General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "So, Hitler was a Communist in early 1919" video.

I watched it. It’s still full of nonsense
10
Implicit in all these pages is an effort to rewrite political history so that the whole category of authoritarian capitalism never existed. It’s the kind of thing that authoritarians do when they change history to fit their ideology
9
It’s amazing how oblivious this “theory” is to Nazi weltanschauung, which is all about glorifying aggression and power and “great heroes” dominating “inferiors”-the very people that socialists want to own the means of production. You can only find this kind of blindness to reality in a cult.
6
@ericharmon7163 OK so basic history of modern ideology: it begins in the French revolution as radicals identified for the first time based on where they sat in the French National Assembly(the left) Break with reformers to actually move to overthrow the French monarchy. Those who didn’t support their revolutionary program are sitting on the right. If you’re trying to relocate fascists from their actual historical position on the right And put them on the left as this presentation is doing there’s no way that it cannot be talking about conservatism and what it means. What Hitler actually did once he got in power in the deed just to be named chancellor of Germany involved supporting conservative policies. For example he agreed not to seize property of corporations or aristocrats. He ended worker rights protections and real labor unions thereby removing restrictions on capitalist in Germany in so far as what they could do with their property. And 100 down and eliminated as many actual leftists as he could. Be there by earned the support of other German conservatives who saw him as what he was a traditional German authoritarian fully behind private property ownership and German capitalism. In fact he was even more supportive of it than Otto von Bismarck, Who originally was the true source of what have sometimes been called socialist measures in order to prevent Germany from becoming socialist. Hitler did away with even Bismarck’s reforms in order to support unfettered capitalism in Germany. And the list of German corporations that grew ever wealthier during the third Reich his long. He certainly didn’t set up state planning committees or forced collectivization of property, state ownership of industry a la the Soviet union. Nothing could be further from the truth then to suggest that. Whether you know enough about what you’re talking about to know it or not anytime Hitler and the Nazis are brought up you’re raising the subject of conservatism as practiced in Germany because that’s what they represented.
5
@ericharmon7163 I taught western civilization and fascism actually begins with the French revolution through the writings of Joseph Demaistre among others. You can’t understand this just by watching YouTube videos. You need actual education reading the original sources by the people involved. It seems pretty clear you haven’t done that. So you don’t know what you’re talking about
5
@JK-rv9tp Pure nonsense to say that the Nazis abolished private property. They glorified private property
5
@wOkeKing Have you actually been a graduate student at a major university? You’re sounding like people who have not and are just basing what they say on suspicion and innuendo rather than first-hand experience.
5
@wOkeKing That’s ridiculous! If I had a nickel for every time some right wing nut equates something with critical race theory that really doesn’t have anything to do with it….Basically you’re saying that any attempt to tell the whole story of all people, provide equality before the law or be inclusive is a plot of critical race theory. But the actual source for that idea in our country is the Declaration of Independence doofus.
5
So I suppose your point is that Hitler was a secret communist: he kept his communism so secret all throughout his career that he never actually acted upon any of his communist plans. He couldn’t actually implement his communist plans because if he did so he would reveal himself to be a communist thereby giving the plans away. For Hitler keeping his communism secret was more important than actually doing anything to make it a reality in Germany Keeping his rabid communism secret all that time was impressive but nowhere near as impressive as Ronald Reagan’s ability to keep his stealth communism secret. Even fewer people know that Reagan was actually a virulent communist. Still fewer know that Karl Marx and VI Lenin were not really communists. You can tell who is a real communist because only the real communists avoid actually implementing communism. Only fake communists actually employ communist policies.
4
@TheImperatorKnight I would be more concerned if actual historians show up if I were you
4
I can’t say that I share your enjoyment of self delusion or some kind of bizarre schadenfreude over peoples justifiable consternation at your ignorant efforts to falsify history. It’s not like you can actually change history by redefining things according to your own terms this way.
4
@ericharmon7163 I won’t have to do that in this or others concerning history. I studied European intellectual history as a post graduate. I know a lot more about this than you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just wrong about everything. It’s amazing how uneducated people are so sure in their ignorance. Only the ignorant can be so foolish. Before you say something like that and make a fool of yourself again you should do some reading of the original sources from the history of European ideology in the 18th and early 19th centuries. I can recommend some sources if you’re willing to listen. Otherwise continue to wallow in ignorance.
4
@wOkeKing Marxism is in the university. But its influence is often overblown. It’s certainly not taught the way it was in the Soviet Union for instance, as if it’s the only possible truth.
4
@neilreynolds3858 OK so never mind the tenets of the Ideology, all you need to know to determine whether or not someone is a Marxist is whether or not they have friends? I’m sure you’re going to put a lot of political science professors out of work with that one. LOL
4
As people have so often pointed out here leftist ideology focuses on the collective of humanity placing less value on the actions of the individual. It’s not about the achievement of individuals: Vanquishing others through superior ability. But Nazi ideology was.
4
@merpius Which is to say that Hitler defined people according to race in a way that is completely hostile to and contradicts historical leftist ideological principles. Advancing a particular “race” at the expense of others means you’re not a leftist according to any historical principles of leftist ideology. It’s like saying the pope is a kind of Christian who defines Jesus as Satan. It doesn’t work. You can’t say that he’s a kind of leftist who does this because it’s not something you can do and be a leftist. What you need to understand is that both fascist and leftist ideology come out of traditions of thought that go back to Europe in the 18th century. Each is developed with certain core principles which allow you to tell if what you’re looking at comes from this or that tradition. Racist and nationalist ideology is coming out of a fascist tradition that begins with counterrevolutionary thought in response to the French revolution not the leftist thought that drove the revolution.
4
@TheImperatorKnight Three actions of logicians and psychologists to your explanations would probably be the most interesting.
3
@JK-rv9tp in your ignorance of the history of ideas you think we need a “Trope” to establish distance that’s always been there. What’s actually happening is we’re pointing out the vast gulf between Nazi and leftist ideology dating all the way back to their 18th century origins. I don’t think you’re gonna be able to demonstrate that the role of Napoleon and the collected writings of Joseph Demaistre are just a “leftist trope” but go ahead and try if you like. I could use a good laugh
3
Except the bases where Hitler actually installs a socialist regime with socialist policies when he has the power to do so. Of course we don’t identify socialist because they implement socialists policies. What’s far more important is the labels they use and whether we can find them present in certain times and places. This is how we know that Kim Jong-un is a democratic leader because he calls his country the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and has been spotted over and over again at functions celebrating his “democracy” in the individual freedoms that it stands for. Don’t tell me that North Korea is not a democracy based on the government’s policies Or the way it’s organized because only the words that are used really matter.
3
@evertjan9479 Well a majority of people here have been fooled into thinking that Hitler was a leftist based on labels that he was associated with alone. So why should this be surprising?
3
Hint this is not a sign of “knowledge”
3
Capitalists can’t do evil things. They can’t deprive people of liberty or receive the backing of a gangster state. If you think that capitalists could do anything evil or with the support of authoritarian governments repeat that that’s impossible and that you were stupid not to think that it can only happen on the left. Human nature is different on the right you see. You can’t be corrupted or do evil things when you’re a capitalist. Capitalists are incapable of harming people because faith in capitalism removes the potential of human nature to cause harm to anyone. Only good things happen in capitalism just like a fairy tale. If something bad happens that’s how you know it’s not capitalism.
3
@WantedArgonianMale He was a fascist. He wasn’t a socialist in ANY of the ways that leftists are socialist. He explained what he meant when he used the word socialist to describe his party: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
3
Oh sure by that reasoning Occam’s razor tells us that East Germany really was a German democratic republic and that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea isn’t really a totalitarian state. Hitler objected to the use of the word socialist in the name of the Nazi party but went along with it then completely redefined what the word meant. Ignoring that and simply going by the use of the same word isn’t applying Occam’s razor. it’s simply idiotic.
3
@anthony5335 I think that he’s a crank conspiracy theorist ideologue like most other libertarians. It’s not that he’s being paid to promote this nonsense; it’s that he has a cult devotion to nonsense because, if he doesn’t prove that the Nazis were on the left, his whole worldview collapses and is revealed for the absurdity that it is.
3
@samuelboucher1454 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 There’s no way that this is consistent with any leftist ideology
3
@ragebait988 Class warfare is opposed to nationalism and racism by definition. What you’re saying is like saying the only difference between vodka and other alcoholic beverages that don’t contain alcohol is alcohol.
3
@mistymoor7114 What’s not helpful is ignoring what Hitler actually said and did once he got into power, because that forces you to abandon the cherished idea that we can banish this evil monster and genocidal ideology to the left which we hate instead of having to acknowledge that evil can happen on the right. But there’s no way around this if you see the things that Hitler said and did. He simply didn’t articulate leftist ideology govern as a leftist. Instead he reduced the rights of workers, doing away with regulation on private business, privatized industry, refused to nationalize private property, and allowed private corporations to become richer and richer all throughout his rule. Far from enacting a leftist economic program he showed complete hostility to the idea and had advocates of it executed.
3
@pedrovitor5324 “China isn’t capitalist”? LOL The phone you’re using right now says otherwise. How do you think the Chinese were able to become a global economic power? By sticking with communism? They still have a lot more state ownership than say existed in Nazi Germany but their economy is prosperous because it’s mostly authoritarian capitalist. Again, It’s not the labels they use that matter: it’s what they do.
3
@benitopepolini1249 Dude flush out your headgear. How many times do I have to repeat this? I was satirizing the apologists for capitalism as a supposedly perfect system. I agree with you that it’s not!
2
@Herv3 Really in what way? Such social welfare programs as there were in Germany were actually installed in imperial Germany in order to prevent socialism and Hitler scaled many of those back or eliminated them. He also did away with labor unions and worker rights protections to give capitalists more control over their property. He refused calls to nationalize German industry and aristocratic estates and actually privatized more businesses. Then he hunted down and killed people who advocated leftist policies. How is this leftist in any way?
2
@Herv3 Total make-believe which relies on the vestiges of things put in place by others before Hitler’s rise to power in order to stop Socialism not what Hitler himself did. The unfortunate reality for you people is that Hitler was a right wing anti-communist who did everything he could to do away with the left. He certainly wasn’t a leftist. It’s uncomfortable for ignorant people of the American alt right to think that authoritarianism has a long conservative history because they like to think of themselves as proponents of individual liberty but that’s not really what they’re doing or what they’re really a part of. Authoritarianism especially in Europe is the true history of the right whether you like it or not.
2
@Herv3 You’re the one making it up. This is the reality of Hitler’s “socialism” “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932 “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 Now quit lying about history!
2
@samuelboucher1454 You don’t have very good reading comprehension do you? Instead of assuming that what I’m talking about is in a video out of ignorance you need to actually read some of the history of ideas. The story I’m talking about begins long before the events in the fishing expedition in the video.
2
@KameradVonTurnip Only if you’re making it up as you go along in order to distort history. If on the other hand you’re actually using the original writings from the past that were the means by which Nazi and leftist ideology were formed starting in the 18th century there’s no way that any leftist ideology works as it was originally intended if you substitute race for class the way the Nazi’s did. Doing so directly contradicts a fundamental principle of leftist ideology in a way that’s totally hostile towards its historical goals-dating all the way back to Rousseau. You may not agree with those goals but you’d need a time machine to change them.
2
@KameradVonTurnip How could one of the most important figures in the history of ideas ever become redundant? The whole problem with this page is it’s disregard for the need to understand ideology through its historical development and there’s no way to do that for fascism or socialism without reading Rousseau.
2
By this logic, scouts sent to get information on an opposing athletic team are actually working for the opposing team.
2
Strasser was well to the left of Hitler but even he wasn’t a Marxist despite what Hitler said about him. That’s the explanation
1
@johns3927 The problem with the idea that Strawser made all of this up is that Hitler was also quoted by others and even made speeches such as the one in Bamberg rejecting leftist economic measures and extolling the virtues of private property. If you’re accusing Strasser of fabricating discussions he had with Hitler, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence by the way: where is yours?
1
@johns3927 Yeah it’s amazing that you can quote those sources and then come up with the final paragraph that you did. When you look at what Hitler actually did once he had power especially that’s absurd. He didn’t confiscate wealth or nationalize the property of aristocrats, industrialists and that’s in line with what he said he was going to do to the Strassers and at Bamberg. He wasn’t compromising between collectivism, which is a modern libertarian catchword, and individualism. He was reframing traditional private property holding and capitalism in order to unite the master race as one people whose interests were united. He was also cutting the blocks out from under the leftists remaining in the Nazi party encouraging those who would to abandon leftism and preparing to kill those who wouldn’t.
1
@johns3927 Nope it’s not a matter what I think. It’s a matter what actually happened. In point of fact he didn’t do anything to socialize the means of production. All you have are things he said while he was working to seize power to deceive people that he wanted to use for his own ends. All the evidence of what he actually did shows that he was on the far right. All the corporations, land holders who kept their wealth and enriched themselves throughout the years of the third Reich, All the privatization under the Nazis, All of the things that Hitler did to take away rights of workers to make capitalism less restricted under his rule than it was even in imperial Germany show that Hitler was in point of fact and in every meaningful way a right wing dictator who was implacably opposed to the agenda of the left and everything it stood for. Your desire to reconfigure him as a leftist doesn’t matter because he didn’t do actually anything consistent with core leftist ideological principles.
1
@johns3927 Well what Hitler called Socialism ideologically had nothing to do with what the left call socialism. Is that clear enough for you? We’re talking about two entirely different things using the same word and Hitler himself was explicit about this: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
1
@johns3927 yeah that’s a bunch of nonsense. What happened in the Soviet Union was completely different from what happened in Nazi Germany the videos lame attempt at comparison notwithstanding. Hitler actually privatized more industry than Western democracies at the same period of time; he certainly didn’t engage in the kind of mass confiscation of agricultural and industrial property and central planning found in the Soviet union or anything like it, not even remotely close. There were no private industrialists who got wealthy in the Soviet union because they didn’t exist under Stalin. But they most definitely did exist under Hitler. Playing word games in order to make state property sound like private property is the Soviet Union is just lying.
1
@johns3927 As the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shows, truly democratic republics are not purely places with democratic systems. In North Korea you have a democratic republic that’s completely hostile to democracy and everything it stands for. We don’t want to call it anti-democratic because then we wouldn’t be using our “critical thinking skills” to simply accept whatever they call themselves at face value without question. Plus I can come up with an endless amount of research where the North Koreans said they are democratic, so what they’re actually doing is irrelevant.
1
@johns3927 He didn’t abolish private property at all in one swoop or 10 swoops, in any “swoops.” And privatization was exactly what it says: things went out of state hands and put in private hands. It was privatization in exactly the same way is that it was privatization in other countries that did the same thing. Crony capitalism is still capitalism regardless of your libertarian dogma attempt to redefine what the word means. Rewarding your friends with property doesn’t make it into state property.
1
@johns3927 You haven’t answered anything I’ve said and you’re asking me if “I’ve” got anything else?!🤷🏼‍♂️
1
I think you enjoy deluding yourself into believing that human nature is perfect so long as it remains within what you define as conservative. LOL This is just as ludicrous as the Marxist belief in a classless society
1
@vegvisirphotography5632 Guess you’ve never seen the Nazi propaganda depicting African-Americans as apes and the like. You really have no clue what you’re talking about
1
@MrFrankfurt13 Really all they have in common is authoritarianism and not even that in every case.
1
@JK-rv9tp LOL.. You’re ignorant of core leftist ideological principles which deny that Darwinian competition is ever justifiable and in fact hold that they make Socialism impossible. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too acknowledging the total inconsistency between Nazi and leftist ideology while ludicrously asserting that they are still the same thing. Even more ridiculous is the assertion that they abolished private property rights when in fact thousands of people continued to own large amounts of private property and the Nazis actually increased the number privately held corporations during their rule. You’re trying to get around this by asserting that the German state had ultimate say over property. Guess what so does the United States. It’s called eminent domain. And neither the Nazi state nor the US have used their authority to nationalize major industries a la a socialist state. It just didn’t happen. In fact the number of private corporations that enriched themselves under Nazi rule is quite long and in fact includes corporations that still rake in private profits to this day. To accept your definition of Socialism is to throw out the entire history of socialist ideology and simply assert that all government of any kind is by definition socialist and that the only way to avoid Socialism is anarchy. Ridiculous!
1
YourRationalWorldisaCircleJerk You can’t change it retroactively without a time machine genius. Propaganda like what you’re pushing is nothing more than deception, an attempt to hide what is real behind a lie. And objective truth is not something that you can win or lose. It just is. But you’re so ignorant and so blindly partisan much like the Nazis were that you don’t even understand objective truth anymore. It’s like the only truth you know is what your “side” tells you. But this puts on the kind of ideological blinders that prevent you from even knowing yourself, making any meaningful victory impossible.
1
@ericharmon7163 Sorry but I can tell that you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about because of what you’re saying and because I’ve read original sources in the history of ideas. You don’t want to hear it because you fancy yourself something that you’re not without having bothered to learn what you need to order to say something meaningful. That doesn’t change because you want it to be otherwise. There is no substitute for studying the history of ideas if you want understand a historical ideology like that of the Nazis. But I can see you’d rather puff yourself up with self congratulations for having watched videos on YouTube from another uneducated person who Cherry picks his way through history without knowledge of the context or genuine context for truth. Your ignorance will remain not as good as my knowledge.
1
@trystdodge6177 It wasn’t an accident doofus. They were Statists, Just like the conservative authoritarian imperial German rulers before them. Nazi Statism is in fact how they won the support of those conservatives. I know that in your very uneducated and limited view of history you have no idea that statism has a much longer conservative history than it does a leftist history but that doesn’t change the reality. Just what you know in the present day in the United States doesn’t tell you anything about the history of ideology in Europe.
1
@trystdodge6177 Of course, the American left was founded by people like Jefferson in reaction against statism-that kind of statism that existed in conservatism European monarchical states like Hohenzollern Germany at the time. But you don’t know that because you’re ignorant of history. You’re not very bright either are you?
1
@trystdodge6177 Quite well actually. It’s what separates me from you: a fool who has no idea what he’s talking about. I could recommend some sources from my European intellectual history seminar. But I doubt you have enough prerequisite reading or comprehension to understand them.
1
@wOkeKing There was only one Marxist historian in my university history department when I was in graduate school.
1
@awkwardautistic It doesn’t fit into the American right or left paradigm but it is most definitely part of the European right. Ethnocentric and solipsistic Americans can’t fit it into their paradigm so they assume that it doesn’t fit into any paradigm. It would be better if they based their judgments on knowledge instead of ignorance.
1
@awkwardautistic Oh OK I see: you’re a fascist intellectual. You’re a true believer in an ideology of genocide which seeks to destroy whole classes of human beings as supposedly sub human. Stripped to its essentials you’re advocating barbarism in order to preserve what you call civilization, a civilization built on irrationality and violence. I will always be proud of the fact that my grandfather risked his life and endured great hardship to destroy the forces of your utterly depraved ideology.
1
@awkwardautistic Yes I studied European intellectual history in graduate school. And understanding the history and development of fascist ideology since the French revolution didn’t make me any more likely to support it. Don’t waste your time trying to turn me into a fascist
1
@heijimikata7181 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how Hitler is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932
1
You don’t understand the long history of right wing authoritarianism and statism in Europe.
1
@evertjan9479 Hitler’s anti-leftist speeches and interview remarks are well documented as are his anti-labor and pro big business policies and refusal to nationalize industry. But ideologues who consider any authoritarianism to belong exclusively to the left despite all the evidence of history can’t let go of this idea. So they fixate on one word in the name of the Nazi party that Hitler didn’t even want initially and sometimes on imperial German social welfare policies that Hitler actually scaled back once he got in power as evidence of leftism from the Nazis. Ignorance and ideological extremism go a long way, even into the absurd proposition that the Nazis were leftists.
1
@evertjan9479 If that’s true what on earth are you doing here at a conspiracy website full of lunatics who have no idea what actually happened or any sense of National Socialism is a historical ideology?
1
@zbj4240 People like to believe that no evil can happen on the right so they’re willing to accept the absurdist utopian views of an ideologue to make themselves feel better and immune to someone like Hitler when they’re not.
1
@Biggiiful “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how he is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” 1932
1
There’s nothing to decipher. It’s very confusing because it’s incoherent and full of actual non sequiturs. There’s no meaning to be found here. It’s nonsense.
1
@benitopepolini1249 It’s a satire meant to underscore the point you just made very well. Thank you!
1
@benitopepolini1249 Exactly: Big Tech isn’t socialist is it?
1
@benitopepolini1249 Of course it can and very often does. You’re not helping yourself very much by your failure to recognize satire.
1
@WantedArgonianMale That’s your problem. I know the history, the facts and the reality. I know that people who suppose that evil can only come from the left are living in a ridiculous utopian fantasy world just as absurd as a classless society and an end of history prophesied by Marxism. There are only two possibilities when someone calls Adolf Hitler a leftist: the person is either an ignoramus or a liar. Most of the time it’s the former.
1
So if he was a communist why didn’t he nationalize all industry and turn Germany into a Marxist state when he got into power?
1
@jackcade68 No anyone who says that you can substitute race for class has no understanding of leftist ideology. As Hitler said he repurposed the term socialist to mean something completely different from what leftists mean when they use it. Hitler was a far right dictator not any kind of leftist
1
@jackcade68 Well the North Koreans have said over and over again that they are a democratic republic. But what does that mean? What did Hitler mean when he use the term socialist to describe his party? Well he told us. “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” I guess you’re unaware of the Italian racial laws under Mussolini and the white terror in Spain which were used by each regime to target racial enemies. Whether it’s Germany Italy or Spain at the time we’re still talking about fascism and everything that means including violence targeted against supposedly inferior races.
1
Here’s a much more accurate, less distorted view of the Nazi Party and what it stood for. https://youtu.be/6_Iz5yt2YUU
1
What similarities between Hitler’s mature Nazi ideology and Soviet ideology? He tried to separate himself from association with his early efforts to hijack the left from the idea he might’ve actually ascribed to that ideology because Nazi ideology that he created was diametrically opposed to Marxist ideology and he explain how in depth. The Strassers were part of the left of the old early Nazi party and that’s why Hitler did away with them. His arguments against them have been preserved and he said explicitly that he differed with them on the seizure of property by the state. That’s a defining difference between Nazism and socialism. People who are implacably opposed to the state seizure of property just aren’t leftists. Hitler was an opportunist looking for a way to gain power he but once he got into power he revealed what he really was: a fascist determined to destroy leftist ideology and everyone who was part of it
1
We expect ideological illiteracy from ignorant, exceptionalist Americans. But any history buff from the UK of all places worth his salt should know enough about the history of right wing authoritarianism in Europe to avoid this silliness. But I clearly don’t appreciate the power of the libertarian cult delusion in Britain. Do you have an alter to Ayn Rand in Piccadilly or something? Must be hideous…
1
More self delusion by ignorant right wingers who hold the laughable position that nothing bad can ever come from the right, can’t accept that the right is inherently authoritarian and anti-liberty.
1
@samuelboucher1454 If TIK really thinks that those speeches prove his point he has a very poor understanding, a complete misunderstanding of Hitler’s ideas. I’m not sure if that’s true though. I think it’s possible the TIK is a calculating liar like other propagandists And that he knows what he’s saying is a distortion of Hitler’s ideas.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Right well I know that right wing lunatics who want to pretend that their dogmatic beliefs prove that people are incorruptible on the right consider the telling of the truth in the face of distortions of history to be trolling. But that’s not actually what’s happening of course.
1
@samuelboucher1454 I’m not the one claiming that either end of the political spectrum is pristine and immune to the corruption of human nature. You’re the utopian Ideologue.
1
@TheImperatorKnight It’s an absurd stretch to take the results of Hitler’s policy what he actually did and say that those are remotely equivalent to what happened in the Soviet union or other socialist countries. The fact remains that he did protect private property not just of workers but of aristocrats and wealthy industrialists who continued to operate their businesses and even enrich themselves through our Nazi rule. Drawing an analogy between a leftist policy of redistributing wealth to provide for all according to need and reduce or eliminate economic classes and Nazi targeting of a particular race ethnicity or religious group is absurd because those two goals are diametrically opposed to each other in their respective ideological frameworks. Hitler re-purposed the language of the left for a very different set of principles Which were in fact designed to destroy the left and you keep trying to ignore that but you can’t change history.
1
@bobhabib7662 You might want to go to a dressing room and check your own person. Your ignorance of ideological history, Hitler's words, and the realities of Nazi Germany-authoritarian capitalism, widespread private property ownership-is masking your own stench.
1
@bobhabib7662 Authoritarian capitalism is actually a real thing with a history longer than what you recognize as capitalism. Your ignorance of history doesn’t actually change history🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@bobhabib7662 Seriously what kind of socialist or communist allows thousands of people to own businesses, large estates, investments? What kind of socialist or communist country privatizes major banks, railroads, and heavy industry? I’ll wait for your answer
1
@bobhabib7662 It wasn’t just that there was very little confiscation of property relative to what you saw in a true socialist country such as the Soviet Union. It was the total absence of property confiscation in Nazi Germany in order to make industry communally owned which set it apart from leftist states. TIK’s attempt to dodge privatization in Nazi Germany is just the redefinition fallacy applied to crony capitalism: He makes up a new definition of capitalism that excludes by definition instances where friends receive property from an authoritarian ruler and run it as a capitalist enterprise. Essentially he’s defining everything as leftist that which doesn’t conform to an ideologue’s definition of what capitalism was always supposed to be but never really has been in practice. This is a Ludicrous attempt to evade the reality of Nazi Germany which is necessary to attempt to justify the assertion that a country could possibly be socialist with so many private property owners including major industry, banks and railroads as in Nazi Germany and indeed where private property ownership was expanded rather than decreased under their rule. But it doesn’t turn crony capitalism into socialism no matter how deep the subterfuge.
1
@bobhabib7662 Rather than watching more propaganda videos from TIK which attempt to play word games and cherry-pick history in order to deceive and evade the truth, you should look up crony capitalism, illiberal capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, and state capitalism in an economics dictionary. Then I suggest you study the history of fascism and socialism from their beginnings in the late 18th century and work your way forward in order to understand how their core principles differ from each other.
1
@bobhabib7662 Allowing people to own property if they support Nazi ideology doesn’t make Nazi ideology socialist. It just makes it authoritarian. If it was socialist they wouldn’t own the property at all and the system wouldn’t function for private profit. But we can’t determine whether or not something is socialist by whether or not it conforms to Libertarian dogma which idealizes capitalism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight In actual practice property was not communally owned on behalf of the workers by the state in Nazi Germany. It was owned by individuals for profit and personal use. This is not socialism
1
This is analogous to insisting that all people need to do to understand that Jesus was a Satanist is just to watch a video with evidence that Jesus spent time in proximity to the devil. Scripture does point out that Jesus spent some time in the presence of the devil. LOL
1
So Nazi ideology is heavily based on social Darwinism-the idea that certain individuals and peoples are supposed to outcompete and therefore eliminate others through superior ability, a sort of divine right. And there’s just no way to reconcile that with leftist ideology, which is based on the idea of that property belongs to all and should be distributed according to need not simply taken by the “winners” or “master race.” On the contrary Nazi ideology justifies theft and murder to put property in the hands of only those who “have a right to it”-the “superior race.” In the Nazi Weltanschauung, It is a waste of resources to allow the “undeserving”-those who don’t have a right to live-to consume them. So they cannot in Nazi ethos be the beneficiaries of redistribution of property or collective ownership. Again this flies in the face of every historical leftist ideological framework.
1
@samuelboucher1454 I’m certainly not trying to protect Hitler or any other Nazis. Clearly they were evil authoritarian sociopaths. I’m really pointing out that you’re not safe from such people just by avoiding one or the other end of the ideological spectrum as you very naïvely seem to be assuming. The potential of human nature for corruption and authoritarianism exists wherever can people get power in their hands in any ideology. People don’t magically lose their susceptibility to the corrupting effects of power just by adopting left or right wing views as you seem to think. Wherever people gain power there’s always potential for authoritarianism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight He didn’t describe all capitalism as Jewish or corrupted. He spoke only about that which was not concerned with what the Nazis considered achievement. “Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race.” If he had been an actual socialist he would’ve had the property of these heads of industry confiscated and collectively owned. You know that didn’t happen.
1
@samuelboucher1454 People who say that are trying to rewrite history. The majority of the history of capitalism has been under authoritarian rule. You’re not in a position to change history so you can’t mandate that capitalism be considered only that which conforms to your definition. You need to look up authoritarian capitalism in a good dictionary of political theory and also look at the conditions of individual liberty in renaissance Italy where capitalism was born. If you open your eyes and put down the libertarian dogma, you might learn something.
1
@samuelboucher1454 None have allowed the scope and scale of private ownership of major industry, banks, railroads not just allowed in Nazi Germany but celebrated and increased. The Nazis had none of the communally owned enterprises called for by socialism. They didn’t tolerate anyone who advocated such things. Again collective ownership was bitterly opposed by Hitler as a means of putting property in the hands of “inferior” people thereby upsetting the natural order. In Nazi ideology “better” people had to be free to outcompete their inferiors in the acquisition of resources, So that the inferior would die and only the “worthy” would own anything. Obviously this wouldn’t have been possible if they followed a socialist program and they did not. Indeed they glorified private property ownership by the “master race” as the fulfillment of its destiny.’
1
@samuelboucher1454 They didn’t nationalize Jewish businesses. That would imply that they were taken for communal ownership has a Socialist State would. It would be more accurate to say they stole Jewish businesses and gave them to members of the master race.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Yes I know the state acted as representative of the people in creating communal ownership In Socialist states. What you apparently don’t know is that the Nazis did not do that. Instead of setting up state ownership of industry, they privatized industry and that meant exactly what it sounds like: taking property that wasn’t in state hands and putting it in private hands. This included banks railroads and a long list of other major industries that generated huge profits for their ownership throughout Nazi rule and even long after that right up to the present day for some of the companies involved. It was not Socialism in any sense of the word.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Party control is just a lame attempt to make it sound as if the state owned property that was actually in private hands. Yes a lot of private property owners in Germany were part of the Nazi party but it wasn’t a requirement for property ownership and that didn’t make private property into state property.
1
@samuelboucher1454 No it’s not. State ownership is when the state is the owner, not merely when private owners are members of the dominant political party. And there wasn’t even a party affiliation requirement to own property in Germany.
1
@samuelboucher1454 LOL by that measure the law of eminent domain makes the United States a socialist country and all property owned by people who are members of the political party in power “state owned.” You’re making up your own definitions. You can’t change reality that way. No rational person is going to accept the idea of nothing but a dichotomy between anarchy or Socialism which is evidently all you believe in. All your proving is that you would adhere to the non-sequitur of utopian libertarian dogma. The real world however does not exist in your alternate conspiracy reality.
1
@samuelboucher1454 OK so you recognize that no economy is purely one thing but you still have totally incorrect ideas about Nazi ideology. It was no more socialist than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is Democratic. This is what Hitler really thought about leftist ideology and programs: “You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” 1930 “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
1
@samuelboucher1454 He doesn’t prove anything but just makes a series of disingenuous and misleading non sequiturs that attempt to show a relationship that doesn’t exist between two diametrically opposed ideological frameworks. He also ignores what the Nazis actually did once they got into power relying on cherry-picked statements and leaving out at reams of context.
1
@samuelboucher1454 You need to spend some time studying the history of ideas to understand there’s more to ideology than the extent of government control. If it was just about government control then the ancient Egyptian pharaohs would’ve been socialists thousands of years before the development of Socialism. LOL
1
@bobhabib7662 LOL if authoritarian rule was all it took to produce socialism, then Frederick the Great (among others) was a socialist before the ideology even existed. There’s a bit more to it than authoritarianism however. I can recommend some readings in the history of the development of Socialism if you want to understand more about the principles of the ideology. You’re in an echo chamber of full of crank conspiracy theorists so maybe that’s why you think that major German industry was owned by the state and run like it was in the Soviet Union. But the reality is that virtually all major industry was private in Germany during the 1930s and indeed that the German government privatized more of it including banks railroads and heavy industry during that period. Attempts to liken this situation that which existed in the Soviet Union are ludicrous. Germany was actually slower to transition to the kind of government controls needed for war production than were the United States and Britain and continued to produce consumer goods at the expense of its war industry well end of the Second World War.
1
@bobhabib7662 Just because it doesn’t conform to your idea or the libertarian cult definition of what private property owners should be able to do doesn’t make it state owned. Insisting on Libertarian dogma is the only “correct” understanding of private property doesn’t change how it was viewed at a particular time and place. And again whether you think that authoritarians rewarding their friends with property is the same as a state owned and planned economy doesn’t change historical understandings or definitions of capitalism or socialism. It doesn’t make crony capitalism into socialism just because you don’t like either one and want to insist that anything that doesn’t conform to the libertarian ideal of capitalism is socialism. Libertarian cult beliefs aside there are many historical differences between crony capitalism and socialism which you simply can’t ignore if you’re telling the truth.
1
@bobhabib7662 There’s no need to deprogram ME. What you’re calling programming is actually education in the original sources from the history of ideas. You lack that so you think the propaganda programming you’ve received its real knowledge rather than the blinders of ignorance that it really is.
1
@bobhabib7662 LOL I actually don’t care for either socialism or Nazism. I’m concerned about the truth and the danger of authoritarianism from whatever direction it comes. Extremist thinking like yours leads to dogma and polarization of thought which makes you vulnerable to the propaganda which casts everyone who doesn’t accept your dogma as the enemy, hence your need to say that if I don’t go along with the Propaganda I must be the enemy. This is the kind of thinking that put the Nazis in power in the first place: the way you think.
1
@bobhabib7662 And if his views on economics didn’t change then these remarks express his true views: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how he is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” 1932
1
@bobhabib7662 No matter how many times you repeat ignorant nonsense it’s still ignorant nonsense. Cherry picking things Hitler said and places where he was seen and ignoring the context as well as what the Nazis actually did once they were in power only proves that you’re distorting the truth. Many thousands of private businesses and a lot of other private property continued in operation and even expanded throughout Nazi rule. The Nazis did not undertake any program of state nationalization but in fact the opposite. They didn’t centrally plan their economy even as much as the United States did and only then for war production which every major belligerent did. All you’ve proven is what we already knew: that the Nazis were authoritarian. But there’s a much longer history of statism and authoritarianism on the right than there is on the left. Anyone who says otherwise he’s just completely ignorant of history.
1
The fundamental problem with this hypothesis can’t be resolved by cherry picking history for statements that “sound like something a socialist would say.” Aside from the fact that Hitler’s statements in context make it clear he wasn’t talking about any leftist ideology, There’s the basic conflict between the social Darwinism of Nazism and the leftist principle of providing for everyone according to need. It should be obvious that if you’re trying to preserve a competition whereby supposedly better people take from and destroy supposedly lesser people you can’t possibly provide for everyone according to need and indeed nothing could be further from the Nazi objective what the ideology holds most dear. In the Nazi Weltanschauung, Providing for everyone according to need actually destroys the whole point of Nazi ideology which is for the master race to triumph and kill or enslave everyone else. It should be obvious to reasonably intelligent person why there’s no way to reconcile these extreme contradictions, Why a social Darwin ideology can’t be leftist.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Well the thing is the Nazis didn’t “centralize the economy” the way socialist countries do. There was no central state planning of the economy and hardly any state owned property. Indeed the Germans continued to produce consumer goods at the expense of their war effort well into the second world war leaving them behind the United States in industrial mobilization for the war because they didn’t plan as much as WE did. An authoritarian government isn’t the same thing necessarily as a government that directly controls the economy. By fudging that distinction you would have us believe that European monarchs such as Louis the 14th were socialists. It’s laughable
1
@bobhabib7662 All socialist thought shares common ideas. Whether you actually believe in an end of history and dialectical materialism or not if you’re a real leftist you can’t support social Darwinism. You just don’t know enough to understand what I’m talking about.
1
@bobhabib7662 “Real private property rights” Making up your own definitions again. Private ownership in Germany was Not state owned industry. The profits went into the pockets of individuals. Business decisions were made by individuals. I don’t know what else you need to know to understand what this was. Probably you just need to let go of your fantasy
1
@bobhabib7662 There is “ample citation” by many people in North Korea that they are part of democratic republic.
1
@bobhabib7662 LOL..you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? The point was that North Korea calls itself democratic the same way that the Nazis called themselves socialist: it’s a false front.
1
@alixritter9851 semantics is not what separates the Nazis from true leftists. It’s more like diametrically opposed world views. The only people who lost companies in Nazi Germany were enemies of the master race. There was not state ownership as you would see you in a socialistic system. The Nazis actually privatized industry more than the other western countries supposedly capitalistic they certainly didn’t support worker ownership of the means of production, or providing for each according to need. Would Hitler allow major industries to continue in private hands? “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.” Hitler “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933
1
@amir071 that’s not what my Cornell PhD professor said about my grad seminar paper on the roots of fascism.. but by all means continue to indulge your Dunning Kruger delusion
1
@amir071 yeah and the Nazis privatized major industries, including banks, while western European countries were nationalizing them…
1
@amir071 you’re making up your own alternate history based on a laughable ignorance of ideology in history
1
@pedrovitor5324 Leftist principles are based on presumed equal rights of all people throughout the world. Since the 18th century they have assumed a brotherhood/sisterhood of all people, defining progress as the provision of what all people need according to individual need. Nazism is completely hostile to this goal and diametrically opposed to it. Nazism and leftism are completely incompatible as a result.
1
@KameradVonTurnip That’s true but aspirations of treating all men equally began with the birth of leftist ideology in the 18th century. They were further developed throughout the 19th century along with the ideology. By contrast privileging one group over another has always been part of fascist ideology. Even in the beginning this was part of the rationale behind nationalism. And extreme nationalism is of course both Antithetical to leftism and at the core of fascism.
1
@KameradVonTurnip This isn’t about personal beliefs of individuals. This is about the principles of the ideology and those are formed by the people who developed it.
1
@pedrovitor5324 LOL They “opened” their economy by turning it into a capitalist economy. That was the kind of “opening” the only kind involved: that’s the only reason that they’ve been successful since and you know it. If private property doesn’t exist in China tell that to the many many billionaires who are Chinese nationals and the owners of all the private businesses that drive this capitalist economy. The fact that they were once really communist doesn’t change what they have since decided to do.
1
@pedrovitor5324 Well leftism is utopian in supposing that equality can actually be reached similar to the way libertarianism is utopian in thinking that the market solves all problems and that people won’t hurt each other if there’s no government to stop them. Fascism isn’t utopian but it is evil in justifying genocide as a desirable goal. To identify it you don’t have to believe that the ideology is correct in what it says is possible or right. We’re simply determining what it is based on what it establishes as its goals. And we’re not making those goals up but simply comparing those with historical foundations of ideologies to see what we’re looking at. Part of the error in libertarian and right wing ideologues is the assumption that there’s no objective truth, no way to accurately describe something that you don’t believe in other than to say that it’s wrong. I’m not a leftist or fascist. I’m a historian showing you how to correctly identify what these ideologies are.
1
@pedrovitor5324 There you go in fantasy land again. Many billionaires are very much in possession of their wealth in China as we speak.
1
@KameradVonTurnip No the people that you’re talking about are not the ones who formed the ideology. You said you were talking about individuals who were just following not the people who actually developed the ideas🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@KameradVonTurnip You’re defining Napoleon as a rank and file follower in the history of ideology?!🤣😆🤣
1
@KameradVonTurnip Who said that the leaders of the development of an ideology are limited to what you consider to be “intellectuals”? No less a person then GWF Hegel called Napoleon a “world historical figure”: a person who embodied the spirit of history in progress. Napoleon pioneered fascist ideas as a romantic nationalist representing “the great nation” of France evoking forms of classical antiquity and validating his rule and his people through aggressive warfare and conquest. He wasn’t emperor of France. He was “emperor of the French” people.
1
@KameradVonTurnip Rousseau indeed provided part of the foundation for both Socialism and fascism. What people did with his ideas wasn’t under his control after his death Or even while he was still alive.
1
@KameradVonTurnip But I’m not saying that Rousseau’s ideas that led to fascism went through Napoleon. Napoleon developed fascism through his politics.
1
@KameradVonTurnip It’s not just Rousseau who created socialism and fascism. He simply provided some of the ingredients that lead to the development separately of each. But each ideology was informed by many other currents in the history of ideas and politics.
1
@KameradVonTurnip No and it’s not something that can be explained in soundbites. That’s the whole problem with this page: it’s a lot more complicated than the author would have you believe.
1
@chuckysmaria6466 You’re right: he didn’t change very much. He went from not revealing his true intentions in order to manipulate people and gain power into revealing them once he had power. And if his views on economics didn’t change then these remarks express his true views: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how he is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” 1932
1
@tdvwest9514 Again with the making up of new definitions of capitalism to gerrymander the Nazis out of it. Lol If high debt to GDP rather than reliance on private property and a market economy were what defined a country as socialist or not than the US and Japan along with most of Europe would also be socialist. Get real! Everyone knows that every freaking big box store in the United States is filled with goods produced in Chinese factories and that’s the reason for China’s rise to global economic power over the past 30 years. Who do you think you’re fooling with this nonsense?🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@tdvwest9514 LOL when you’re ignorant enough to believe that “all large corporations are owned by the Chinese government” What you think I understand is in no interest to me.
1
@tdvwest9514 Look you just don’t know enough about history, ideology or economics to have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. Capitalism is BORN in authoritarian states in Renaissance Italy. It has a relatively short history in the United States and a few other places where has been more individual freedom. Your ahistorical definitions of capitalism don’t change that.
1
@tdvwest9514 Well you’ve made it more than obvious that you don’t know what socialism, capitalism are-apart from your own made up definitions, much less the different varieties of capitalism such as state capitalism, Illiberal or authoritarian capitalism, or liberal capitalism. I expect you think capitalism is only something that has never actually existed: utopian capitalism where the market is perfectly free. That would put you in the same general domain with Marxists: utopian thinkers who don’t live in the real world as it unfolds historically
1
@tdvwest9514 Here’s your most learned definition of capitalism(sarc): No government
1
@tdvwest9514 Well even with the dictionary that you’re using China and Nazi Germany are authoritarian capitalist countries. You try to avoid this by writing “alternative facts” about what actually happened/happens in those countries. But again your confusion is rooted in ignorance as well: A simple definition of capitalism won’t include the different varieties of it.
1
@tdvwest9514 Oh yeah it’s an “oxymoron” because uneducated people like you don’t know the history or anything about political theory. No your ignorance is not as good as knowledge of political theory and the history of ideology. You’re like a blind man stumbling around in the dark blaming the objects you run into for “striking” you. But you can’t learn the stuff on YouTube discussions. You have to actually read something more substantial.
1
@tdvwest9514 Better check what you wrote again. You said all of the large corporations in China are owned by the state. And that’s easily proven false.
1
@tdvwest9514 The North Korean government says that it’s a democratic republic where the people have individual liberty. Is that all you need to know to believe that?
1
@tdvwest9514 “All of the large Chinese corporations are owned by the Chinese government” Are you suffering from short-term memory loss from smoking too much dope or something?
1
@tdvwest9514 What’s wrong with that statement is it’s factually inaccurate. In fact the Chinese government does not own most much less ALL of the large corporations in China.
1
@tdvwest9514 Republic is a system of government not a type of government. It’s not an antonym for democracy. E.g. representative democracy is also a good description of a republic
1
@tdvwest9514 It’s not a fallacy: it’s a perfect analogy of how authoritarian regimes will use propaganda to make them seem like something that they are not for political expediency. The Nazis couldn’t be socialist not with literally thousands of private property holders including many large privately owned corporations banks railroads etc. Not only allowed to keep their property but in in cases privatized by the Nazis.. Socialist just don’t do that no matter how much you try to spin it.
1
@patcoghlan3852 🤣😂🤣🤡🤣 A more complete demonstration of ignorance of Adolf Hitler’s actual history and views would be difficult to imagine. Anti-Sematism and anticommunism were always at the heart of Hitler’s views. Basically you’ve got everything backwards about Hitler. There’s no way to do that while being informed about what he actually did. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
1
He didn’t change his actual views all that much. He just became more honest about them as he gained power.
1
@buzter8135 yep the petulantly ignorant American alt right in it’s silly misunderstanding of history simply refuses to accept it. Anything bad could have anything to do with the right, and so keeps floating, laughable conspiracy theories like this one. if you don’t know that conservatism has been authoritarian for nearly all of history how can you possibly understand the Nazis?
1
@buzter8135 it’s the stupidity and self delusion of people who just can’t accept reality that they’ve attached themselves to ideology that makes them fellow travelers with Nazis that’s on display here. What does the alt right have in common with the Nazis? extreme nationalism based on a mythical sense of racial identity, racism, far right ideology, populism, glorification of violence and even Statism, though the alt right somehow, adheres to right wing strong men, while deluding itself into thinking that it still has individual liberty. And it’s the hallmark of a fool to suppose that any belief system is free of all flaws.
1
@cookingtravelingmusicandmo2999 indeed he never really changed his opinion. He changed the Nazi party to conform to his opinion. He was an extreme right wing nationalist authoritarian all along. he hijacked the Nazi party and purged it of leftism: producing something that present-day Americans and some others can’t wrap their heads around, but which has a long history in Germany and many other right wing Statism. What did Louis the 14th say? “L’etat C’est Moi” it should be obvious that he was no socialist😊
1
@asm7406 he didn’t hate the Ukrainians as a people. He saw Ukrainian nationalism as a counter revolutionary ideology that threatened his power and that of the Soviet Union.
1