Comments by "Aleksa Žunjić" (@aleksazunjic9672) on "STICK TO BANKS! (And did the National Socialist state raise living standards or benefit the poor?)" video.

TIK fails to acknowledge that NS system, although imperfect, was far better than liberal capitalism. It is far better to have coupons for bread, then to allow situation where tiny minority of uber-rich buys all food and then dictates food prices leading to mass starvation. It is also better to take larger part of the corporation profit to subside poor, then to have hunger and possibly rebellion and crime wave.
11
@kykloskatharevousa7147 Yes it is. It is far better to use coupons then to have mass starvation. While coupons are not ideal, they are only solution in case of shortages.
10
@kykloskatharevousa7147 Obviously you do not understand what leads to shortages. Read about artificial fertilizers and agricultural revolution after WW2 . Before WW2 food shortages were common across the world.
6
National Socialism is actually reaction to Capitalism failing.
5
CipiRipi00 Food price speculation is known from Biblical times. 7 fat and 7 lean cows. Those who control food control everything . People would sell anything for peace of bread, including their own bodies or even their children. Final goal is not profit, it's power ;)
4
Left and right are outdated terms. Originally, "left" were dose more liberal and pro-democracy. Right were those in favor of retaining monarchies and old social order. Now left signifies wookism, degeneracy and filth . Right is anyone opposed to them.
3
CipiRipi00 In modern times right or even extreme right is anyone who tries to be normal. This includes you, me and everyone else.
3
TIK fails to acknowledge that NS system, although imperfect, was far better than liberal capitalism. It is far better to have coupons for bread, then to allow situation where tiny minority of uber-rich buys all food and then dictates food prices leading to mass starvation. It is also better to take larger part of the corporation profit to subside poor, then to have hunger and possibly rebellion and crime wave.
2
@codyraugh6599 What is the point of your rant ? To prove that NS was bad ? I suppose we all know that :D But like it or not, their system with food coupons was far better then letting rich hoard food and use it as a weapon.
2
@codyraugh6599 Well, you hope in vain :) In reality those buying food would be in a cartel and would soon achieve monopoly on it. In practice, it is far better to have state apparatus that at least nominally has interest of citizens in its sights .
2
@unlearningcommunism4742 Starvation among the poor was common in capitalist countries. One example was Great Irish Famine. Other is Great Bengal Famine. Not to mention constant malnourishment among working class, which lead to arrested development. There is no doubt that coupon system is far better then this, with rich hoarding food and poor begging or selling themselves for scraps.
2
@TheImperatorKnight If there is not enough bread, you simply cannot earn it . One extreme example - people in Leningrad could not earn enough no matter how hard they worked. In that case it is better to have coupons created by somewhat honest state (like Third Reich) than to put your life and lives of your children into hands of uber-rich. What you fail to grasp is that Capitalism (like Socialism) has its good and bad sides. Neither is perfect.
2
@unlearningcommunism4742 I mentioned starvation in largest non-socialist country and cradle of capitalism . Not one but two ;) Of course there were starvations in all these countries before WW1 . In fact, starvation was constant part of life. And during the war this was amplified. Serbia lost 29% of its population during WW1, mostly due to starvation and disease. All this was way before socialism.
2
@sullivanmkii Money also does not have inhered value. It is also just a ticket for maybe buying something. Important distinction between coupons and money is that coupons are evenly distributed unlike money, so everyone has chance to eat, not just super-rich. Of course, black market is necessary evil in such system, but it is unavoidable in time of shortages.
2
@eliasthienpont6330 You could have all the money in the world, if there is no bread what are you going to do ? :) Coupons serve its purpose when there is limited amount of food, so it could be evenly distributed to everyone, hopefully avoiding worst starvation. Without coupons you would simply have uber-rich buying all the food.
2
@chuckysmaria6466 Well, no. Coupons do not solve the shortage, but they even out distribution. You already have certain amount of food, and economy could not change that. Only technology could increase amount of food production, or changing political situation and end of the blockade. What coupons do is simply not allow uber-rich to buy all the food while rest starve.
2
@chuckysmaria6466 You are babbling at infinitum :) National-Socialists did not have collective farms or backyard furnaces. Farming was mostly in private hands (small farms) . If going hungry is not incentive enough then I don't know what is :) Agricultural technology in 20th century was not developed by farmers, it was developed by scientists specializing in just that. And scientists even in socialist countries eventually developed technology like fertilizers and machinery to increase production beyond starvation levels. National-Socialists did not give land to those unable to farm, as far as I know even Marxists didn't do that. This only happened in Africa where authorities took land from Whites and gave it to the Blacks. Overall, your idea that "free market" would solve food shortages when you already have them is bogus.
2
CipiRipi00 "Moderate left" currently thinks it is ok to give puberty-blocking drugs to 8 year old kids, and later to do to them life-altering body mutilations. They also think it is inherently wrong for Whites to have higher IQ then Blacks, therefore "whiteness" should be eradicated. Or in other words, there is nothing moderate about current left. It is a bunch of psychopaths . It is very likely humanity would have to fight them in any way possible.
1
@soylentgreenb Wrong. Shortages simply depend on technology. If your technology is not developed enough you won't be able to produce enough food . Venezuela is under Western embargo, West has plundered its foreign currency and gold reserves , and they are not allowed to trade. Therefore they have shortages of certain goods they cannot produce domestically. Only way they could resolve shortages is subjugating to the West (or wait for China and Russia to become strong enough). Coupons are just means of distribution, nothing else.
1
@jluvs2ride Depends on circumstances. Giving freedom to uneducated, low IQ population usually ends in disaster.
1
@chuckysmaria6466 Completely wrong. Production of the producer relies on technology, not on "incentives" . Simple example : although the price of graphics cards has skyrocketed, neither you or I could produce them and make profit. Why ? Because we lack the technology . Same goes with food - before agricultural revolution food was scarce. As for Venezuela, when they could sell their oil, they did not have economic problems. Only when US implemented embargo and forced other countries to agree with that , situation in Venezuela became dire. As for food, who ever controls it has enormous power. As I said, food control is not about the profit, it is all about power.
1
@chuckysmaria6466 You are living in some la la land where people did not produce enough food because there was no incentive to do that . There was plenty of incentive, they were going hungry ! It is simple fact that pre-WW2 agriculture barely fed population during peacetime, and during war everything was disrupted , from workforce (at the front) to supply lines, not enough pack and plowing animals, disruption of transport etc ...Venezuela was under embargo in one form or another since they escaped from US overlords. Trump only strengthened that. This is usual US tactics, first weaken country with economic embargo, then fund "opposition" for violent change of regime.
1
@chuckysmaria6466 Well, wrong. First, we are talking about Third Reich, not communist countries. Second, even in communist countries farmers would produce as much as they could. To give some food to the state, for themselves , and to stash some for selling on (black) market. Starvation came when communists moved people from agriculture into useless industry like Mao's backyard furnaces . Great Depression has nothing to do with inability to produce enough food due to technology. There was no Great Depression in many countries, yet population there was always on brink of starvation. As for Venezuela, they were on receiving end of Western sanctions since they elected Hugo Chavez. If their economic model was so bad, West would not need to increasingly punish them and seize their property abroad. Simple fact is that West likes "free market" only when it suits them.
1
@nicholasconder4703 It is true they were preparing for war and latter had war, thus causing shortages. All I'm saying is that "free market" would not solve these shortages, and would in fact make them worse. Historically, optimal path for Germany would be to stop after they acquired Czechoslovakia and to wait a bit, meanwhile engaging in international trade.
1
@chuckysmaria6466 Third Reich was national-socialist country. Tiny difference to communist (i.e. international socialist) countries you mentioned :) As for starvation in China and USSR, farmers there were trying to produce as much food as they could, precisely for that reason. Only problem - they could not. Due to various reasons, mostly because manpower mismanagement, but also because of poor technology. State did take as much food as it could from them (thus farmers also starving) but that actually motivated them to produce more . Great Depression with all currency manipulation and stock market crashing still did not reduce agricultural production. However, poor agricultural technology like one that created Dust Bowl in Southern Plains did . As for "sanctions against Hugo Chavez", I'm sure you could google or bing that for yourself.
1
@TouringWolf42 Not necessarily . As the saying goes, you could always pay half of the poor to kill the other half. If someone controls basic necessities, he could buy loyalty of others. In 1930s food situation was different because agricultural technology was not so advanced as today (although some people starve even today, and food quality is generally lower ) . Therefore, food shortages were quite common. It does not have anything to do with NS per se, because at that same time people where starving in USSR and even in USA . Simply, technology was at that level.
1
@2paulcoyle Food shortages were not growing, they were always there because Germany could not produce/trade enough food. This is one of the reasons why Germans elected Hitler. Simply, liberal capitalism failed Germans . So they attempted something new and radical.
1