Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 @MIT Scientifica Oh, hitler gave far more quotes than just three. And after all, no matter how many alts you mae, in the end you always admit that far right mass-murderer Adolf Hitler was an anti-socialist.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
But thank you for admitting you care about nazi propaganda over actual history!
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 @MIT Scientifica I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408
https://www.archives.gov
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
Your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Roberts Fawkes
This is who you are allied with, who you claim stands for freedom and democracy next to you... while outright telling eachother that they're lying to you. That was said in a speech, delivered to the AFotBNP, an american group of far right people. Those are the ones you defend, the ones who would steal freedom out from under you. Remember that whenever you think that the right truly stands for more freedom, or less government. You'd be surprised how wrong that statement is, and always has been. I can only hope that you actually have the self awareness to see it. We know what you're doing. We know what you and your allies want.
And we aren't having any of it. We fought hard for these freedoms, and I refuse to sit by while the right keeps telling the biggest lie imaginable to destroy the freedom generations have died for.
The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, abhor social justice, and advocate for a system in which the strong prosper while the weak are "incentiveized" to work more within the bounds of society in order to succeed.
The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised any and all forms of diversity. National, racial, ideological, it was all swept away in the nationalistic worship of the country.
"Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for
consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal
of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism
The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised multiculturalism and all it brought, by acting as if their society would be overrun and drowned in a sea of "others" and advocating for the supremacy and separation of their culture.
"We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house."
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight."
- Adolf Hitler
Oh, and before you start spouting more buzzwords like "post-modernism," the nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised all form of culture that did not paint them in a good light, or even had no purpose at all.
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized"
-Adolf Hitler
You accuse me of falling into an Orwellian paradox, but buddy... you are one. The culture of republicans has conditioned you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears, and rather to create evidence out of thin air, to lie and shut down and deflect when faced with any sort of criticism or contradiction to your ideology. You proclaim yourself rational and logical without reason, and without purpose, for the sole reason I can only assume is trying to convince yourself. The truth is, you are none of those things. You are beholden to your ideology, not history. You have been conditioned into a cowardly, idiotic blame-deflecting narrative of the right wing collective. You're living in your own Orwellian reality, and no matter what happens, no logic will ever get through to you. You are lost here, and it's sad to watch.
Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
Welcome to the real world. I hope you enjoy it.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
- Adolf Hitler.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alanrobertson9790 Ok, fine then. Let's do it this way.
1. I would disagree here, but your phrasing is a bit different here, and that's worth examining. The "nazis," and the nazi government, are different things. What I mean is that while "the nazis" may have been in control of some industries... that's usually because the private owner of said industry was a nazi, or at least, very willing to work with them. If you mean that the nazi government had a high degree of control over industry as a whole, I would disagree, and say this video does not show that.
2. There is certainly a debate whether there was any sort of centralized "control," which is what we're having, but the workers played literally less part in it than the private owners. Its closer to a form of corporate governance than any form of socialism.
3. And I specifically addressed this point before. All of the examples you give are vastly different in their political and economic systems, and all are varying in how "socialist" they were. Again, an example. Venezuela never claimed to be a finished socialist country, hell, their economic is around 70% private. How does that compare to the mass centralization of say, the USSR? You see the problem? Yes, these places were not socialist (like the nazis) but they were all not socialist for different reasons. The thing was, those places (with some exceptions) at least claim to care about actual socialism, and leftism, while nazism rejected both of those concepts.
4. And this is literally a criticism of one type of socialism. One that yes, I literally have of the people who advocate it. Because no, you really can't achieve worker control through the narrow lens of a single party. But again, a dictatorship is not the only thing that made the nazis so clearly anti-socialist.
5. As for this point, yes, most countries do retain quite a bit of control over their economy in times of war. However... to then assume the nazis specifically would not have attempted a market ideology in times of peace is a bit silly. The USSR, even before WW2, operated within markets. Hell, they even ended up privatizing, they opened up a stock market for foreign trade. Obviously this changed with the advent of the World War, but the idea of a market economy is far from impossible in this case. And I do agree that the nazi economy was extremely weak, and couldn't survive without that pillaging... but that was because the economy did not follow strict ideological bounds. Instead, it was highly opportunistic. Industries would be seized and sold on a whim, elites would be persecuted or courted, workers would be slaughtered en mass or kept as labor. There was no guiding economic system, they did what they thought would work. Of course nazi germany could not have succeded with a market economy in those times of war, but given their connection and willingness to work with many local and foreign industrialists (Koch Sr. and Ford come to mind) its unlikely that the nazis would have operated a wholly anti-business pro-centralization economy. As for your last point here, I agree, that command economy is just a sign of war, not socialism.
So, in the end, where we disagree seems to be in the definitions of control, and the application of the term "socialism.
I have my position laid out, I think.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@laq2 pt1
Look, I get it, you want to pretend to have some sort of superiority in this conversation, but as I was replying to TIK and I have already given him this info, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. If you, on the other hand, wanted me to elaborate all you had to do was ask. Let's go though my examples.
First off, ideological influences/roots. The nazis, and fascists in general, were most influenced by the following figures - Spengler, Evola, and to a smaller extent Darwin and Carl Schmitt. First off, Spengler invented the idea of "Prussian Socialism." It was an ideology he was adamant had nothing to to do with any other socialism's, but he only devised the name from the same root word. This prussian socialism was nationalistic, corporatistic, in favor of private property as long as it benefited the state. Sound familiar? It wasn't quite fascism, it was a sort of proto-fascism, but it was nothing like socialism. Spengler was against labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. Not very much socialism. He, however, did share the same idea that his socialism was an ancient german tradition of sorts, that Marx had stolen. He also wrote extensively on the supposed collapse of western civilization, which heavily influenced the rise of fascism, and personally supported Mussolini. As for Evola, he was also heavily involved with the italian fascist party, considered himself a "super fascist" (I have no idea, his words not mine) but more importantly he was the largely the creator of traditionalism, a social policy that was very similar to the nazi's later sort of german mythos, something he sort of acted as a foreword to. He wasn't as much a fan of the fascist forces as they manifested, he wanted them to be far more reactionary and mystical, but he certainly did count himself among their ranks. As for Darwin, he himself did little to benefit the fascist movement, but Social Darwinism, which was largely pushed by reactionaries at the time, was a cornerstone of Nazi society. They believed in a sort of enforced superiority, eugenics, which the spread of social darwinism had very much popularized. Finally, while Carl Schmitt wasn't as influential as the other figures or ideologies mentioned, his anti-democracy work in the years before the rise of the nazis was somewhat influential in the ranks, as well as useful for radicalizing many other germans. He remained an avid supporter of a new nazi state until he died, sometime in the 80's. While his ideas are somewhat less commonly talked about, regarding the use of democracy and state power you can see at the least he very much echoed nazi sentiments. All of the ideologies I mentioned, and all of the figures (save darwin) were right wing, conservative reactionary figures.
Now - associations. I'll try to keep this a bit quicker. Hitler only came into power due to the effort of Franz von Papen, a conservative figure in the government who saw hitler as a way to take power against the increasing popularity of socialism. While he would later be expelled form the party, he also served as hitler's first vice-chancellor, and helped to populate hitler's first cabinet, many of which would go on to have long careers in the party. One of the first economic advisors for Mussolini was Classical Liberal Alberto de Stefani. Mussolini and Hitler both would spend a large part of their later regimes trying to appeal to the religious conservative crowd, Mussolini most of all, although a previous fascist country had managed far better, the FSA. Speaking of the FSA, their fascist party (even before takeover) The Fatherland Front under Engelbert Dolfuss employed a certain man by the name of ludwig von mises. While he would flee later to american after the FF took full control over the country and Hitler began to reach his influences into the country, Mises still taught the same economics that were so popular under the FF, and would later say that while he wasn't a fascist, he viewed it as a necessary tool in the defense of western civilization, like the Spengler fellow, a sentiment that would be echoed in part by later ideological descendants of Mises, and in a way re-contextualized by figures like Hoppe, who shared many of the same bigotries, disdain for democracy, and desire for "physical removal" of those he deemed unfit to participate in society, from communists to gay people. Hitler himself often found himself allied with conservatives industrialists of the time who would go across the ocean to work with him, most notably Ford, who would write books on jewish people Hitler personally praised and was awarded with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor a non-german could receive, and funnily enough Koch sr. The list goes on, as you can imagine.
As for policies, this one is rather simple - hitler opposed the right to collective bargaining, enriched the ruling classes of his time, and never came close to handing the workers the means of production. For a more in depth look at Hitler's betrayal of the "socialist" title, I recommend James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" for the rise in movements, both in capitalism and socialism, which only sought to take power and did so in betrayal of their principles and ideology.
2
-
@laq2 pt 2
As for rhetorical tactics, hitler was amazing at redefining words. For example, i'll just give you a few quotes here, but you can see how he utterly redefines socialism, labels all previous socialist movements (including pre-marx and anti-marx ones) as "Marxist" to associate it with some sort of jewish plot. I'll let you look over the quotes yourself to see that.
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
"Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.""
"1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it."
Here is also an excerpt from Strasser's "Hitler and I," Strasser being the leader of the left-wing pre-hitler branch of the party, who (like most other of that branch) would later be purged in the Night of the Long Knives.
"Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be."
I hope that's enough?
2
-
@ericharmon7163 So, let me get this straight. You have no actual rebuttal, not to the fact that hitler's goals and policies don't align with socialists goals or policies, not to the fact that the man's wife was pretty open about his work's goal, not to the fact that the nazis weren't socialists. What is your response? Well, you go off on a tangent using an uncited quote on an unrelated topic, and then appear to think that the nobel prize means something is good or legitimate, despite it constantly being awarded to warmongers and war criminals. You assume I "google" things, all while showing your true colors - you don't like google, not because it's wrong, but because it shows you when you are wrong. Same reason you don't like wikipedia. See, the great things about those sources, is you can see where they get their claims from. You, on the other hand, don't agree with those sites. You only want us to use youtube videos and conspiracy theorists that agree with you. How intellectually honest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I commend your effort in reaching out to him, I really do, but you miss his point somewhat, which is really to be expected. The issue is he thinks that capitalism is statelessness, and socialism is the state. Oh, and he conflates the idea of the state with the idea of "publics" and "collectives," so that he has openly said he considers corporations the state. Therefore, since any group of people is socialist to him (as well as, in his words "organized society" and "hierarchy") socialism must be state control, even if that "state" is a private business. Trying to address his myths with actual argumentation or reality doesn't work on him, because despite his mocking of the "not real socialism" argument, he is more than happy to redefine capitalism or socialism however he pleases. I've also come to realize that nobody actually told him that Hitler was a capitalist, he just has this odd idea of a binary between capitalism and socialism, with no other political or economic systems. Oh, and he thinks that right=less government, left=more. Again, I don't mean to dissuade you from trying to engage with him in good-faith debate, but i've seen his tactics in the past, and it's usually to respond to these kind of comments with vitriol, accusations of anti-semetism, (no, i'm not joking) fascism, marxism, holocaust denial, ect, and then he'll link one of his own videos as a source. Just something to watch out for, if he responds at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@osmosys808 The point of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not to have a literal dictatorship, but to have a group (the proletariat) collectively having absolute control over the economy, so direct democracy. Trust me, I fully agree that giving power to a literal, singular dictator is a terrible idea, but it's not what Marx advocated for. Side note, the author of animal farm didn't even consider the USSR to be socialist. As for a classless society, you certainly have an odd view of individual liberty. A person is allowed to fail, a person can be born disabled with no chance of success, isn't that destroying individual liberty according to you? The "liberty" to succeed is only important when success actually means something, which it wouldn't in said society. Finally, this video perfectly proves that by no normal definition could you consider Hitler a socialist. TIK has to invent this new term, "Hitler's Socialism," and then define socialism so broadly that whatever country you are residing in now, he would consider socialist. He considers the Nordic states socialist, he considers America to be socialist, he openly says that he thinks any system in which a united group controls land and property counts as a state, and that all states are socialism. According to him, you are a socialist. So no, this video doesn't point out that Hitler was a socialist, it points out that the only way to assert he was one is to lie and rewrite history.
2
-
MajorLeague I already did? Why can't you admit that? Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@edwardcarson81 I don't care about the redefinition itself, because it's easy to address. I care about the redefiners, people like you. Conservatives tend to do this all the time, which isn't really helping your case, they pick out the ones that they don't like and accuse them of not being true righties, RINOs, establishment, ect. And really, no offense, but this isn't a conversation about our views, no matter the points of agreement I might have with you. However, let me clue you in to one reason this video pretty clearly redefines history. According to TIK, you would be a socialist.No, I am not joking. He considers the very state a socialist entity, as well as companies, and anyone pushing for them must be a socialist. Hell, he said wanting an "organized society" is a uniquely leftist thing. I would be happy to provides quotes of him saying this, openly. But now do you see the issue?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2