Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.
-
141
-
19
-
12
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>In 1936 a German man could borrow money from a privately owned German bank
They were subordinate the Reichsbank.
>He could hire employees
Doesn't make them not socialist.
>and sell whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted
I know you are trying to claim that this was a free market, but there were price controls on every. A peasant was arrested and put on trial for having
repeatedly sold his old dog together with a pig. When a private buyer of pigs came to him, a sale was staged according to the official rules. The buyer would ask the peasant: "How much is the pig?" The cunning peasant would answer: "I cannot ask you for more than the official price. But how much will you pay for my dog which I also want to sell?" Then the peasant and the buyer of the pig would no longer discuss the price of the pig, but only the price of the dog. They would come to an understanding about the price of the dog, and when an agreement was reached, the buyer got the pig too. The price for the pig was quite correct, strictly according to the rules, but the buyer had paid a high price for the dog. Afterward, the buyer, wanting to get rid of the useless dog, released him, and he ran back to his old master for whom he was indeed a
treasure [Vampire Economy, Mises Institute, Page 85]
>He could even incorporate his business and sell stocks to the public via a stock exchange.
Public? Sounds pretty commie to me.
>Not to mention a significant percent of the Nazi budget was derived from the privatization of businesses.
Citation needed.
>Oh, and they lowered taxes on corporations.
"You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet
everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans
are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believes that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." - Vampire Economy, Page 24
"Industrialists complained that some 80 to 90 percent of business profits were being
siphoned off by the state. This figure is clearly exaggerated, but it speaks volumes about the Nazi government’s basic tax-policy orientation." - Hitler's Beneficiaries, Page 68
>And the government issued bonds.
How does this make them not socialist?
>And real estate could be privately bought and sold.
“For the purpose of protecting the peasantry as the ‘Blood Source of the German People’, the law proposed to create a new category of farm, the Erbhof (hereditary farm), protected against debt, insulated from market forces and passed down from generation to generation within racially pure peasant families. The law applied to all farms that were sufficient in size to provide a German family with an adequate standard of living... but did not exceed 125 hectares.” - Wages of Destruction, Page 182
>None of this was possible in the Soviet Union and ALL of this is anathema to socialist theory.
"Socialism is when there is unemployment, and it's more unemployment the more socialist it is and when it is 100% unemployment, it's communism." - Karl Marx apparently
>What kind of "socialist" lowers taxes on large corporations and expands the power of the private sector?
What kind of capitalist raises taxes, has a central bank, prints money or prevents the free exchange of goods and services?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chinggiskhan6678 >If it was socialist, there would have been collectivised farms, planned economies, with literally everything owned by the government.
About that... the Nazi Reichministers for Food and Agriculture created the Reichserbhofgesetz, which created racially hereditary farm. Debt reduction would be achieved via the Erbhof farmers taking collective responsibility for debts, and the debts of all Erbhoefe, variously estimated at between 6 and 9 billion
Reichsmarks, were to be transferred to the Rentenbank Kreditanstalt, a state-sponsored mortgage bank. Seems pretty collectivist to me.
Source: Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze
As for planned economies, I suppose Yugoslavia wasn't socialist then because it had a market.
And in many socialist countries, not everything was owned by the government. In the USSR, only 89.6% of farms were collectivised. By your logic, since it wasn't 100%, the USSR was not socialist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonlongton1876 >OK, so what? US banks are subordinate to the Federal Reserve. Rules and regulations governing banking is not a feature of socialism, but of capitalism.
Central banking and government regulations are not features of capitalism.
>Uh, *Yes*, it does. If the workers, and not even the public at large, own the means of production, how can there be 'employees'?
An employee is just a person that does work in exchange for a salary. It can either control or not control, the MOP.
>Price controls in some sectors does [sic] not mean there isn't a free market.
1) A market cannot be "free" if it is controlled by a coercive organisation. And it was much more than one sector.
>There are rent controls in New York City. Is NYC a Nazi state?
Rhetorically yes, but NYC is only a Nazi state if it is committed to getting territory for the Aryan people to survive and destroying the Jewish Conspiracy™.
>This one made me smile. The source is "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany" one of TIK's own sources in the 5 hour version. It's amusing as this source does not actually support TIK's conclusion and he presents it in a very misleading manner.
He was evaluating the usefulness of the source as a source for Nazi privatisation, which communists use to "prove" that Hitler was a capitalist.
>I will generously assume this to be a joke on your part, and that you made the joke to dodge one of my most damaging points.
I wasn't.
>A Stock Exchange, where ownership interests in for profit businesses are bought and sold between private parties for the express purpose of making money has got to the the least socialistic thing I've ever heard.
A community of shareholders controlling the means of production has got to be one of the most statist things I've ever heard.
>It means in addition to a stock market, there is also a bond market. If you don't understand the essential role stock and bond markets play in capitalist economies, then you should start there rather than trying to define capitalism and socialism.
Why can they not play a role in socialist economies? Especially when bonds, from the government, are a debt that everyone else has to pay off.
>First, nothing you cite implies real estate could not be privately bought and sold, actually quite the contrary.
Yes, it explies. As you could not buy and sell this land because it would be "... passed down from generation to generation within racially pure peasant families."
>What you posted affirms Nazi commitment to privately held real estate. In a socialist economy those small (and large) private farms would be seized and owned by the state and not guaranteed to private owners.
This is the collective, public state control of the economy. This was collectivisation. The public sector decided that such farms could not be repossessed or sold. The public dictated that Jews couldn't own these farms as well.
>Again, a bad joke, perhaps made because Karl Marx argued profusely that socialism would encompass none of the features cited above.
Was just poking fun at you by asking "Where's the socialism?", including "employees" in your list of things you thought weren't socialistic.
1
-
@jasonlongton1876 >If you are trying to parse out some coherent principled ideological system by which the N*zis operated, you weren't paying attention.
Oh I can, watch me:
Hitler believed that only Aryans could create civilisations, and civilisations are destroyed because the Aryans interbreed with their slaves. Following this logic, the small hats are the least Aryan, because they apparently never had a civilisations [Mein Kampf, Page 257-259, 267-269, 290-291.]. The Aryans are apparently the best because they devote themselves to the service of their community [Mein Kampf Page 269] and the small hats are the worst because they are individualistic [Mein Kampf, Page 271-272]. The small hats are apparently using capitalistic methods to cause the crisis of capitalism [Mein Kampf P289], which will be exploited by them to bring about communism [Mein Kampf Page 290].
So Hitler planned to save the world by doing the following: 1) Destroy the Soviet Union [Mein Kampf 410] and seize resources for Germany, 2) Do the Holocaust [Mein Kampf, Page 307] thereby socialising the people and 3) Establish National Socialism, which was proper socialism, so civilisation will last forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@holz_name >Microsoft alone has more revenue than the bottom 56 countries of the world. In 2020 Microsoft had a revenue of $143 billion, that is more than the GDP of Hungary with just $140 billion.
Evidently Microsoft is more economically important than Hungary.
>But then you will say that Microsoft could only get so big because we live in Socialism, wouldn't you?
I think I have said a few times it is because of limited liability.
>Can you name me any examples of living Capitalism, past or in the present?
Counter economic practices
>I don't accept your diseconomies theory, because firms tent to become bigger by buying out the competition. You didn't addressed this argument yet.
When firms get so big, it becomes difficult to coordinate. This is why, at some point, buying up the factories of old rivals becomes inefficient. Remember, we got rid of limited liability as which means less resources because many people aren't willing to play with their life savings, which makes it less likely they will purchase every last factory of an inefficient rival. Firms make more money by becoming more efficient. This was why Japanese car manufacturers displaced the company plagued by diseconomies of scale General Motors with just in time production.
>So why would I pay rent???? I would just say f* off landlord. If I don't have to pay then I would just steal. Do you think I pay because of the goodness of my hearth?
Because as you said:
>Of course the landlord would sanction me somehow for not paying rent. She will just kick me out of my house using violence.
Which is completely justified because you broke your contract.
>Then I will be homeless and would have lost literally everything I had. This is worse than going to jail. In Capitalism I would become homeless and jobless and would die outside.
Pay your rent. Or get your own house.
>In Socialism I would be in the care of the state.
Edit: I assume you are not planning to be a leech on your community, in which case, good luck getting out of the care of the state. $40,000 for every family in the United States, all spent on means tested programs, how is there still poverty? More of a critique of the welfare state but oh well.
>Btw, the state cannot put me in jail for not paying rent. We abolished debtors prisons long time ego.
I was speaking about taxes for things you would never pay for like drone strikes against children and such. I know you will call me a "freeloader" or something like that, but I would happily pay for services that I use.
>I'm not an expert here on anything. I was asking TIK. Yes, one big firm is replaced by another big firm. Proves my point, no?
Well, as "big" as a firm can be while having 16% of the market share, and that is only including retailing as a way of acquiring objects.
1
-
@holz_name >Those are not what I want in my society. Thank you very much.
Why? In the hands of private individuals, firearms are used defensively much, much more times offensively, people should be able to use most means of exchanges they want, there is nothing wrong with immigrants, nor is the best way to stop drugs is to put people who have them in a cage, there is nothing wrong in the exchange of food stamps, nor is there anything wrong with making your own power.
>So basically we would live in a society ruled by gangs and mobsters?
Hello Cathy Newman.
>Who are "we"?
You and I, who creating a capitalist society.
>Some people will create LLCs because it will benefit them.
They can of course say that for some reason, their personal savings are untouchable if their business tanks, but no arbiter would have any time for that kind of argument.
>Some people like to play with their own or other people's money because more risk equals more profit.
Agreed.
>If you corner the market, bought out every competing firm, then by default you are the most efficient firm left.
Well, until you aren't when someone opens their own competing firm and you are left in the dust because of difficulty in finding experienced management to ensure everything is running smoothly, duplication of efforts, office politics, inertia, cannibalisation and reputation upkeep. Hence, not every part of a former rival will be bought out, making it much more likely that competition will be back to normal.
>So I don't know what you mean? GM is still very successful.
Isn't as successful as Toyota and Honda and the like.
>So where is the difference between paying tax to the state or rent to a landlord?
The social contract is bogus, but the contract you sign upon your inhabitation is real.
>I have to pay either the landlord or the state.
In a system where you just have to pay a landlord is also a system in which you can buy your own house.
>In Socialism I pay tax for services that I don't use, but other people need. This benefits me in the long term because those students will become adults and get jobs and pay tax for my services.
If you think you can benefit from it, by all means pay for it. I don't want to stop you.
>do you think the healthcare in the USA is capitalistic or socialistic?
Not socialist for obvious reasons, not capitalist either. I don't think any system where the government spends $1.2 trillion on health care can be considered capitalist.
1
-
@holz_name >you think you don't have to pay a landlord for simple owning a house.
When did I say that?
>a) not everybody can just buy houses. b) not everybody can buy the land.
I know.
>c) where do you think your water, electricity and gas will come?
Water, from a stream, electricity, from a turbine and gas, from various sources
>You didn't name me one advantage yet.
I'll list a few:
-Savings stay valuable due to gold standard being used for retail banks
-People constantly trying to find the most efficient way of doing something, goods become more inexpensive as a result, everyone has a larger, more valuable amount of possessions
-Actually works
>Arbiter who agree with them clearly would agree with them.
Clarification / grammar check required.
>A contract doesn't become "real" just because there is a physical paper to sign. A contract is only real if there is some way to prosecute.
A contract is a binding agreement. The social contract may be binding, but I can't remember making any agreement with the state.
>If there are arbiter who like LLCs then LLCs will become real. If there are arbiter who think the social contract is real then the social contract become real. And clearly there are arbiter for LLCs and the social contract in from of tax. So both LLCs and the social contract are real. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not real.
An arbiter is employed because two parties cannot come to an agreement on their own terms. An arbiter must then come to a conclusion based on fair, objective standards. An arbiter who does not will find himself unemployed. There may be good proof that proves why having a few letters at the end of your firm's name means you are not indebted, but every rationally minded individual is waiting to hear it.
>You go and create a new Facebook. Or a new Microsoft. It's not how it works. Big firms corner the market, talent go to the big firms because they have the capital to pay for the talent. Without state intervention, firms tent to centralize into huge conglomerates.
In what manner? Do you want me to create a new OS that competes with Windows? Why would I do that when most computers in the world run Android? Or if you want me to make a something that competes with Bing? When you tell me to make a new Facebook, do you mean Facebook as a social media platform? Easy, I make a crate manufacturing business and sell it to up and coming orators. Point being, there is a million different ways of doing something, as such, "big" firms are really not that big when you look at it from every angle.
>But it works only if everybody pays.
Shouldn't that tell you that physical libraries are an inferior option and digital libraries are superior?
>It's like vaccinations. Vaccines only work if everybody gets vaccinated.
Not necessarily, milkmaids wouldn't get smallpox even if not everyone caught cowpox.
>I have no clue how vaccine work, I didn't study medicine or virology. I admit my ignorance and I put my trust into people who have studied it.
Since you are using analogies, most experts in the field of economics would tell you that leaving people to their own devices and trying not to interfere with prices
>This is socialism and it works (until it doesn't like in Nazi Germany).
Or the USSR. Or North Korea. Or China. Or Cambodia. Or Zimbabwe. Or Eritrea. Or Hungary. Or Czechoslovakia. Or East Germany. Or Laos. Or the Congo. or Ethiopia. Or Mozambique. Or India. Or Romania. Or Yugoslavia. Or Burma. Or Iraq. Or Libya. Et cetera.
>Whom should I trust in capitalism?
Same people you do now.
1
-
@holz_name >You can't point me to any system that is capitalistic that works.
Counter-economics.
>Well except if you think that human trafficking is good.
Counter-economics does not allow for victimisation. Hence, human trafficking is not part of it.
>What does it matter? I don't care about ideology. It is binding, hence it is real.
Because it is the Merriam Webster definition of a contract. "Binding" means it is an obligation which cannot be broken, a contract must also be an agreement. Otherwise, I could say that you broke the contract you had with me that you would clean my residence for no pay, even if you agreed to it or not.
>Clearly LLCs are used and clearly judges uphold the limited liability based on fair and objective standards.
Firstly, judges today make decisions based on law, not on ethics. And secondly, what fair and objective standards?
>Yes, those few letters indeed mean that you have limited liability. Is this a no-true-scotchman argument?
It is a no-true-Scotsman argument in the same way that I am asking you to prove that Yemi Osinbajo who doesn't even know what Isle of Jura is is a Scotsman.
>You think digital libraries are free?
No, just more efficient.
>And no, physical libraries are still better. A book is still better than any pdf.
I mean, they are both ways of recording information, and one manner doesn't require a massive room to be set aside and millions in maintenance.
>If there would be the consensus than most western democracies would be Capitalistic. [sic]
How come? Remember that politicians don't do things based on facts and logic. Otherwise, the handle on the Broad Street pump would never have been replaced. It is the same with politicians and Keynesians.
>Most countries are socialistic
And the ones that aren't include?
>But to go on your high horse and telling me how wonderful Capitalism would be if you are living in a Socialistic society and having all the benefits of Socialism is really just hypocritical.
I don't know about you, but I don't see any benefit to:
-Being prosecuted for defending my property
-Being prosecuted for being prepared to defend my property
-Being prosecuted for owning a plant
-Having money stolen off to pay for a useless healthcare system
-Having money stolen off me to pay for fire departments that go on strike all the time
-Having money stolen off me to pay for prosecuting people with different views to me
-Having money stolen off me to pay for drones strikes
-Etc.
Edit: Sure. But since all of the western countries are Socialistic then those are just the exception. The western countries have like 90% of all wealth of the world.
Are they successful because they are socialistic or is it something else? Textbook example of a Texan sharpshooter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@murataubakir8437 He in fact, suspended property rights.
Reichstag Fire Decree, from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice."
German Constitution from Wikisource: "Article 153.
Property shall be guaranteed by the constitution. Its nature and limits shall be prescribed by law.
Expropriation shall take place only for the general good and only on the basis of law. It shall be accompanied by payment of just compensation unless otherwise provided by national law. In case of dispute over the amount of compensation recourse to the ordinary courts shall be permitted, unless otherwise provided by national law. Expropriation by the Reich over against the states, municipalities, and associations serving the public welfare may take place only upon the payment of compensation.
Property imposes obligations. Its use by its owner shall at the same time serve the public good.
"
How could've Hitler put industry in the control of private hands when private control of property was suspended? It makes no sense.
1
-
@murataubakir8437 Continuing on, “In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government
prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the
private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.”
...was transferred to the private sector... mainly to organizations... within... the Nazi party.
Transferred to the ‘private’ sector, to the party. Transferred to the private state-party. Bel thinks that the Nazi Party - the State - was a private-sector organization? Are you for real? And this isn’t the only time Bel says this either.
“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...”
So Bel thinks the private sector also includes the Nazi party, which was a public organisation. Yeah, I don't think everything in this article can be taken at face value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1