Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.

2:59 I think the elimination of the trade unions was more about the Nazis not liking organizations they could not control. But you are right, they created their own trade union (that they had complete control over) and crushed all the others.
39
23:16. It even says this in the BBC Series "The World At War", that German industrialists were encouraged to eat the same food alongside their workers. If this is not egalitarianism, I don't know what is. Oh, and the whole concept that everyone "belonged", as long as you were considered German or Aryan and kowtowed to the Nazis. Sounds like a socialist/communist state to me.
20
In Canada we have both privately owned corporations and publicly owned (Crown) corporations. So, a corporation can be either publicly or privately owned. TIK scores again!
3
You may be wrong, in a sense, about real socialism not being tried. You should read the "Acts of the Apostles" to see how that turned out. Big spoiler - Saint Peter was getting rather depressed about the whole thing around the time the authorities in Jerusalem shut it down.
1
29:44, Again TIK, I agree with you. Too many people argue based on their own opinions, but don't back up their arguments with references or legitimate sources. I guess that is the problem one encounters when giving an argument that undermines someone's long held beliefs. Did ODS give references for his counterarguments? From what I can tell and based on the key phrase ODS used (i.e., "in my opinion") earlier in the video tends to support this, the arguments they are making are based solely on personal beliefs. And the fact they have no compunction calling people names because they disagree with them also lends credence to this. I think you would agree with me it would be so much better to have an intellectual discussion with logic and supporting documentation rather than what appears to be a prolonged rant by two individuals that is basically, "We're right and you're wrong because we say so. So there!".
1
@MarcoBonechi And because these corporations usually end up acting like a socialist government (centralized control over decision making), they end up having the same problems that afflicted the communist states, i.e. inability to react quickly to changing conditions and entrenched bureaucracy. One need only look at the IBM PC fiasco or the implosion of Atari to see this.
1
@brucetucker4847 No, but I don't think the Royal Family ate at a soup kitchen-style event when visiting the East End of London either. The whole idea was not to eliminate class distinction (which is supposed to occur under Communism, but doesn't) but to make everyone feel they were "German together". It was a nationalistic bonding of the people, not an elimination of class/income disparity.
1
@brucetucker4847 If you look at communist states, one of the things they ban are trade unions, unless they are run by the government. Remember Solidarity in Poland, and what happened to it?
1
Pantelis Tzimas However, there is a difference between egalitarianism and having Christian charity. You are correct that there are differences between people with regard to their mental or physical abilities. It must be remembered, though, that all people should be equal before the law, and should be seen as human beings. This means it is up to us to help those who have difficulties, not mock them or look down our noses at them. I have talked to many street people who are extremely articulate and want to work, but have disabilities or other non-addiction related issues that prevent them from doing so. It also depends on who you call "competent people", because many individuals who appear competent are really shysters and con-men in suits, preying on the weak. This includes many of the wealthy businessmen are in the top 5%. The system that appears to work best in the world is not full-on capitalism, nor is it a socialist approach. What most countries in the world have is a mixed economy, with free market (capitalist) system that has controls placed on it to prevent the formation of monopolies, protect the populace from apathetic individuals who worry more about profit than people, and work to avoid a boom-bust cycle that unfettered capitalism would likely degenerate into. The issue here boils down to the degree of control that is administered. Too much and the economy (and creativity) stagnates. Too little and one winds up with massive numbers of bankruptcies and failed businesses. Finding that balance between is the tricky part. Lastly, I would like to ask what criteria one should use to determine if someone is worth helping? In this one needs to take into account the fact that health care is important. A population that has universal health care is a lot happier and probably more productive than one that does not. The presence of a social safety net means fewer problems for people who suddenly find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. Where do you draw the line?
1
10:49. I agree with what you are saying, TIK. ODS is definitely wrong, based on my limited knowledge on the subject. A couple of one semester university courses on economics does not make one an economist, which I freely admit. However, based on my knowledge, I can say that Capitalism is basically about commerce, a market based economy. State regulation is something that is imposed on capitalism by government. Although we may disagree on the role of government and its necessity in the economy, from my standpoint you are correct. Pure socialism is the state (government) ownership and control of industry, while pure capitalism is about leaving the control of privately-owned industry up to market forces. What ODS seems to be talking about here is the hybrid system that currently exists, in one form or another, in many countries in the world.
1
Wulf But these "courts" were run by party hacks, judges and lawyers who belonged to the party in power. The whole idea was to give the aura of having the freedom to choose but not actually giving it. That is why you have one labor union - it is much easier to control than a bunch of little ones supporting their own group of workers.
1
@brucetucker4847 Which is more or less what I was saying, in a bit of an obtuse manner.
1
Wulf Which, of course, is why the Nazis used slave labor, enslaved people, etc. I'm sure the Czechs worked freely under the murderous Heydrich! And all these wonderful propaganda pieces with Goebbels praising the Strength Through Joy. Yeah. Did you ever check what happened to people who complained? They usually ended up on a Gestapo watch list, if not arrested. As far as meritocracy, it worked as long as you belonged to the Nazi party. The Nazis cared about the worker's conditions only because they knew that the worker's strikes of 1918 were part of the reason the German economy collapsed at the end of WW1, and they wanted to regulate the labor force so they could fight wars without worrying about the home front. It was about control, not compassion.
1
46:14. "Red flag!" Yes, ODS and his partner are obviously socialists or communists. They would have picked another colour otherwise. LOL. Seriously though, they want to stop their presentation when you are giving the definitions you are using in your rebuttal? Definitions and the use of precise terminology are the cornerstones of both scientific research and academia. If you don't have a firm understanding of what the person is trying to say, how can you have a reasonable debate? Are they saying they don't want clarity? I guess this means they don't want to listen to a logical discussion then.
1