Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 It is from Wikipedia, which is horrifically unreliable. This is demonstrated in just the first paragraph of that article:
>However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.
The source for this was Bel's Against the Mainstream. The problem is, Bel doesn't seem to know what privatisation is. This is demonstrated through these lines in his article:
"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.
>State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”
This is incorrect. According to Peter Temin in his paper "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s", "The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental
right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized." "Prof. Junkers of the Junkers aeroplane factory refused to follow the government’s
bidding in 1934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensating Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which other contracts were negotiated."
On top of that, the Nazis founded the largest company at the time, completely under state ownership, Reichswerke Hermann Goering. State ownership was the norm in Nazi Germany, it was a totalitarian state after all with its fingers in every pie including the economy. From this nature, little freedom of contract was given.
>However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference," as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels, which gave the government a role in regulating and controlling the cartels that had been earlier formed in the Weimar Republic under the Cartel Act of 1923.
So a public sector organisation (the State) creates and controls other public sector organisations [cartels]? This is not privatisation in the slightest.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Gvjrapiro All these "right-wingers" are inconsistent and therefore don't support private property. Where has TIK said that public limited companies should be dismantled and if so, was it because he wanted to "benefit the nation"? If you can support private property but make exceptions, can you also not be racist, make exceptions and you still wouldn't be racist? You have proven yourself to support the labour theory of value as you literally just said "as the product of their labor[sic] must always be more than what they are paid in compensation." This is the idea of surplus-labour, which can only exist as a conclusion of the labour theory of value. I do support a system in which people own themselves, and a 100-year out-of-date theory of value doesn't change this. And anyway, how is the product of my labour necessarily more than what I am getting paid as per my contract, which I signed? You weren't quoting either, you quote mined, as you omitted an important part: "So he didn't support private property because he wasn't consistent with it." The consistency of his beliefs is important here as if he contradicted his beliefs, then he either didn't believe in the good of the nation, or he didn't believe in private property. And given that Mosley is a fascist, it must have been the latter.
OK, all well and good. He believed in autarky and abolishing the income tax, which is certainly a part of fascism, and not necessarily contradictory to socialism.
As for why I am "shoehorning" socialism into fascism, I want to understand the beliefs of fascism, and the idea of fascists being socialists makes sense to me, given that they literally began by calling themselves national syndicalists. And no, it wasn't corporatist in the libertarian sense that defined fascism economically, it was corporatism in the fascist sense that defined fascism economically. In Fascist Italy for example, you saw the economy managed by employer unions, trade unions and the government [The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right].
The nations of Africa have ethnic conflicts. This doesn't change the fact that there were nationalist movements to get the independence of the nations. Unless you are trying to make the blood and soil argument when you say "The nations of africa [sic] had already been having cultural infighting and problems with one nation promoting itself as supreme above others." Germany and Italy had unifications movements, not independence movements. Germany was independent, it was just in 48 million pieces. Italy was in a similar situation. I am speaking about countries like Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Estonia and Norway.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4