Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History" video.

  1.  @bubson2981  Which dictionary says that lol
    10
  2.  @florintanase9348  Temporarily suspended... for 12 years. And a different article was "temporarily suspended" in order to allow for search warrants, if I recall correctly that article was Article 124.
    6
  3. Hitler actually used the word "gleichschaltung" meaning co-ordination and "zwangswirtschaft" meaning forced economy to describe what he was doing to industries, since the SA marched into the industries and took over the businesses from within. Slave labour has been used in every socialist state, and having the support of industrialists is in no way related to whether someone is a socialist or not. Guess who else was supported by an industrialist? Marx.
    5
  4.  @florintanase9348  I only ever said that it was suspended. And hey, if you want to claim that private property was not infringed, well all I can say is sit down and have a tea with Hugo Junkers and Frotz Thyssen.
    5
  5. "Many capitalists" not including Hugo Junkers or Fritz Thyssen.
    5
  6.  @phillipallred5172  puppeted by whom, exactly?
    4
  7.  @florintanase9348  Yes they did. They suspended Article 153, the article guaranteeing private property.
    4
  8.  @florintanase9348  oh no, they didn't buy it. They issued IOU's called MEFO bills to "pay" for armaments. This channel actually recently did a video on MEFO bills, I advise you check it out.
    4
  9.  @florintanase9348  Not saying it was the Reich taking over industry. Just saying that they were IOUs that the government would totally pay
    4
  10. No, you are describing Marxism.
    3
  11.  @f-35alightningii79  When you say "socialist" a more apt description would be "Marxist". Problem is, TIK never claims Hitler was a Marxist, except to hook the Nazis in. Edit: describing is probably the wrong word. I should have said "what you are really thinking of is Marxism."
    3
  12.  @flip526  The video is of TIK getting owned epic style, you will love it
    3
  13.  @rlkinnard  Watch and see. P.S., you only really need to watch from Section 5, the first bit is mainly a response to Marxists such as the Finnish Bolshevik, etc.
    2
  14. It is understandable that you are unconvinced. This video was directed at national socialists. Here is the extended cut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8
    2
  15. He put Marxists in concentration camps.
    2
  16. Because as we all know, no socialist would ever supress other variants of the movement. In fact, Stalin sent anyone who didn't read The Revolution Betrayed.
    2
  17.  @drewan6591  Will save those videos to watch later though.
    2
  18. This video was targeted at Nazis, so it is an effective strategy to make them think their ideology which is supposed to protect them from communism is in fact communism. (It clearly wasn't, and it doesn't seem the main criticism for this video comes from Nazis.)
    2
  19. I managed to. He spends like 48 pages on the importance of PE.
    2
  20. Outside his area of expertise, so the closest he could do is Battlestorm Sedan
    1
  21.  @triax7006  Because as we all know, no national socialist would ever fudge with the economy or make mountains out of molehills.
    1
  22.  @rlkinnard  Because as we all know, nothing they say could ever be wrong.
    1
  23.  @rlkinnard  Yes, TIK clearly disagrees with the Marxists, which is why the first part is a response to them. And TIK does have references in the reference bar at the bottom of the video in every part.
    1
  24.  @rlkinnard  Well, if they have enough good sources, and if they can construct an argument from it that can prove that Hitler was not a socialist, then yes.
    1
  25.  @rlkinnard  Well that's good news for him, since the video he advised you to watch has 107 sources.
    1
  26.  @rlkinnard  Will read. I think Rainer Zitelmann also agrees with TIK.
    1
  27.  @rlkinnard  Makes sense. As he said in Mein Kampf "For a fight it will have to be, since we will not firstly build up the idea of a People's State, but we will wipe out the Jewish State now in existence." Or soemthing like that.
    1
  28. If W wasn't X, then Y wasn't Z.
    1
  29. He also killed himself. By your logic, Hitler isn't Hitler.
    1
  30.  @markymarco2570  Look, if "Hitler killed socialists, therefore, he wasn't a socialist" is solid reasoning then "Hitler killed Hitler, therefore, he wasn't Hitler" is also solid reasoning.
    1
  31.  @markymarco2570  No, he killed socialists because they were MARXISTS specifically.
    1
  32.  @markymarco2570  Also makes TIK's point valis, since he says that Nazism is not Marxism.
    1
  33. If he was a Jew, I was born in Peebles.
    1
  34.  @drewan6591  How does a socialist plan to seize control of the economy other than by force? You do bring up Rojava as an example, but her "People's Protection Units" have been involved in numerous instances of displacement of families and levelling villages.
    1
  35.  @drewan6591  Just because it is done "democratically" doesn't mean it isn't done through force. Can you give examples of such rebellions? And also, where do you think the socialist government gets the time and labour and/or money to help the workers turn it into a co-op?
    1
  36.  @drewan6591  So how does the act get enforced?
    1
  37.  @drewan6591  Are you using capitalism as a synonym for economic liberalism?
    1
  38.  @drewan6591  The 13th Amendment is justified since it prohibits the pretended property rights over another human and is therefore defense of others.
    1
  39.  @drewan6591  Why would I spend 2 hours watching someone explain socialism when I could go to the "S" section of the Oxford English Dictionary and understand it in a few seconds?
    1
  40.  @drewan6591  How does forcibly tuning businesses into co-ops defend property rights at all? I am aware that the idea behind it is that the "wage slave" gets to keep the "full value of their labour" but how to you objectively ascribe value to goods and services by any metric? Furthermore, can you clarify what you mean when you say "wage slavery"? I was under the impression that since slaves were property, the owner was under no obligation to pay the slave wages.
    1
  41.  @drewan6591  Part of liberalism is the promotion of free enterprise. Hence, economic liberalism.
    1
  42.  @drewan6591  I am aware, but those people do not understand property rights. Property rights come from the fact that we own ourselves, and if we mix the labour of our body with something of the earth, it becomes our property. Hence, ownership over another person is pretended ownership. I hope with that I demonstrated how owning other people and owning a company are two entirely separate things and in fact, companies do not violate the right to property, as they tend to be engaged in business activities, with people voluntarily trading their labour for a pay check in order to produce goods that come from the earth, and services, which are voluntarily agreed upon for a pay check. And the good news is, is if that co-operatives are more efficient than traditional privately owned companies or shareholder held corporations (which aren't efficient at all, they need the state to survive), then they will displace those kinds of business without the need for government intervention.
    1
  43.  @drewan6591  The first liberals believed that God gave them natural rights to secure their wellbeing, those rights being life, liberty and estate, and that governments became illegitimate when they excessively violated those rights. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is a continuation of liberalism.
    1
  44.  @drewan6591  How is capitalism a hierarchy? Capitalism is based on self ownership, which is inherent in everyone.
    1
  45.  @drewan6591  But didn't spmeone agree to exchange their labour for a paycheck, thus not making theft? Furthermore, how are job offers coercive? Are you saying work is coercive (in which case nature itself is coercive)?
    1
  46.  @drewan6591  I think here you are describing oligarchy, not capitalism. Some people do become more well off than others, however that still doesn't make self-ownership redundant. Edit: They are in fact, very fluid. Hardly anyone stays in the top 1% or 10% for very long and it is this class which creates wealth which brings the lower class' living standards up.
    1
  47.  @drewan6591  I'd thought I'd mention ancaps believe that slavery is a violation of the NAP and Scandinavia doesn't have any minimum wage and they seem to be doing fine.
    1
  48.  @drewan6591  Well, the majority of people. Capitalists also have to keep in mind the fact that their employees will organise, and people do not purchase from companies that conflict with their interests, hence why Johnson and Johnson pulled all Tylenol bottles from store shelves. And once again, if capitalism is based on property rights, property rights come from the fact that we own ourselves, and if we mix the labour of our body with something of the earth, it becomes our property. Hence, ownership over another person is pretended ownership.
    1
  49.  @drewan6591  Yes, precisely. People don't reward companies for conflicting with their interests. And how is children starving profitable at all? Children who are well fed are strong, and strong children can work better.
    1
  50.  @drewan6591  The fruits of my labour are perfectly fine. I agreed that the fruit of my labour was a pay check and nothing else.
    1
  51.  @drewan6591  They did. In fact, there is no guarantee of them getting an initial profits since they have to get a loan to pay me, so I can be secure in my knowledge that I will in fact get paid.
    1
  52. ​ @drewan6591  If I have a day job manufacturing chairs, and then I go home and make some kinetic energy penetrators, then my boss doesn't own my kinetic energy penetrators. Perhaps I am just logic chopping here though. The main difference is under capitalism is that I am not owned by my boss and I am therefore not a slave. I realise it makes me even less of a slave because if I provide my services, then he is under obligation to compensate me on a price we agreed to.
    1
  53.  @drewan6591  I agreed that he would pay me a wage in exchange for me making chairs. All I should expect that he will give me a pay check. I am struggling to see the exploitation.
    1
  54.  @drewan6591  They contributed by accepting total responsibility if the company failed, not to mention the hours spent on Microsoft Excel.
    1
  55.  @drewan6591  They only want money? Truely sadder than the holly cost
    1
  56.  @drewan6591  Well, you are in luck! I agreed to trade my labour for a pay check, because I valued a pay check more than my labour. It's almost as if value isn't objective.
    1
  57.  @drewan6591  And thus, it isn't subject to "socially necessary labour time".
    1
  58.  @chrisschultz8598  Maybe because socialism has nothing to do with the workers?
    1
  59.  @f-35alightningii79  Hold on, are we speaking about Nazism here or Fascism?
    1
  60. It wasn't a company, it was Hitler's nationalised trade union.
    1
  61.  @dergutehut3961  had to put my response in a pastebin: JnxAE3zZ
    1
  62.  @dergutehut3961  You don't have to sign up. I tried to post it, like 40 times, but YouTUbe kept deleting it.
    1
  63.  fastrally ☭  yes. Nazis were socialists, not communists.
    1
  64.  fastrally ☭  Only Leninists use that definition.
    1
  65. Hitler in Mein Kampf did say that he planned to destroy the Soviet Union before implementing full socialism, so that might explain why it wasn't fully socialist.
    1
  66.  @drewan6591  The state, a political community?
    1
  67. Guywhodoesn'tknowwhorainerzitelmannorgoetzalyortheoxfordenglishdictionaryissaywhat
    1
  68. Just imagine a cross, though, and you will see what he means. Oliver! Oliver! Never before has a dwarf asked to be unsexed!
    1