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

Bruce Tucker
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Bruce Tucker" (@brucetucker4847) on "Desperate historians try to defend the Nazi "privatization" myth" video.

@Alv11269 No, they are not. You can't name a single international socialist group or conference that has included Nazis or fascists, despite the existence of literally hundreds of such groups and conferences. Marxists, Mensheviks, classical Marxists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Democratic Socialists have, despite their differences, frequently met and debated under the same roof, but not a single one of those meetings ever included fascists or Nazis. Arguing that Nazism is socialism because it isn't capitalism is like arguing that Islam is Christian because it isn't Buddhist.
20
@francis5600 Would you also argue that North Korea is a democracy? Because they have that in their name. And I'm neither a socialist nor arguing in favor of socialism. Socialism is bad. So is Nazism. That doesn't make them the same thing. All I am arguing for his historical fact over a fiction that serves a modern ideological agenda.
11
True, but it's not socialism either.
9
The Nazis claimed to be a lot of things that they weren't. Christians, just for one example.
7
Arguing that Nazism is socialism because it isn't capitalism is like arguing that Sikhism is Jewish because it isn't Buddhist. It's a textbook example of an invalid syllogism, a variant of the false dichotomy: a is not b, c is not b, therefore a=c.
7
@Alv11269 The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is very easily (and only) understood as a temporary alliance of convenience between two utterly unscrupulous and dishonest actors, each of whom had what seemed to him pressing reasons for delaying the ultimate showdown between them that both of them always knew was inevitable. Hitler wanted to avoid a two front war while he dealt with the UK and France, and Stalin needed time for his army to recover from the Great Purge and also feared the UK and France would draw him into a war with Germany with false promises of support and then back out leaving him holding the bag. What it had absolutely nothing to do with was ideology. And there is no such thing as right-wing socialism, it's a contradiction in terms. You're making the same mistake as left-wingers who want to claim that Stalin was "really" a right-winger.
6
@francis5600 If by "mid-century" you mean "postwar", sure. And most of the "socialist" policies of the Nazis were inherited from as far back as Bismarck. The Nazis didn't roll back those social programs but they didn't institute them either. Like Bismarck and his successors in the Empire, they were content to leave the center-left some social programs in return for not opposing their own, completely different nationalist and militarist agenda.
6
@TheImperatorKnight That is an incorrect definition of socialism. You are conflating central planning with social ownership, and they are not the same thing. You are conflating ownership with direction, and they are not the same thing. I pointed out to you an example of the distinction between control and ownership in our legal system, but you refuse to hear anything that might educate you. And it's not the existence of profits, it's who the profits are going to.
6
@CantusTropus (Also, the person I responded to said they were in the same structure and hierarchy. The point s that there has never been any hierarchy or structure that has included both. You saying they are the same is not a structure or hierarchy, it is simply a category you're inventing. If you want to prove me wrong, name an example of a structure or hierarchy - that is, any sort of real-world organization, not just a category in your mind - that has included both socialists and fascists or Nazis.
4
@Alv11269 No, I have never been a socialist. Most of what you claim simply doesn't follow. Just for one example, the fact that the Imperial German government, purely out of perceived self-interest, aided Lenin in order to destabilize their enemy and hopefully pull it out of the war, says absolutely nothing about any alleged relationship between the Nazis and Bolsheviks.
4
@kdegraa How's that crypto investment going for you these days?
4
@bobhabib7662 That is not the definition of socialism. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, which means something else entirely. Many forms of socialism do not involve state control (for example, a system that maintains a market economy but in which every business is owned by a collective of its own workers), and many systems that are not socialist involve state control (probably the best example of the latter I can think of were ancient Bronze Age societies - centrally planned, but in no way socialist). Many socialists envision a system in which the state does not exist at all (although personally I don't think such a system could survive very long, that doesn't stop some people from advocating for it), or one in which its role is strictly limited and has no part in economic planning.
4
Central planning and control are not the same as socialism. There are socialist models that do not involve central planning (anarcho-syndicalism being one example), and there are systems that use central planning that are not socialist. Almost all highly organized ancient societies before the late Roman Republic fell into the latter category, as does North Korea today (it claims to be socialist, of course, but then it also claims to be democratic and I assume you aren't naive enough to believe that).
4
@damienchall8297 They did when it suited them. And I can't tell you how many times I've argued with Christianity-haters who have insisted that the Hitler was a devout Christian.
4
Businesses had little autonomy in some decisions but a great deal of it in others. It's not all one or the other. And many owners made huge profits, which is just one way in which the system was by definition not socialist. Also, depending on when and where we're talking about, serfs often had a great deal of autonomy in some decisions but not in others - but the areas in which they could exercise autonomy were generally different from the areas in which Germans under the Nazis could. Serfdom and feudalism were not as simple or uniform as most modern people imagine.
4
@AmariFukui And capitalism has a way of working its way into every socialist system, because markets (if only black markets) are an inherent part of human nature and impossible to completely suppress. But we shouldn't let that cause confusion as to what capitalism and socialism actually are, and just as important, what they aren't.
3
@ManiacMayhem7256 High taxes don't make a country socialist.
3
@jamemswright3044 Socialism is an economic system in which control of the means of production is exercised either by the workers directly or someone acting on behalf of the workers and with their participation rather than by private owners or their managers, and in which the surplus value of work (profit) is returned either to the workers who created it or to society as a whole. A system in which the government controls (or partly controls) production for its own ends and appropriates profits for reasons other than returning them to ordinary people - to support a state religion, for example, or to line the pockets of the ruling class (kleptocracy), or, as in the case of Nazi Germany, to support the military for its own sake - is not socialist. That is of course an ideal, and many systems that are or purport to be socialist can be so corrupt or inefficient that little or none of the surplus value actually gets to workers or to society as a whole. At what point such systems cease to be socialist in anything but name is a matter of debate. I'm pretty sure if you survey professional economists, historians, and political scientists you'll find that 95% of them define socialism more in line with the above than simply "government control of the means of production".
3
One thing that will help immensely in understand subjects like this is to get rid of the idea of a one- or even two-dimensional political spectrum. It isn't how far to the left or right you are, or even just how far to the left and right you are and how far towards authoritarianism or individual liberty you are, there are at least six political axes that are theoretically independent of each other, and different axes are deemed important by different groups. Nazis and communists aren't at the opposite ends of a political spectrum, and they also aren't on the same end of one. The same can be said of communists and democratic socialists. It's very silly to say that Nazis and communists are the same because they are on the same end of the personal freedom axis, and equally silly to say that classical liberals and anarchists are the same because they are bunched together on the opposite end of that axis. They have that in common, but on other economic/political axes they are complete opposites.
3
@ETBrooD I said it didn't exist until the late 19th century, not that it doesn't exist today.
3
@TheImperatorKnight The fist part may be true under a restrictive definition of capitalism, but the second is a very silly thing to say and it shows how little understanding you have of economic issues. It's a very childish thought process to conclude that because socialism is the opposite of capitalism, whatever is not capitalist is socialist. Thinking that everything has to be shoehorned into one of those two categories also shows a very poor understanding of history before the modern era. Were medieval monasteries or Bronze Age kings and bureaucrats capitalist or socialists? The answer, of course, is that they were neither.
3
@adolphdresler3753 Social control of the means of production, which means either by (in most cases) or on behalf of the workers. In a broader sense, any system in which the distribution of wealth is a political process and is intended to benefit the working class almost exclusively. The existence of some amount of corruption doesn't necessarily take the system out of the realm of socialism (it makes it flawed socialism), but at some point you have to say the scheme is no longer intended even theoretically to benefit the working class and what you have is a kleptocracy. The Nazis did not come anywhere near either of those models, so they were not socialist. To the extent they controlled the means of production, that control was not exercised by or on behalf of the workers, or to their benefit, it was directed to the benefit of the military machine. To the extent the Nazis granted any concessions or benefits for workers, it was only because they calculated that this would make the workers more productive and efficient servants of the military machine. For the same reason, the Nazis generally did not interfere with the extraction of large profits by the industrial capitalists, not because the Nazis were devoted to capitalism, but because they deemed that this was the best way to maximize production in support of the war effort. Unlike TIK, I'm not just making up my own definitions because they suit my purposes. This is how actual socialists define socialism. George Orwell called all of this 75 years ago.
3
@w8stral I suppose you've never heard of mixed economies.
2
@TheImperatorKnight How much do you know about the legal concept of trusts? Owned by one party, controlled by another. Also, it's more of a continuum than a bright line, but I think you fail to grasp the distinction between taxation and outright confiscation. If the government takes 10% of your business' profits and you keep the rest, the government does not own or control the business. Reasonable taxation is not theft. I would agree with you if the government taxed 90% or more of profits and left the "owner" with a mere pittance.
2
@ricardokowalski1579 That's the big question, isn't it? Get three socialists in the same room and you'll get at least four answers to it. Through the state, through the party, through workers' councils, through unions, through local communities, or directly themselves are some of the more common ones. I'm sure there are others I'm not recalling atm. But the important point is that the government is only one of the options. There are many socialists who don't believe in having a state or government as we know it. And there are systems, like Nazism, in which the government controls the economy to a large degree but the system is not socialist since the benefits don't go to the workers as such, even theoretically. In some of these ownership and control is by and for the benefit of the military, which is largely autonomous or even controls the state rather than the other way around - Egypt and North Korea are examples of this. But the biggest and most irreconcilable difference between socialism and Nazism is that socialism is by definition based on class loyalty and conflict while Nazism is based on ethno-national loyalty and conflict. In socialism, a Russian atheist, a Polish Jew, and a German Christian who are all workers are allies, the religious and ethnic differences between them being deemed completely irrelevant, and their enemy is the upper class, while in Nazism a German industrialist or financier and a German worker are allies, their class differences deemed insignificant next to their loyalty to the German people and Aryan race, and their enemies are Slavs and Jews (who are defined as an ethnicity, not a religion).
2
@MisterOcclusion That is not his given name. And he is 100% right: the Nazis were not socialist, any more than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, a republic, or run by or for the people.
2
@ETBrooD "We've never seen what happens when an economy is mostly or entirely rid of socialism." Outside of a few theorists and agitators, there was effectively no socialism in the West until the late 19th century, so yes, we have.
2
@jean-philipperameau4220 You are expanding the definition of "socialism" to the point of making it meaningless. You could just as easily say that every country in the world today is fascist, if you define fascism as having a military.
2
@ETBrooD Again, only if you expand the definition of socialism to the point of meaninglessness. No reputable historian or political scientist I'm aware of would call, for example, New Kingdom Egypt or medieval monasteries socialist. And I've done a good bit of study of the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages in a university setting. (Much more, I'm pretty sure, than TIK has.) (Edit: and before you respond that that's because academics are all socialists, medieval and ancient history are probably the least leftist subjects in academia - you can't possibly call, for example, Victor Davis Hansen, a number of whose books I've read, a liberal, much less a socialist.)
2
@ETBrooD No, they haven't because socialism is a relatively recent invention in human society. You can't accurately call anything before the late 18th century socialist, any more than you can call anything before the 17th century or so capitalist, even if there are some similarities. For example, the 17th century Diggers had a lot in common with communism (although non-state communism) and were certainly important forerunners to socialism, but it isn't accurate to say they were communists or socialists in the modern sense.
2
@ETBrooD If that's the case, if labels don;t matter, why the insistence on calling the Nazis socialist?
2
@monadsingleton9324 That is a silly and ignorant statement. Any ideology can be approached with a mind-set similar to religion.
2
@monadsingleton9324 Does Nazism count as modern? because I think we can all agree that whatever the Nazis were, they were not Marxists. There have also been some secular nationalist movements that required fanatical devotion to the point of suicide - the Japanese imperialists of WW2 and the Tamil Tigers come to mind.
2
@monadsingleton9324 Socialism is more than just collectivism, though.
2
No, it is not. Socialism has a meaning, and it is not whatever you try to make it. By definition, under socialism, economic class loyalties and divisions always trump loyalties and divisions of nationality and ethnicity (which are deemed meaningless except to the extent the upper classes use them to divide and control the lower class). Under Nazism, loyalties and divisions of nationality and ethnicity always trumped class issues. They are/were diametrically opposed in this regard. And it is an absolutely crucial regard.
2
@leodesalis5915 National socialism is socialist to exactly the same extent as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
2
@CantusTropus Because they weren't socialists. Do you think North Korea is a democracy? BuCuZ iTs In ThErE nAmE!!!!!
1
@ManiacMayhem7256 Signing a pact of convenience with the USSR didn't make Nazi Germany socialist any more than allying with the US and UK later on made the USSR a democracy.
1
@ManiacMayhem7256 You clearly haven't been reading the discussion.
1
@ManiacMayhem7256 No, they don't. If the high taxes mostly go to fund the military for example, that isn't inherently leftist. Or if they go to support an oligarchy. Louis XIV's France had ruinously high taxes, but it wasn't leftist by any stretch of the imagination.
1
@ManiacMayhem7256 No, it wasn't. You're just being silly.
1
@ManiacMayhem7256 France did have high taxes on the rich. Just not the nobility. Who do you think was responsible for starting the revolution?
1
@ManiacMayhem7256 That is incorrect. I suggest you read more on the revolution. The bourgeoisie had become the real creators of wealth in Europe and it was because the French political system didn't adapt to that new reality as the English did that France had a revolution. The poor eventually joined in for their own reasons but the issues for them were different.
1
@faveology I would agree.
1
The existence of forms of socialism other than Marxism does not mean that Nazism was such a form. You are doing for "socialism" exactly what Orwell said was being done to "fascism": turning it into a category so broad as to be meaningless, and essentially nothing more than a curse word or a simple derisive grunt.
1
@destubae3271 If Sikhs aren't Christian, then what sort of Buddhists are they? Do you see the problem there?
1
@ricardokowalski1579 That is false. Socialism is workers' control of the means of production. State socialism is the government exercising that control on behalf of the workers, at least in theory. Nazism is not socialism because the government controlled production in service of the volk and the military and not the workers. Also, socialism is by definition internationalist, with loyalty owed to to and by class rather than nationality or ethnicity. Fascism and Nazism are by definition nationalist, with call loyalties to be completely subordinated to national and ethnic ones, and thus diametrically opposed to socialism in this respect.
1
@LUR1FAX You might argue that, if you are extremely ignorant on the topic of socialism. It's more or less the equivalent of saying that capitalism is slavery because employees are owned by their bosses.
1
@ricardokowalski1579 Those are not all coercive or violent, so no. Like many here, you are expanding the definition of words to the point where they have no meaning. By your definition every government or form of social organization from a tribe of 8 Neanderthals to today has been coercive and socialist. A category that includes everything in the universe is a meaningless category. "So the socialists do not know what socialism IS.." They don't agree in the best form for it to take. That is not the same thing.
1
@jamemswright3044 No, I am not. Socialism can mean a lot of things, and Marxism is only one of them. But all of them involve directing the wealth produced by labor back to the workers who created it, either by the government or some other mechanism. Without that it is not socialism.
1
Socialist systems do not all revolve around the state. Statism and socialism often go together but they are not the same thing.
1
@aranos6269 If you don't want to get lectured in YouTube comments, educate yourself and stop spreading ignorance.
1
@aranos6269 I'm not keen on any form of socialism. I'm just saying they exist. You lived in one form of socialism, that doesn't mean it's the only form. And talking on YouTube isn't my job.
1
@aranos6269 Anarcho-syndicalism.
1
@aranos6269 Oh, and if you're asking for an example that has actually worked in practice, I can't, because socialism never actually works in practice. I think socialism is an idiotic idea, I just think people need to be accurate about what it is and what it isn't if they're going to discuss it intelligently.
1
@engelsteinberg593 There are many and I don't know if I can come up with all of them offhand, but I would say militarism-pacifism, nationalism-internationalism, social conservative-social libertarian, authoritarianism-individual liberty, economic collectivism-economic libertarianism, centralized authority-devolved power ("states' rights"), and environmentalism-maximizing productivity at the expense of the environment are probably the most important ones. And movements and people can align on some of these but not on others - Soviet communism was extremely collectivist, authoritarian, and militarist but as far opposed to environmentalism as it is possible to be, while Bernie Sanders is extremely collectivist economically but more or less pacifist, socially libertarian, and strongly environmentalist. To say they occupy nearby places on a political spectrum is just contrary to fact.
1
@engelsteinberg593 I would agree with you about environmentalism, but the fact is it remains a political football, and there are capitalist people and parties that support a policy of regulating pollution more strictly and others who want to leave it less regulated, and there are socialists who favor heavier regulation of pollution and others who prefer to leave it unregulated. I would also say that environmentalism is an inherent flaw in economic libertarianism, because there really isn't any agent other than government that can force private parties to address externalities like pollution.
1
@sarban1653 As if on cue... And no, they were not. Himmler was a straight-up neopagan. Hitler was more or less agnostic. He thought Christianity served a useful social and political purpose, but he wanted to reconstruct a new Nazi Christianity with everything Jewish removed from it, which, since Jesus was Jewish and was a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, meant Christianity without Christ in it.
1
@OtherDAS You are confusing corruption and deception with socialism. Socialism, like any other system, can be corrupt and deceptive, but not all corrupt and deceptive systems are socialist.
1
The key point is that the state's whims were limited to some specific subjects and did not touch on others. In, for example, Soviet Communism, the state and party control every aspect of economic activity.
1
@shangri-la-la-la So is National Socialism.
1
@leodesalis5915 It is an oxymoron because socialism is based on economic class. If it is based on something other than economic class it is not socialism. Socialists can be racists, of course, but that's not the same thing.
1
@MadManRob "If you are saying North Korea is undemocratic then all socialism is undemocratic." That is 100% bullshit, both from them and from you. Way to go for learning how to actually make people stupider after listening to you.
1
@4asgard5 It was not social or public ownership. It was ownership by an oligarchy that owed nothing to its subjects and gave them only what it felt was necessary to keep them fully engaged in war production and the war effort generally. That is not socialism. Socialism means more than naked authoritarianism. The late Roman Empire and the Bronze Age Empires of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon operated much the same way, if less efficiently because they lacked modern means of surveillance and control, and no professional historian on the planet would describe those societies as socialist.
1
@KingRyanoles Sure, lots of them. the USSR and Cuba were intended to be socialist, they were just very badly executed and rife with corruption. The key difference with Nazi Germany is that in the former two factories and other businesses were seized by the government with no compensation for the owners and all profits went to the state, theoretically to be distributed to the people, while in Nazi Germany the owners retained ownership and continued to make large profits even if the state exercised some control over production. There are also many mixed economies that lean heavily towards socialism, like most of western and northern Europe. The US is a mixed economy too, just not as socialist as most of Europe.
1
@adamandrade4539 I define socialism by what socialists say socialism is.
1