Comments by "Barsukas" (@barsukascool) on "“Hitler privatized the industries” is ridiculously misleading" video.
-
5
-
@NoName-OG1
You still did not define socialism. Thing is, it’s a matter of definitions. If we define socialism as 'when a state exists', well we have worldwide socialism. That’s obviuosly an incorrect definition. But if we define socialism as 'revolution of the proletariat to implement a dictatorship and lead to a world revolution', that’s only one side of the coin - Marxism. But if socialism is an economic definition, like it historically was and like voters mostly define it nowadays - 'state controlling the economy', then the National Socialists were not only advocating for socialism, but also implemented a lot of socialist policies. Obviuosly, they didn’t reach full socialism, they only planned doing that after conquering living space ( lebensraum ) in the east. They didn’t because they failed. That’s why TIK says '… the Nazis were failed socialists.'
Whether people call it 'state capitalism', I really don’t care, it may also be 'market socialism'. My point is that their policies were VERY VERY similiar to Marxist socialists or communists in Cuba, USSR, etc… Regardless of whether it’s 'state capitalism'.
4
-
4
-
@NoName-OG1
Your definition of socialism is basicaly "the belief that classeless public ownership of the means of production by all members of a society leads to an egalitarian society", which is not a dictionary definition. It is a Marxist definition at best and probably not even that.
Wikipedia defines it as "an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems, characterised by social ownership of the means of production." It says that socialism encompasses 'diverse economic and social systems', implying that socialism can be non-Marxist. In short, it defines as 'all the different ideologies, advocating for social ownership of the means of production'.
Meriam-webster defines it as "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Basically 'an egalitarian system that advocates for common/goverment control of the economy'.
Oxford dictionary says socialism is "an economic and political system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution". Basically 'a system based common/state ownership of the economy'.
Point is, your definition DOES NOT match the dictionary definitions. The classical definition goes something like this: "goverment/common control/ownership of the economy". It doesn’t mention workers, sometimes mentions egalitarianism. It doesn’t mention that ALL people must own the economy. Nowhere is mentioned that there will be no social hierarchies… it is simply public control of the economy. Words have meanings and are supposed to be used according to their meanings.
And even Marxist socialism has NEVER manifested itself egalitarian. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea… it never was egalitarian, it is only a dream that can not come true.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@bananabourbonaenima
Big industrialists DID NOT support the NSDAP, only one big industrialist, who supported the NSDAP pre-1933 for political reasons - Fritz Thyssen later had his property nationalized, he left the country and later spent a year in a concentration camp. If you want to debunk me, name industrialists, the money they gave and WHEN they gave it.
AH did NOT eliminate trade unions. Instead, he NATIONALIZED them into the Deutsche Arbeits Front and those that refused to nationalize were crushed. He had a 32 MILLION MAN STRONG TRADE UNION, one of the biggest in HISTORY. If you say that this is somehow anti-socialism, what did Lenin do? Did he not 'crush the trade unions'? And if you leave PRIVATE trade unions, that’s PRIVATE initiative, which socialism is FUNDEMENTALLY OPPOSED TO.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1