Comments by "James the Other One" (@jamestheotherone742) on "Distortions of History - Cambridge narrative of WW2 contradicts itself in 3 pages" video.

Real free markets don't exist for the same reason real communism (or even socialism) doesn't exist. They are ideological concepts and theory that can be applied to the real world but don't actually function acceptably because of human nature. People will cheat and game both systems without compromises and exceptions.
8
It started out as a crony capitalistic arrangement. One of the main reasons why the NAZIs won out over the sundry other parties was that they reached accommodation with the Industrialists and wealthy elites instead of seeking their destruction and replacement as what happened in Russia. But as Hitler et. al. accumulated power, they quickly subordinated them. They were just as "state controlled".
6
@edvard8449 The US is a hell of a lot more socialist than the founding fathers intended.
5
Those are the Italian subtitles.
5
@ivanmunoz9267 Feudalism was a sociopolitical system. You are making the same error most make about socialism which is both political and economic. There is no reason why feudalism could not also incorporate most any flavor of economics into it the way it did religion as well. In fact, it did as the entire feudal system was a "unified state control" of the means of production until well into the Renaissance, namely the agricultural production where each level of the hierarchy levied taxes demanded of it by the next higher level. So a feudal keynesian (ie; "fair ruler" ) would raise taxes in good times and war, and then lower them during drought. etc.
5
@shaeemsanjide5476 Not sure what your post has to do with my post, but good try!
3
@davidlogan4965 Why couldn't a monarchist support Keynesian economic theory?
3
I would put money on "llib " being one of the authors considering how similarly confused its posts are.
2
Because reasons... that you could figure out yourself if you had any intellectual curiosity instead of making inane comments.
2
The Germans incorporated the existing socio-economic structures into its nationalization instead of completely destroying and recreating them. That is the only difference between the two. The average German citizen in the late 30s and early 40s, when they were ignoring the evil around them, thought things were great much like your average citizen in a modern socialist democracy too.
2
@JammKhon Don't pay your property or income taxes and you'll see how little private property protection you really have. Authoritarianism is a key trait of socialism.
2
No one makes you watch his socio-economic rants.
2
@bernardobiritiki I see you didn't make the mental leap... Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value. Be that stock holders or citizens or (most often) the upper ranks of a bureaucratic hierarchy. There are plenty of non-profit corporations that exist for reasons other than making a profit.
2
@Userext47 The Monarchies WERE the State, or rather, what we call "The State" (government) today was the personal possession of the Monarch or their families. Take care in trying to pound contemporary round pegs in to historically square holes. This has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between Capitalism and Socialism in a economic context. It was a big fat red herring (blackadder?). Militarizes are by nature "socialistic".
2
Anything less that free-market capitalism just established the rate of decline of a socio-economic system.
2
@davidlogan4965 You've heard of "double speak" before right?
2
@n00btotale Keynesianism gets you all of the above. And in the end only "the system" wins.
2
'Cause head explosions bump up his "viewer interaction" analytics numbers.
2
We are all socialists now.
2
Junkers was making and just wanted to make civilian airliners and cargo aircraft. The Nazis came in and said, "Nope".
2
ebay?
2
@mahlapropyzm9180 lol. Economics 101 fail.
2
@llllib That's not very socialist of you.
1
@stefanb6539 I'm afraid you probably don't even rise to the level of a Pol-Pot. Stay is school kid.
1
@stefanb6539 I donno, you could be a trust-fund kid at private school for all I know. So probably you just made another inane assumption.
1
The Freudian shoe drops...
1
Its the attempted hair-spitting by modern-day socialists ("Stateists") to differentiate between National-Socialists and Marxist-Socialists to protect the contemporary Globalist world-view that socio-economic control concentrated in the hands of government (or just an oligopoly) is a good thing, even though it has been shown by history to be a very bad thing.
1
@leooriano4542 Power corrupts etc... any government with the power to protect your rights and property has the power to take them away. And they do, all the time. And no, the "socialist" in NAZI wasn't just an exercise in branding. It was quite literally what Hitler had in mind to print over the established German/Prussian economic system. And socially, he was even more up in everyone's business as the Bolsheviks.
1
@damyr Naw, people would still find an excuse to kill each other.
1
Yeah, many societies have at times totally oriented themselves on war fighting. Survival tends to be highly motivational. The only difference is that industrialization and technology allowed it to reach a scale never seen in human history before.
1
@JammKhon Funny, I don't see that written anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights... I guess we took a wrong turn or two right around 1861.
1
@ChernobylPizza Not with the people it mattered, the industrialists and the workers. And after a certain point it didn't matter what anyone thought because of the Gestapo and the SA.
1
@JammKhon Well, thats not really germane to the topic at hand. The State when it is allowed to have the power to take not only property, but also power, will take in ever increasing amounts because that is what bureaucracies, like organism, do. Until you wake up one morning and the state has come for you or your property. You might find this far fetched as an American, but so did Germans, Russians, etc. etc. So the dividing line isn't might, its the social contract of a society. How much authority do you give a government and how much freedom do you give up. Yes that often gets settled by might, by violence or simply by politicians consistently promising "free stuff" to voters, but that only comes after the lines are drawn.
1
@JammKhon The Rule of Law.
1
@edvard8449 Authoritarianism isn't interchangeable with socialism, the former is a requirement for the later. The State has to have the ability to coerce the individual to act against their own best interests for the good of the majority, or just The State. Otherwise people will ignore it and just do what they want. Regulation or even promotion and support private business is not socialism, that is just governance. Socialism is when the government controls economic activity, either directly by owning the business (soviets) or by making them captive and dependent upon government funding and permission to operate (Nazis, most western countries today to degree).
1
But Micheal is still awesome!
1
@Realkeepa-et9vo Context matters. He was commenting on the book quote that references Keynesian economic theory.
1
@bernardobiritiki That is called "corporatocracy" . And yes the distinction between a state and a corporate organization would lose all meaning. You can even think of a socialistic state as a very large conglomerate corporation that is recognized as sovereign by other nation-states over the territory it owns.
1
@Swift-mr5zi That was my impression as well.
1
@smokey2628 Gaaaa! No. Feudalism is the privatization of the public interest. Everything that we consider a government function today, was the personal property of a special class, either the nobility or the religion's priests. Everything and everyone is the property not of The State, but of the king, delegated thru his followers. The complete antithesis of socialism. Socialism does not function to serve the workers but notionally to provide socio-economic equality, although in reality all it does is concentrates assets in the hands of the top of the bureaucracy, instead of the rich. The workers just get to be equally poor. The Nazi's nationalist-socialism absolutely did not serve the German people. It functioned to control the people and means of production for the benefit of the before mentioned bureaucracy.
1
@JammKhon They can however getting along just fine with an authoritarian as long as they don't get in the way of profits.
1
@JRobbySh Mr. Buckley was wise.
1
@JammKhon I'm going to assume this was sarcasm, because I think history speaks clearer than anything I could write.
1
@LongNightsInOffice Because it is meddling with economic activity and forces by banks and government for its own political and financial benefit (hello moral hazard) to correct a problem of its own creation, market instability brought on by fiat currency inflation and other accounting shenanigans.
1
Yes, he is speaking of basic theoretical definitions that supports his case that Hitler and the Nazi regime were socialists and not capitalists. Criminal fraud would be a damage to one or more parties and thus not "economic socialism" per se. However imposing securities disclosure and etc. laws and regulations that influences a market would be.
1
@JammKhon Much blood has been spilled over those questions in the past century.
1
The PRC's economic model is merchantilism.
1
@TA-eo2ww I agree with your first part. Its a common mistake in the West to try to pigeon hole other cultures into familiar frames of reference, when in truth, they are doing their own thing.
1
@1commentking is someone else who does not know what a "free market" is. Hint for the back of the class: it doesn't mean things or transactions are "free".
1