Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "RE: NS is Socialism | Responding to your counterarguments and Further Explanation" video.
-
@tasfa10 "Your response reeks of not having read even wikipedia's page on Socialism," - The definition is right in front of you. If u have something to add from a source, be my guest.
"for God's sake. Unions have nothing to do with socialism??" - No, because again unions are tied to worker and class theory which are Marxist concepts.
"Expropriating people on the basis of their race is socialism??" - Yes, its doing the same actions for the same goal, only on racial theory instead of class theory. Hitler believed Race was the core of the issue while Marx subscribed to class.
"Workers have nothing to do with socialism"??" - Nope.
"Pre-Marxist socialism doesn't even mention workers"???" - No, feel free to show otherwise.
"Holy shit!! You seem to be squinting really really hard so that everything is such a blur that you can't, first of all, read anything at all and so that the single fact that both Nazis and the USSR had the state control things makes them politically equal." - Elaborate?
Also socialism is clearly defined as state or community controlled. The more the state has control over the economy, the more socialist it is.
"You seem to think socialism means the state has control of some things and some people get expropriated." - Some things? Wage control, price controls, resource control, price commissars, worker battalions, state land reform, qoutas, autarchy, and stealing from the Jews I would hardly consider some.
"Yes, if you squint like that, then I guess socialists and nazis look the same to you. Socialism means common ownership of the means of production and no, that is nothing exclusive to Marx, and whatever variations there are within socialism have nothing to do with that definition but rather with methodology and organization, such as how it's achieved." - Which Hitler was already aiming for through elimination of private property rights and state control over the market.
"For example, the state's control over the economy, which you seem to think to be the end goal of communism, is in fact but a tool for common ownership, but not at all essencial to communism." - This is not discussing the communist pipe dream. Socialism and Communism are of 2 complete different stages.
"Anarcho-communists, for example, defend both common ownership and state abolition. The state isn't even essential for communism." - Um yes it is, otherwise how else do u expect communal or collective ownership to be enforced? You really want to delude yourself into thinking everyone would just do it willingly?
"At the same time, the state can control the economy without being accountable to the people and therefore still being nothing like socialism." - A lack of Accountability by the state is the inevitable end point of socialism. Hence why it mentions state or community. Because if the state is appointed by the community then its support later on, especially in practice does not matter.
"Especially when your state control of the economy really means privatization with state meddling." - Again, Tik already covers the privitation myth. As for state meddling, the degree of it determines how socialist it is. the more control the state has, the more socialist it is.
"So no, the state having a strong grip is not what socialism means" - Read definitions bud. Saying an apple is not a fruit does not mean it isn't a fruit.
"and in Nazi Germany there was nothing like common ownership, even if there was state ownership it wouldn't necessarily make it common ownership," - It does not need common, its collective ownership. Communal ownership and state ownership literally share meaning since the state is the body of the political community.
"and they were actually doing the opposite with the privatizations." - They took away businesses from those who disobeyed and reprivatized them to those loyal to the party and state. The state does not need to nationalize the means of production if its already working for them.
"There was NOTHING socialist about Nazi Germany. And my point stands: even if you want to claim such a stupid thing as "there's no single definition, therefore anything that calls itself socialist counts", - I never said there was never a single definition. The definition is quite clear and displayed.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
"to the point that those two "socialisms" are in stark opposition other than the superficial appearance of some state control and expropriations, they belong far apart in the political spectrum." - Ok, did u forget that opposition does not automatically equal each other? Does a bear stop being a bear because it had to fight another bear for food? Does an American stop being an American within the civil war because they had to fight amongst themselves? This is something called out, the war in the east could be viewed as a socialist civil war to see which would dominate the 20th century.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
"Ridiculous. You can't possibly look at actual nazi policies in practice, regardless of what their propaganda says, and conclude they were socialist." - Yes u actually can.
"They were big on privatization," - he already countered and debunked this. They reprivatized industries they already expropriated and made sure economic groups that did not have as much threat or regulation were members of the party and by extension, the state.
"they banned trade unions," - They nationalized trade unions under the German Labor Front. Also trade unions have nothing to do with socialism.
"arrested their leaders and robbed their money" - Thats what dealing with opposition looks like in a totalitarian state, Soviets did the same.
"and they were funded and backed by the biggest capitalists and industrialists." - Because it offered them protection from the Marxists who were working to dismantle them completely. If I am forced to pick between choosing one evil who will control me but also protect me, vs one that is completely working to take away everything and have me murdered, which one do u think most would choose?
"It doesn't matter what their books said," - It actually does, because that highlights the ideology and their goals. Trying to dismiss that is ignoring the whys of their actions.
"it matters what they did, and what they did was nothing like socialism." - It actually was when they took control of the economy and redistributed Jewish wealth. What ur actually saying is it was nothing like Marxism. Which it isn't. However Marxism is not socialism, it is only a variant of socialism.
"Yes, of course they would say they're for the workers, what else would they say??" - Workers have nothing to do with socialism, once again your subscribing to Marxist theory.
"How else can you gain popular traction?? Certainly not by saying you don't care about workers, you want a highly hierarchical society and your whole thing is just an excuse to try and obliterate other races." - U mean the same way Marxists were forming a hierarchy and used it as an excuse to eliminate the other classes? Can't have ur cake and eat it too.
"Hitler certainly got a lot of support from the population by larping as a socialist but he never did any socialism at all and never put the power in the hands of the workers. Worker owned means of production? No. Democracy in the workplace? No. Abolishing wage labour? No. No no no, nothing. And you can say that's a Marxist type of socialism but there's no one single definition of socialism." - Ur right, there isn't. There are variants, but all are based within the same root. State or community control of the means of production, distribution, and trade. But that does not invalidate Hitler and Nazis as a socialists. It actually furthers my argument.
"You can say Hitler's socialism actually means "state intervention in private business". And to that I say:
- No, workers controlling the means of production is not exclusive to Marxism and is the basic premisse of all Socialism." - Except it isn't. Pre Marx socialism does not even mention the workers bud. For example Utopian and Pre Marx socialism does not even mention the workers.
"Socialism through privatization makes as much sense as "free market through planned economy". - They were re-privatized and given to those loyal to the party and state. Again, why dismantle something already working for u?
- If Hitler's socialism isn't Marx's socialism, then whose socialism is it??" - No one's, its another variant. Just like Marx rejected Pre Marx and Utopian Socialism, Hitler rejected Marxism.
"Who's the philosopher whose ideas Hitler based his "socialism" on? Oh, they were just his own ideas??" - He didn't base it on one, he made a response to what he perceived as a failed socialist concept.
"He just came up with it and so from now on everyone has to agree that's socialism because he said so??" - If it aligns with the definition and his ideology and system matched it then yes.
"Interesting. I now declare Socialism means taking a shit and so each one of you who takes a shit is a socialist." - Nice attempt at a strawman. Clearly u cannot correlate definitions to save ur life.
"There's no one true definition of socialism, so it's totally up for grabs and anyone can just say it means whatever they want it to mean after all." - The one definition is Community and State control over the means of production, distribution, and trade. There is such a things as variants. Maybe u should remember that in english.
"- The Nazis were actually keen on Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism. Which, to quote him, involved: "carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and (...) playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords (...) Socialization means the slow transformation—taking centuries to complete—of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official". So, again, nothing to do with and actually opposed to socialism as we conceive of it." - U conceive it as Marxism. His socialization of the people came much faster than Prussian version as private property rights in the Weimar Constitution were already suspended. He already redistributed wealth, he already used the state to control the economy. The only reason he did not do it 100% is because he did not yet achieve the expansion of the east which Hitler dealt was needed to complete National Socialism.
"- Even if you insist on Hitler's right to define Nazism as socialist and Spengler's right to call his Prussian Socialism socialist, they mean something completely opposed to what Marxist socialism means." - A Confederate soldier was opposed to a Union soldier. Did that mean both were no longer American?
"You can't play the "there's no one single definition of socialism, therefore everyone can just call anything socialism" card and at the same time argue that the Nazis were pretty much the same as the Marxists because they were all "socialists"." - They had many similarities through committing much of the same actions.
"Hitler's "socialism" had NOTHING to do with Marxist socialism, nothing to do with the USSR," - Even though both stole wealth from a group and had the state take control over the economy for the supposive benefit of the people.
"even if you want to consider it a brand of socialism, and so any attempt to characterize them as being basically the same, as you do in the video, is stupid beyond belief." - It is not stupid if it is factually true. Facts do not care about feelings. No one is saying it is Marxism. Its comparable to Marxism because of the same root. But National Socialism was meant to address what Hitler perceived as the biggest problems of Marxist Socialism.
"Why say "there's no single definition of socialism" if your argument is that actually their "socialism" was pretty much the same except for race?? Why defend there can be totally opposing socialisms, one that means "workers' control of the means of production, abolishment of private property and equality among all" and one that means "private businesses and privatization with state meddling and race war" and at the same time argue that they should be put right next to each other on the political spectrum because they're basically the same??? Pick one lane. And then be ridiculed for it." - Because both ensured a complete control over the economy. Yes while the Nazis are more economically right than the Soviets they were still socialist and leftist economically and the only reason the gap was not closer is the Nazis never had the chance to fully implement their version. You can have different ideals but still be rooted in the same system. You can differ in ideologies but still be placed in a similar line on a spectrum.
"Also, for some reason, you keep saying in the comments that your interpretation of this issue is the only one that explains the persecution of Jews because in a capitalist society it wouldn't happen. Then why the fuck did you make the distinction between the economic axis and the authoritarianism axis in the video?? You keep contradiction yourself. Yes, a society can be capitalism and still be ultra authoritarian!" - It can but realistically won't.. Especially within a closer to modern age. As nowadays states have more reach than back in the day.
1
-
@tasfa10 "As I said, I think you could benefit even from just reading wikipedia's page on Socialism. Start with the first paragraph. "Socialism is (...) characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises. (...) Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favoring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change." Just that alone should clear up a lot of your distorted ideas." - Except it doesn't because there is a clear hole in the logic, if it calls for democratic control, then by that logic, Lenin and Stalin would not be socialists either. All socialist nations lead to the same thing, complete totalitarian control over the economy and society.
Dictionary.com defines it in a more grounded and base term: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government." - Problem with ur line of thinking is that it requires democracy to obtain collective ownership. It does not.
"If you want to do serious reading, Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill, Proudhon, among many others were early socialists who advocated for worker's control of the means of production and worker unions, before Marx wrote about it." - True, but not every socialist did. For instance, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus did not, diggers movement did not, Blanqui did not even going as far to reject Marx concept ("As a socialist, Blanqui favored what he described as a just redistribution of wealth. However, Blanquism is distinguished in various ways from other socialist currents of the day. On one side, contrary to Karl Marx, Blanqui did not believe in the preponderant role of the working class,")
"Proudhon advocated for a form of socialism with the simultaneous abolition of the state, which is not necessary for or a characteristic of socialism." - Except it is, a state is defined as a political community making up a territory or nation. Without a state, what enforces collective ownership?
"I say read anything any socialist ever wrote really. You will find that yes, workers have everything to do with socialism to begin with. You can go on from there." - except they don't. I already highlighted socialists that did not subscribe to workers theory. While workers can correlate with socialism, they are not inherent to it. Even Utopian Socialists did not involve workers.
1
-
@tasfa10 "Marx observed internal contradictions of capitalism and, among many other things, advocated for a shift in power, letting those who produce own the product of their labour and the means to produce it. This has nothing to do with racial extermination." - I never said it did, again all you are saying is Hitler was not a Marxist.
"Not everything that identifies an "enemy" is socialism! Marx never advocated for the extermination of anyone but rather for who should own what." - And how did they expect to take said ownership away from those that already owned it? Maybe through violent revolt and class cleansing?
"It has NOTHING to do with nazism, NOTHING to do with the persecution of Jews, NOTHING to do with the imperialistic aspirations of Hitler who wanted to conquer land from other peoples that were not Jewish and, along with the Jews, exterminate other racial minorities, disabled people, homosexuals and, guess what, socialists. Nazism is not class struggle, it doesn't put power in the hand of the workers, it is not socialism." - Again all you are saying is that it is not Marxism. Marx is the one that advocating a class struggle, Hitler believed it was a racial struggle. Also do u forget that every socialist society has persecuted racial minorities, committed genocide, and done imperialistic aspirations? So tell me, by that logic, was Stalin and Lenin not socialist either?
1
-
@tasfa10 "You are saying Hitler is basically a Marxist only replacing bourgeoisie with Jews, and I'm explaining why that's absurd." - Except again, I never claimed Hitler was a Marxist. In fact I said the opposite admitting that Hitler was not a Marxist but still a socialist.
"The differences are plenty and fundamental, not only between Marx and Hitler, but between all different socialisms and nazism. Class struggle is a defining theme of socialism, even if not every theorist used the exact same jargon Marx used." - Except it is not, once again. The point of socialism at its most basic level is communal, state, and collective control of the means of production, distribution, and trade for the "benefit" of society.
"Defending the poor and workers from exploitation by the owner class and pushing for workers to organize and take control of the means of production is, by definition, class struggle wether they used the exact term or not." - Except as mentioned before, many did not mention workers. Now, most did admit to private owners giving up their ownership and means of production but most pre dating Marx called on that for the entire society, not for the workers. In that case, Hitler did not deviate from that since his policies were under the belief it would make a better society in Germany.
"Race war is not class struggle and you can't just go around replacing class with something else and still call it socialism." - Again, think about it. Marx based his socialism on class theory believing class was what was causing the warfare of society, Hitler believed race was the core of that belief. Hitler viewed the Jews doing the same thing Marx viewed the Bourgeoisie. Exploiting the German race for their personal benefit.
"Football isn't socialism, only replacing "class" with "team" just because you can define it as a "team struggle", the same way nazism isn't socialism only replacing "class" with "race". That's ridiculous." - except it is not when the rest of the definition aligns. It does not matter if your stealing wealth from a Jew or Bourgeoisie your still stealing wealth, it does not matter if the benefit is for the class or the race, you are still trying to benefit the collective. Again Hitler's differences from Marxism was based on a different theory of what was causing societal divide.
"The same way, the fact that violence was sometimes employed in the effort to shift power to the workers doesn't mean everything that employs violence is socialism." - I never even said it did.
"Boxing isn't socialism just because it employs violence, the same way nazism isn't socialism just because it employs violence." - But it is when it employs violence for the exact same reason. Or nearly the same reason. Again replace class with race and proletariat with the German Race/people and you get the same definition.
"Nazism has nothing to do with Marx or with ANY socialism!" - It has nothing to do with Marx within being the same ideology because Hitler openly rejected Marx, the same way Marx rejected socialists that came before him.
"Every socialist society had imperialistic aspirations?? You mean every socialist society was victim of imperialism by capitalist countries??" - Really? What did you call the Soviet failed invasion in the 20s? The splitting of Poland with Germany in the 30s? The occupation of Eastern Europe against their will? North Korea's invasion of South Korea?
"Tell me, what imperialist aspirations did Cuba have?" - they collaborated with the Soviets to put a nuclear arsenal in USA range. (In fairness Turkey did the same in collaboration with USA but still,)
"What about Vietnam??" - So South Vietnam just magically disappeared?
"Laos??" - Collaborated with North Vietnam.
"Burkina Faso under Sankara??" - You mean that rose to power through a cue?
"The USSR under Lenin and Stalin was towards a form of socialism but of course it wasn't fully realized." - Really, how long did you expect the Soviet system to be fully realized when it lived for almost 70 years?
"There was wage labour still, for example. But the idea we have that Stalin was an absolutist autocrat or a totalitarian is distorted. There are documents by non other than the CIA stating exactly, and I'm quoting: "Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated." - I will agree some of the aspects were exaggerated, but to act like Stalin did not try to base complete control is haphazard at best and delusional at worst. The Great Purge speaks for itself. As did the 5 million Ukrainians starved under the Soviet system.
"Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin (...) was merely the captain of a team (...)." - Ok then, by that logic, so was Hitler. Hitler may had led the party and the state but he was not a one man authority ordering everything. There was an entire administration in support of him including those in the Reichstag. No one is saying Stalin alone is responsible for everything. But Stalin's system was totalitarian under the state, that has been proven even by post Stalin Soviet accounts.
"It will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along he lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream-line their power organization." It's important to remember Russia had to face a violent revolution, the WWII where it was the most affected by far, the cold war, horrible economic strangling by the west, espionage and attempts to destroy it from the inside, etc etc etc. Never ending struggles of a magnitude no other country ever saw. So there was a bit of an iron fist and you can understand why given the historical context. Imperialism does it intentionally. Remember " - First off, name the source please. Secondly, you can try to justify his total control all you want, that doesn't mean he did not have pretty much total control.
"unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream-line their power structure". They do it all the time. I'm not very interested in defending the soviet union and how socialist was this or that socialist experiment tho. I'm simply explaining why nazism in particular wasn't a socialist experiment despite what the name of the party said and despite all the playing with words replacing class with jews or whatever stupid acrobatics and I'm explaining why the nazis and the soviets don't belong near each other on the political spectrum even if you're stubborn enough to insist they were both a form of socialism." - Which I am not arguing National Socialism is the same as Marxism, yes some of the actions are comparable, but no where did I say they were the exact same ideology. The same way social democrats aren't the same as Marxists, the same way Marxists were not the same as Utopian Socialists. But all are branches of the same concept.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1