Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DaHuntsman1 No, Socialism is not "when the government does stuff." It is when the means of production and distribution of goods are in the hands of the state, which is what TIK said.
You are correct on what you said up until you got to the point on corporations in NSDAP Germany. The situation was anything but "hands off," as the NSDAP essentially controlled the industry. There only real difference between the Soviet and NSDAP economies was that the NSDAP had the guise of a free economy by letting companies appear to be operating on their own, while the state was the one making all of their key decisions behind closed doors.
And Communists don't necessary "destroy" corporations, they assume control of it, just as the NSDAP did. Only in their case, they officially fold it into a state-operated ministry and staff it with state employees. The NSDAP simply told the corporations, behind closed doors, to do what they say "or else." Those that refused were arrested and replaced with NSDAP members and those that obliged were allowed to live and stay on as mostly figureheads within the company with little actual decision-making authority, The only real exceptions to this were "business owners" who rubbed shoulders with the NSDAP to such a close extend that you can't really say they were private business owners anymore, but state officials, like Alfried Krupp.
2
-
@DaHuntsman1 "Some level of direction." The state was explicitly telling the industries what to do under threat and carried out those threats without delay if the industries did not deliver. That isn't influence, it's straight-up control. You are consistently downplaying the role the state played in the economy.
No, the corporations did not "bankroll" The NSDAP early on, that's another myth perpetuated by Socialists in an attempt to distance themselves from National Socialism. In reality, the NSDAP, which existed since 1920, didn't begin to try to garner support from businessmen until 1931 or 32. Hitler started paying lip service to them in order to get their support. Once he actually obtained power, he fulfilled exactly 0 of the promises he made to them and essentially held their companies hostage instead, turning them into instruments of the state. Hitler backstabbed and betrayed the industrialists just as he had done to many others on his way to the top, yet modern Socialists like to selectively take Hitler on his word when they talk about his promises to the industrialists, when they don't take him on his word with pretty much everything else.
The suppression of the trade unions thing is also inaccurate. In actuality, the NSDAP didn't abolish trade unions, they nationalized them all into one state-controlled labor union, the German Labor Front (DAF). This was functionally the same as what most other Socialist nations did, they all abolished non-state unions in favor of state-ran ones. TIK talks about this topic extensively in a another video titled "But Hitler Crushed the Trae Unions!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXIoVEKIpMg
Contrary to what you might think, slave labor does not necessarily benefit a company, as the productivity of slaves is far below that of a paid worker. Historically, this is the reason why forms of slave labor fell out of favor in many places of the world, it became more efficient to incentivize people to work. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Germans themselves calculated that the average slave laborer was about 1/10 as productive as the average paid German worker, so not having to pay the slaves is not going to offset the loss in productivity. Besides, it was the NSDAP that enacted the policies of employing slave labor anyway.
What you're describing is really not that much of a fundamental difference in attitude. If the Communists already run the industry, they are already supporting their own aims. Under the NSDAP, the industries had no agency to support anything other than the state's aims. The interests of the people in the companies is totally irrelevant to what the company actually does, and in cases where the company does refuse state demands, the state simply arrests them and replaces them with party yes-men, ensuring that the aims of the state are still met. There's no practical difference between the two scenarios, only that the NSDAP wanted to keep the guise of a a free market. And they must've done a good job because they're still fooling Socialists to this day. Either that, or modern Socialists simply refuse to believe it.
The "NSDAP Privatization" myth is another theory that just won't die in spite of all the evidence against it. Privatization is when something that was government ran is handed over to private ownership. There are exactly 0 cases of the NSDAP actually doing that. All supposed cases of "privatization" to be found in Germany at this time involve the state retaining control of the actual operations of the business. They essentially conned people into "buying" companies with the caveat that despite "buying" the companies, they would have no control over it and must allow the state to make all the business decisions, just like every other industry. TIK talks about this is yet another video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKIYuOxxZWs
Remember, that a lot of historians in the immediate aftermath of WWII were leftists who had a vested interest in distancing National Socialism from Socialism as much as they can. I would recommend "The Vampire Economy" by Gunter Reimann, it actually takes a look into how exactly business was conducted in NSDAP Germany.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lucasartore161a From my point-of-view, the Left-Right spectrum is obsolete when discussing modern politics. It is 230 years old, having been developed during the French Revolution when the only two ideologies on the table were Monarchism and Republicanism. Since then, numerous other ideologies have emerged and there really is no defining characteristic that separates the "Right" from the "Left," you will find elements of just about everything in each side somewhere.
For example, in terms of political and economic policies, National Socialism objectively has more in common (not to say the same thing, just more in common) with Marxism (a Left-wing ideology) than it does with Right-Libertarianism or Paleoconservatism (both Right-wing ideologies).
As for privatization, if we are to accept the meaning of privatization to be when the state hands over something to private entities that up to that point had been under state control, then there was no privatization in NSDAP Germany. At no point did the state hand over control to private entities, the state always retained control. As with many other policies, they said they'd do one thing, but did something completely different behind the scenes. People already know the National Socialists lied a lot during their reign. However, when they said they'd privatize, then we take them on their word for some reason. Why is that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2