Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "“But Hitler Crushed the Trade Unions!”" video.

  1. 4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 3
  5. Marxism = Class Socialism Nazism = Race Socialism Socialism = Social Ownership of the Means of Production Class = Social Group Race = Social Group Social Group Ownership of the Means of Production. So... by extension. They're both Socialist movements, they're just fighting for a completely different "Social Group" as the Society that owners the Means of Production. To go deeper into it. Marxist fight for their Social Group, the "Working Class" as a result, anyone who works for someone else is the Working Class. So in a Marxist Society there can be absolutely ZERO private ownership of any kind, as to own a factory or business would mean you're not a member of the Working Class because you hire people to work for you, by a Marxist Logic. So to avoid Class Exploitation as they view it everything must be cooperatively owned by the Working Class, no exceptions. For a Nazi they don't really have to Socialize all means of Production as long as said Means of Production is owned/operated by someone who is considered a member of the Racial Group. This is why Hitler focused on Socializing the People, more than Socializing Land/Property. He took Land/Property off those who were Outside the Racial Group, but for those who were part of that Racial Group, he forced them all to join Social Organizations owned/operated by the Nazi Party itself. ie Socializing the People. All Education, Recreational, Womens/Mens Groups, Doctors Unions, everything everything that would be considered a Social Organization from Education to a Flying Club were Nationalized into the Party, or more accurately Socialized Into the Party. By doing this the Nazis could convert everyone in Society into being Altruistic Nazis, who'd place their "Race/Community" above their own personal interest. This is why looking at Nazism with a "Marxonian" perspective on what Socialism is will lead to people coming to false conclusions, because they have a terrible idea on what Socialism even is. The fact many think Socialism = Working Class anything is often proof they don't know what Socialism is. They understand what Marxism is and mix it up with Socialism rather than knowing Marxism is just a variation of Socialism.
    3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 2
  11. Well not technically, not all of them. Also he is using multiple sources, and showing them contradicting each other. So this implies someone interpreted those archives poorly? There have also been examples of historians intentionally misrepresenting the material they dug out of the archives hoping no other historian would have the brass to dig for those materials as they did. David Irving being a great example, when Richard Evans eventually went back only in response to a court case, to find out how much Irving had been manipulating the evidence he often cited in his books. This implies that for decades no one went back to see if he was well interpreting those documents accurately. Which implies a lot of historians DO NOT DIG into those ARCHIVES. lol So no... using archives do not exactly make you a "REAL" historians, definitely when many real historians have been caught manipulating what they've found. TIK has caught a few in previous videos actually without even needing to look into official archives, by using some of the available online archives. His Hyper Inflation video Part 2 for example, he catches one intentionally cutting out part of a quotation he did of Rosa Luxemburg without showing proper citation that he did so, you know the "Bod walked... ...inside." "Bod walked outside to get the mail, then proceeded to walk inside." Using the ... followed by ... is how you indicate you cut part of a quote out. If you don't do that, you're committing a form of intellectual fraud because you're basically lying about what someone said by not showing the reader you removed part of the quote so they have a reason to go back and see the real quote. TIK caught someone doing that. It's one thing misquoting someone and interpreting said quote wrong, but.. it's another thing changing a quote without showing you changed it. As that is INTENTIONAL. TIK could ruin that guys career I bet if he wanted to as it's just as big of a dastardly move that David Irving would do.
    2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 1
  19. 1