Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @owningdishonestshills7435  Keep watching.
    2
  2.  @owningdishonestshills7435  Watch Section 5 then Section 6, the part where he explains the German economy.
    2
  3.  @owningdishonestshills7435  He says "As I will show later". You need to be patient.
    2
  4. @R.K. RocketKnight Nazis are basically the Monster Raving Loony Party.
    2
  5.  @dragosstanciu9866  100 bucks he wasn't subscribed in the first place
    2
  6.  @chasehammond9308  The point that he was making was that socialists disagree on the definition of socialism. From the PDF: So these are the historic definitions of capitalism and socialism. But socialists disagree. They deny any definition of socialism, and contradict each other in the process. For example, there were three socialists who defined socialism at roughly 1 hour and 35 minutes into a debate on one of Sargon of Akkad’s videos. The first defined socialism as “the collective ownership of the means of production”, which he says is the classic Marxist definition. He then listed the Soviet Union, China, Eastern European Countries, and Cuba as all socialist countries. His definition is funny because it contradicts at least one of the other socialists in that debate. And the final socialist was so great at defining socialism that he failed to even do so at that time, but later admitted it was worker-control of the means of production.
    2
  7.  @caymuscairns6845  True, the public is the general citizenry of a nation.
    2
  8. Because apparently even if you publicly debunk Nazism [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQKM5b1SoS0&t=831s ], it just isn't enough to show that you are not a Nazi. The only false "profets" are those who promise that a society in which the "means of production" are collectively owned will be better than the one they have now. It has never, and will never work, unless the laws of economic suddenly rearrange itself.
    2
  9.  @vahidfarsi812  That makes no sense.
    2
  10. By this definition, socialism could more simply be called institutionalised aggression. Wanting the working classes to control the means of production is simply a motive for the crime.
    2
  11.  @JingleJangleJam  Then of course, Hitler starts world war 2.
    2
  12.  @JingleJangleJam  That's a; very well and good, but a pacifist would never be violent - Hitler caused a war, which is the negation of that.
    2
  13.  @JingleJangleJam  Socialists, especially in Britain known to include right-thinking members of the aristocracy in power. Further, one does not have to be a communist to be a socialist, but even if killing communists would disqualify someone, then Stalin and Mao would not be considered socialist.
    2
  14.  @JingleJangleJam  1st Earl Atlee, certainly a socialist, labour prime minister when he said "The".
    2
  15.  @JingleJangleJam  That's splendid to know, but Hitler is still a socialist.
    2
  16.  @JingleJangleJam  This does not render fascism non-socialist, it only means fascism is non-Marxist
    2
  17.  @JingleJangleJam  Right so some of his propositions are false, this does render his propositions regarding the ideology of fascism false.
    2
  18.  @JingleJangleJam  Bias does not demonstrate that a proposition is wrong. You are also biased, should I disregard everything you have said?
    2
  19. Will watch.
    2
  20.  @dr1flush  The Reichstag fire decree also revoked Articles 153 and 115, effectively giving the government control over all property and the Night of the Long Knives could be compared to with the Great Purge. The Nazis didn't abolish trade unions, but they did merge it into the German Labour Front.
    2
  21.  @bodombeastmode  OK, so he wasn't a Marxist. If you watched the first 10 minutes you would know he agrees.
    2
  22.  @bodombeastmode  "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." - Adolf Hitler Alright, so he thinks Marxism isn't real socialism. He thinks socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. He wants to found a commonwealth.
    2
  23.  mike mcmike  the government, the best one being in your opinion that of the Confederate states?
    2
  24.  @KameradVonTurnip  Nah, beacause in a thread, someone brought up the Civil War, saying the north went to war because the south seceding would result in economic ruin, to which I countered "if that was the case, the northern economy would stagnate during the civil war" (which it didn't, it sky rocketed) to which mike mcmike countered "you are so dumb it hurts".
    2
  25.  @KameradVonTurnip  I see you are based as well and watch Atun Shei Films.
    2
  26. Hence why he also goes into the Nazi economy.
    2
  27. Galambos was pretty crazy, but thankfully he banned anyone who ever heard his theories from propagating his infohazards
    2
  28. You want a poll? Look to the like-dislike bar.
    2
  29. Egypt
    2
  30. Apparently France is a company lol
    2
  31.  @chromaticstorm787  I am not familiar with the next DPRK elections, and so I can't comment
    2
  32.  @JoseRodriguez-pn8yj  Btw being an Austrian is great, you get to learn about the praxeological foundations of the human condition and the consequences of Keynesian interference in the economy.
    2
  33.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  I wrote it down, and I shall write it down again: >In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by the government before the 1930s, especially social and labour-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. >Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long-established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose... The Nazi Party was not a private sector organisation. Saying giving state-owned property to the party in charge of the state is privatisation makes no sense. This is why I am unsure on whether anything in this article can be taken as a source for Nazi privatisation since the author doesn't know what the private and public sector organisations are.
    2
  34.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  IG Farben, BMW and Audi were Aktiengesellschafte, so not exactly private ownership and Junkers, as previously stated, was taken over by the Nazis, so that was directly under public ownership. Dornier was the only company you mentioned that wasn't public, but given, to cite Temin again, "The Nazis reorganized industry into 13 administrative groups", it makes me wonder how private Dornier was.
    2
  35.  @houndoftindalos9580  And how am I being intellectually dishonest?
    2
  36.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  Of course I am saying a company owned by shareholders isn't private ownership. "Shareholders" is a plural, for Pete's sake!
    2
  37.  @houndoftindalos9580  If I was feeling malicious, I would be putting your literacy into question. I was criticising a commonly used source used to substantiate Nazi privatisation, by highlighting a glaring fault: the author believes that the Nazi Party was a private sector organisation, which I backed up with quotes from the article. If the author doesn't know which organisations are private sector and which are public sector, how are we to trust anything the author says when speaking about privatisation? I wasn't dismissing Nazi privatisation outright, I was just pointing out a commonly used article to substantiate Nazi privatisation had a glaring fault. The conclusion that I draw from this is you need to get better sources, not that Nazi privatisation never happened!
    2
  38.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  Not when there is a public of shareholders owning it.
    2
  39.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  When they encouraged individuals to become part of it's public through buying it's shares on the stock exchange?
    2
  40.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  So according to you, privatisation is when a company becomes collectively owned by shareholders?
    2
  41.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  So if the accepted privatisation is when a company becomes collectively owned... doesn't that mean that in the event that the Nazis did privatise things, it would mean that they were socialists?
    2
  42.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  Explain how.
    2
  43.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  It was a premise that we agreed on. I said, "privatisation is when a company becomes collectively owned by shareholders?" You said "Not according to me, according to the accepted definition. " We we agreed that privatisation is when a company becomes collectively owned by shareholders. And if the Nazis put companies in the hands of collective ownership, then they are, by definition, socialists.
    2
  44.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  How many investors?
    2
  45.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  If it is a large number of investors collectively owning the business, then it is socialistic. If it is just one investor, it is capitalistic.
    2
  46.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  But it is correct. Allow me to sum up: P1: Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. P2: A corporation is owned by shareholders. P3: "Shareholders" is a plural word P4: This means there is more than one shareholder, which is a collective. C1: Therefore, corporations are owned collectively. C2: Therefore, corporations are socialistic. Now, give me at least one flaw in the reasoning.
    2
  47.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  I took Premise 1 from an alternative phrasing on Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp A collective is defined as a done by people acting as a group. A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together. "Number" means "several". The fact that "shareholders" is plural must mean that there are several shareholders. Therefore, shareholders are a collective.
    2
  48.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  public just means "of the people". Which people? In this case, shareholders.
    2
  49.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  OK, which people? An Amzonian tribesman wasn't included when there was common ownership in Soviet Russia. Oh yeah, and common in this context means belonging to or involving the whole of a community or the public at large. The community being the shareholders.
    2
  50.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  Nope, I shall now turn the question you asked me on you: are you playing at being dim or is it natural? What you should have got is "That's because the average person isn't part of a corporation. "
    2