private sector and spending it on Social Welfare to appease the poor, and massive state military spending. It wasn't an ECONOMIC BOOM it was a State induced economic bubble, which creates an illusion of a economic boom. It wasn't a fluke, it was by design as well. The Nazis were gearing up for war, but at the same time needed to keep the people happy, make on their promises to your average mom/pop. I mean what do you think the MEFO Bills were? They were State issued IOUs originally sold to investors voluntarily but as the party became lets say desperate for money, became involuntary. Similar to American War Bonds, and the Nazis issued these in the 1930s. Basically the State Stole Wealth from Private Citizens who had wealth to spare. They even went farther than this, in Gunter's Vampire Economy there are a number of references by Business owners who literally came out and stated direct Party Theft from their business, ie the Party came in and basically took what they wanted. When they wanted, they didn't know how much wealth they could keep. Worse for MEFO bills in particular no one by the late 30s had any belief the party would pay them back, yet were still being forced to buy them very well knowing that they were just giving their money to the Party. The Nazi Party planned for war for years. Their primary military build up plan was slated to end by the mid 1940s. Issue is they bankrupt the country before getting there, so had to prematurely invade bordering countries years in advance of their original schedule. This is why the Panzer divisions were filled with Panzer I's which were originally designed as training vehicles, why the Panzer II which wasn't meant to be the breakthrough tank for the Army did all the heavy lifting for the first 3 years of the war. The German Army wasn't ready for war at least not in the sense that they planned originally, though they were far more ready than most of their neighbors. The Party had no choice but to shoot the arrow and hope it landed, or face absolute economic ruin. I don't call that an Economic Miracle (Boom), or a Fluke. A Fluke would imply it was an accident. It was neither a strong economy, nor a accidental one. The only accident is that they ran out of money which is the opposite of a boom. This Economy Boom you speak of is left over Post War Nazi Propaganda. The fact that people still believe that nonsense is ridiculous.
    1