Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.

  1. A: On the other-side. "Hitler wasn't a socialist" argument can begin: 1. Hitler was still in the German army when he joined what was to become the NAZI Party [ German Workers' Party. After he joined it was renamed: "German National Socialist Workers' Party"), although Hitler earlier suggested the party to be renamed the "Social Revolutionary Party" ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party 2. Hitler was essentially a state spy looking out for potential subversives. This was a time of revolutions; so the German army were legitimately concerned about what radicals such as socialists were up to. B: Having said that (above), Hitler was a "German people's socialist". He was against "International socialism". He was an anti-Marxist. ERROR: Hitler didn't call Marx unscientific. The NAZIs were contemptuous of both science and ideas. NAZIs believed in intuition, not intellectualism. I've a tiny disagreement, I'm with TIKhistory on most of what he says because the facts and history are clear. BTW: Marx's habit of slandering his opponents as "unscientific" makes little sense. Because, you guessed, Marx and his Marxists aren't scientific! Marxists have no empirical methods; their methods are driven by Marx's metaphysics : 1. "Historical Materialism" (including his class analysis of everything in history). 2. Marx's economics (where almost anything goes - provided it's "anti-capitalist" : e.g. Malthusian eco-poverty is now "anti-capitalist"!, as was Pol Pot, as is Keynesian Marxism. 3. Dialectical Materialism - which is ... - er what - what is it? A Marxist will never tell you so why do you expect an answer from me? 4. Revolution.
    5
  2. @@grayelentrenadorpokemon3245 But, ... - why pick those two things rather than two others? - what about all the ways the two things complement each other? Dialectical materialism gives the thinker endless degrees of freedom to apply their subjective bias to arrive at, a conclusion - they probably already had in mind - before the philosophizing. The capitalist and the working class both want better things. They also agree with each other.
    1
  3. @@grayelentrenadorpokemon3245 Can you see how people looking for ideas which work may want to ignore dialectical materialism? I've noticed that many of the worst ideas in history were arrived at speculatively, or by elaborating on already established speculative ideas. So I have both a deep fear and abiding hatred of speculation.
    1