Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.

  1. 11
  2. 6
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6.  @personaa422  From https://mises.org/library/business-under-nazis It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism . "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption." The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham." Mises's account is confirmed by a remarkable book that appeared in 1939, published by Vanguard Press in New York City (and unfortunately out of print today). It is The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism by Guenter Reimann, then a 35-year-old German writer. Through contacts with German business owners, Reimann documented how the "monster machine" of the Nazis crushed the autonomy of the private sector through onerous regulations, harsh inspections, and the threat of confiscatory fines for petty offenses. ----- Try again.
    4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11.  @thedj3319  Wrong again. From http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1940110100 Growth of Government Control of Business In the meantime, the mechanisms for government control of the economic system had been extended and strengthened. During the banking crisis of 1932, almost all of Germany's large private banks were brought under the control of the Reichsbank. This was even more important in Germany than it would have been elsewhere, because the banks handled a large part of business investment as well as commercial loans, and consequently were in a position of very great influence in German industry. In this same period, the percentage of German national income which went to the state in one form of taxes or another was also increased, adding to the direct importance of the state in the economic life of the nation. The result, according to Stolper, was that: When it came to its end, the democratic Republic left as a heritage to the National Socialist state an economic system that corresponded rather closely to a complete system of “State Socialism.” The state was, so to speak, in command of the whole blood circulation as represented in a modern economic system by the banking mechanism. The state held in its grip the most important “commanding heights” over business, such as the transportation system, the power supply, and the influence over cartel prices. The state had, furthermore, taken over vital functions of the trade unions and the employers' organizations. … The road to the totalitarian state had teen well laid out. The National Socialist government needed but to utilize for its own aims the instruments of state power forged by its predecessors.3 This observation is confirmed by Fritz Ermarth, who writes, “When the National Socialists seized power in Germany early in 1938, the German national economy was under Government control to a wider extent than ever before during peacetime.”4 In addition to the railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, which had long been state-owned, the Reich had invested government funds directly in the German steel cartel, in a moving picture company, in numerous construction enterprises, and in other “private” businesses. -------- Try again.
    3
  12.  @zava5025  Hitler's socialism has favored the "Ayran race" group that benefited from direct mass stealing from the undesirable groups of people and it's enforced by a big interventionist nation-state government. Marxist socialism has favored the "worker class" group that benefited from direct mass stealing from the undesirable groups of people and it's enforced by a big interventionist nation-state government. All major Marxist socialism implementation does NOT transfer private property titles to benefactors. Marxist supports attempt to cast Hitler's socialism as rightwing when it's similar to the extreme left socialism. For post-WW2 Japan, MacArthur also executed land reform by shifting significant wealthy landlord's lands to the workers with private land title transfers. MacArthur = land reform transfers that included private land title transfers to the workers. From http://www.crosscurrents.hawaii.edu/content.aspx?lang=eng&site=japan&theme=work&subtheme=AGRIC&unit=JWORK098# Land Reform in Postwar Japan As part of the democratization of Japan after World War II, Japanese leaders and Occupation authorities worked together to carry out land reform. It is regarded as one of the most successful of the Occupation-era reforms, and has become the model for land reform in other countries. The purpose of land reform was to reduce the wide gap between absentee landlords who owned agricultural land but did not farm it themselves, and tenant farmers who rented the land in exchange for giving the landlord a high proportion of the crop. The land reform laws were intended to limit the amount of farmland one household could own to about the amount of land that one family could farm themselves, without outside labor. The government forced absentee landlords to sell all their land to the government. Farmers were allowed to own a small amount of farm land that they could rent out to others ( 2.5 acres or one hectare in most parts of Japan, and 10 acres or 4 hectares in Hokkaido), and had to sell any excess to the government. The government then sold this land, usually to the tenant who had been farming it. The result greatly improved the living conditions of farmers. Idealogical basis: A family's land ownership. The new world west has its own idealogy on land reform with family units and private ownership as its core idealogy. VS Marxist socialism = land reform transfer to the state, no private land title transfer to the workers.
    3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21.  @tomogburn2462  Not correct, from econlib.org/archives/2004/06/milton_friedman_1.html In an interview, Milton Friedman explains why shifting education and health care from the market to the government is inefficient. Milton Friedman is against government-run health care. Milton Friedman assumes the market will behave, which contradicted Australia's capitalist nanny to keep the market honest and efficient. Milton Friedman's argument is bullshit. Australia's health care administration efficiency (ranked 1st) murdered the US's health care system's administration efficiency. From theconversation.com/why-biologics-were-such-a-big-deal-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-48595 During the Obama-Biden administration, Australia's center-right wing (Liberal-National Coalition) federal government has identified the US "data-exclusivity-medications" condition as the killer to their universal health care system. Australia's medical patent system also supports the private insurance system's cost controls. Obama-Biden Democrats attempted to wreak Australia's single-payer health care system which caused the center-right wing (Liberal-National Coalition) federal government to defend Australia's health care system! Australia implements its universal health service with the aid of "the ideal market competition" principles while the classic socialism approach would have nationalized the drug companies. Australia's NIB (private insurance) managing director/CEO Mark Fitzgibbon (with Harvard Business School education in Global Strategic Management masters degree) who argued for the removal of Australia's Medicare system, which caused the center-right wing (Liberal-National Coalition) federal government to defend Australia's health care system with an "over my dead body" counter reply. Mark Fitzgibbon wants Australia to adopt US-style Obama care with private insurance overhead. DO NOT copy and paste American politics on another country's conservatives. PS; I do support the CANZUK initiative (with a combined population size of 134 million) as an alternative to the USA. Churchhill is a conservative-liberal.
    2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24.  @personaa422  Since your left-right political spectrum arguments are US-centric Trump's immigration arguments are already implemented in Australia/New Zealand FOR MANY YEARS.; 1. Limit queue jumpers 2. Limit birth tourism 3. Limit high potential "public charge" immigration 4. Points score system From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_world.svg The majority of the world restricts limits birth tourism. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points-based_immigration_system Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom implements the points-based immigration system. PS; I do support the CANZUK initiative as a geopolitical/geo-economic alternative to the US model. CANZUK countries have universal health care while maintaining superior economic freedoms index scores (when compared to the US). Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom#2021_Index Rankings for Index of Economic Freedom for 2021. New Zealand = 2nd Australia = 3rd United Kingdom = 7th Canada = 9th United States = 20th. LOL HAHAHAH My support for the CANZUK initiative recognise the fact that economies of scale issues for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are not in the critical mass. >The democrats, as a party, continually bend to republican desires. That's BS, Democratic party has the control over House of Representatives, Senate, and President. George Floyd's debacle is under the Democratic party-run state and mayoral level for MANY years. Keep voting the same shit = continual shit results. In Australia, we threw out pro-GOP IR (Industrial Relations) Howard government in a large landslide. PM John Howard lost his seat even in his "rich" political seat. The large landslide against the Howard government purged out pro-GOP IR (Industrial Relation) in the Liberal-National parties. The majority of Australians don't tolerate GOP-style IR, we threw them out in the landslide. More than 70% of IOC member countries have rejected the Democratic party's racist BLM bullshit.
    2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38.  @personaa422  FACTS: Post-WW2 Japan vs Eastern European results speak for themselves. For post-WW2 Japan, MacArthur also executed land reform by shifting significant wealthy landlord's lands to the workers with private land title transfers. MacArthur = land reform transfers that included private land title transfers to the workers. From http://www.crosscurrents.hawaii.edu/content.aspx?lang=eng&site=japan&theme=work&subtheme=AGRIC&unit=JWORK098# Land Reform in Postwar Japan As part of the democratization of Japan after World War II, Japanese leaders and Occupation authorities worked together to carry out land reform. It is regarded as one of the most successful of the Occupation-era reforms, and has become the model for land reform in other countries. The purpose of land reform was to reduce the wide gap between absentee landlords who owned agricultural land but did not farm it themselves, and tenant farmers who rented the land in exchange for giving the landlord a high proportion of the crop. The land reform laws were intended to limit the amount of farm land one household could own to about the amount of land that one family could farm themselves, without outside labor. The government forced absentee landlords to sell all their land to the government. Farmers were allowed to own a small amount of farm land that they could rent out to others ( 2.5 acres or one hectare in most parts of Japan, and 10 acres or 4 hectares in Hokkaido), and had to sell any excess to the government. The government then sold this land, usually to the tenant who had been farming it. The result greatly improved the living conditions of farmers. Idealogical basis: A family's land ownership. The West has its own idealogy on land reform with family unit and private ownership as its core idealogy. VS Marxist = land reform transfer to the state, no private land title transfer to the workers. --- The debate about left-wing or right-wing is an attempt to censor debate on the ACTUAL implementation details.
    2
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41.  @fuckfannyfiddlefart  Marxists claim Marxist Socialism is the overthrow of the state for communally owned control of the means of production. This is bullshit when implementation involves a state with massive government intervention. For post-WW2 Japan, MacArthur also executed land reform by shifting significant wealthy landlord's lands to the workers with private land title transfers. MacArthur = land reform transfers that included private land title transfers to the workers. From http://www.crosscurrents.hawaii.edu/content.aspx?lang=eng&site=japan&theme=work&subtheme=AGRIC&unit=JWORK098# Land Reform in Postwar Japan As part of the democratization of Japan after World War II, Japanese leaders and Occupation authorities worked together to carry out land reform. It is regarded as one of the most successful of the Occupation-era reforms, and has become the model for land reform in other countries. The purpose of land reform was to reduce the wide gap between absentee landlords who owned agricultural land but did not farm it themselves, and tenant farmers who rented the land in exchange for giving the landlord a high proportion of the crop. The land reform laws were intended to limit the amount of farmland one household could own to about the amount of land that one family could farm themselves, without outside labor. The government forced absentee landlords to sell all their land to the government. Farmers were allowed to own a small amount of farmland that they could rent out to others ( 2.5 acres or one hectare in most parts of Japan, and 10 acres or 4 hectares in Hokkaido), and had to sell any excess to the government. The government then sold this land, usually to the tenant who had been farming it. The result greatly improved the living conditions of farmers. Idealogical basis: A family's land ownership. The West has its own idealogy on land reform with family unit and private ownership as its core idealogy. VS Marxist = land reform transfer to the state, no private land title transfer to the workers.
    1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45.  @brucetucker4847  Kublai instituted social classes based on race. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/history/yuan/four-class-system.htm The 'Four Class System' was a legal caste system in the Yuan Dynasty. After the founding of the Yuan regime, Kublai Khan, the first emperor in the Yuan Dynasty, set up this system to consolidate the ruling status of the Mongolian Ethnic Minority, which had a small number with great disparity to the majority Han people. Specifically, the four classes of people by the descending order were Mongolian people, Semu people, Han people (in the northern areas of China) and Southerners (people of the former Northern Song Dynasty (1127 - 1279)). According to the Yuan rulers' mind, the grading sequence was based on the sequencing of Mongolian's conquest of these people. Some historical scholars said that it was a kind of psychological indication that the earlier they submitted to Mongolian people, the higher social status they would be. Unfairly, the 'Four Class System' stipulated that four classes of people received different treatment in political, legal and military affairs. First, the real power was mainly grasped in the hands of the Mongolian people and Semu people while few of the court officials were Han people or any other ethnic minorities from the third and the fourth classes. Second, although all classes of people were allowed to attend the imperial examination, people of the third and fourth classes had to participate in more test subjects and exam questions that for them were more difficult, compared with the first and second class. Third, the fourth class people received unequal legal treatment. On committing the same crime, different punishments were handed down to different classes of people. Fourth, the Mongolian people adopted a tight control towards the Han people and Southerners. These two classes were forbidden to possess any weapon or raise any dogs or eagles. Generally, the 'Four Class System' was a national policy of political oppression and ethnic division. Originally, it was established by Yuan's ruling class to guarantee the dominance of the Mongolian minority but it eventually became the catalyst that sped up the decline of the Yuan regime.
    1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56.  @personaa422  In Australia, we have the following government programs for the poor or below a certain income threshold 1. "Work for the dole" i.e. universal income with community service obligations. Students have universal income from Austudy while 1st nation students have Abstudy which is slightly higher than Austudy. 2. Nanny state-issued debit card that looks like a normal debit card that blocks non-essential items purchases. Nanny state-issued debit cards are issued for cases that a person can't control their non-essential purchases. Australia doesn't believe in US-style food vouchers that can destroy a person's self-esteem i.e. creating extra mental health problems from US-style food vouchers are minimised. Creating extra mental health problems adds an extra burden on the public health system. 3. The single-payer universal health care and subsidised medicines for all Australians. There's an extra income tax penalty above a certain income threshold i.e. they should be on the private health system. Subsidised medicines include patent reform to reduce the public health cost burden. Single-payer lowers overhead cost on the public health system. 4. Free (for government-supported persons) and low-cost technical colleges with a national enforced qualification framework i.e. equality in the education framework. 5. Public housing or rent cost assistance. 6. Promotion of healthy food programs to reduce the public health cost burden. These are life support government program areas and I mostly support the mentioned government programs in moderation. Not every child is blessed with wealthy parents. There are additional welfare programs that I haven't mentioned. 1st nation students Abstudy which has slightly higher benefits than Austudy does not pass the race neutrality test. New Zealand has similar government programs to Australia. I'm not fully aware of UK's and Canada's versions, but there are universal health care agreements across Australia, NZ, and the UK.
    1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1