Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@slaterslater5944 You're either blind or don't understand the English language very well.
What do you think "etc." means?
I'll save you the trouble, it's short for "et cetera," which is Latin for "and the rest." It's used to indicate that the list of examples provided is not exhaustive. By placing it at the end of a short list of examples, it indicates that there can be many other things that can also apply. Therefore, nationalization is not exclusive to land, resources, and industry under that definition.
Yes, anything under private control can be nationalized, because anything under private control can theoretically be seized by the state. Read up on the dictatorships of the 20th century for more information, they seized nearly everything of note, like the unions for example . . . all Socialist countries, whether they be National Socialist, Communist, or any other form of Socialism, have seized control of private unions and placed them under the authority of the state, nationalizing them.
As we've discussed, the Germans did this by folding them into the German Labour Front, the national labor union.
2
-
@slaterslater5944 Yes Sally, anything under private control can be nationalized because anything under private control can be seized by an authoritarian state. The Soviets and National Socialists have showed that states can seize pretty much any kind of organization they want. They not only seized control of land and businesses, but also unions, not-for-profits, and even charitable organizations. What do you think it is called when a state seizes control of a private entity that isn't a business or land, since you reject the definition of nationalization?
And I suggest re-reading the various definitions we went through, you're only picking the ones you like and ignore the rest. They make it clear that nationalization is not exclusive to businesses, industry, and land.
If a union isn't controlled by the state, then it's private, Sally. What do you think public and private mean? Corporations aren't controlled by the state and they are "private," despite not having a single individual owner. Something that is private can be made public through seizure by the state, this called nationalization, Sally.
And yes, I would argue unions are an industry in their own right. Their leaders make profit through union dues, they frequently donate and lobby for political causes like some corporations do, and union organizers can make a full-time career out of being a union organizer.
As we know, pretty much all forms of Socialism tried out on a national scale have seized control of private labor unions and made them public, this is nationalization. The Germans did this by folding them all into the German Labour Front, which was controlled by the state.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You must understand that most post-war accounts of the war written by German generals are inaccurate. After the war, many of them were trying to do multiple things: they were trying to make themselves appear better and distance themselves from any possible war crimes they may have been involved in. Most importantly, they were writing about excuses for their failures during the war because many of them were bucking for advisory positions in NATO following the war since they were out of work. Guderian was no exception.
Just one specific example of this is how many of these German generals wrote about the superiority of the Soviet T-34 tank and on how they struggled to counter it when it entered the battlefield. The truth was the the T-34 was plagued by production issues, making it a pretty bad tank, probably the most overhyped tank of the war, and the Germans easily destroyed thousands of them within the first months of Operation Barbarossa utilizing so called inferior tanks like the Panzer III and IV. The Germans lost the war in the East largely because of logistical issues and the failure of the German generals to solve these issues and adapt their tactics. This is the reason why many of them wrote what they did after the war.
And if you bothered to watch TIK's video, he explained the economic situation of Germany quite clearly. The "Night of the Long Knives" was not a purge of Socialists considering many Conservatives and pro-Capitalists were killed on that night as well and there were a lot more Socialists in the party than the ones that were killed.
And the industry leaders and Germany did not just go along with everything and become party members, many of them were forced to. The National Socialists basically told all large company owners to do what they say, or else. Those that refused, like aircraft builder Hugo Junkers, were arrested and forcibly removed from the company and replaced by party officials. Those that complied were required to become party members if they weren't already and the state had to approve every major decision. Some of these business owners likened it to being held hostage. This is state control of the economy, and the party controlled the means of production. You're only giving a surface-level analysis of the situation, you're not looking at everything underneath.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I highly doubt the Commonwealth could be considered "AnCap."
Firstly, it existed at a time when Capitalism really didn't exist on scales larger than business in small villages, at a time when Europe was dominated by Mercantilism.
Secondly, it was a nobles' republic. They owned the estates, the peasants worked for them, and they controlled the state (yes, the Commonwealth was a state), and as such held power over over sectors of society.
In fact, the way the Commonwealth functioned really wasn't all that different from how most of Europe functioned during the High Middle Ages, where the nobility held a lot of power. Poland retained that balance of power while the rest of Europe moved into the age of the absolute monarch, which allowed for a central central entity (basically one person) to dictate pretty much whatever they wanted, allowing for massive armies to be formed and paid for.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2