Comments by "" (@soulcapitalist6204) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @thenarkknight278  There are none to claim 3rd Reich was not socialist political economy by 1935. By that time, at Hitler's order, German government had taken full control and ownership of the German means of production, means of exchange and means of distribution.
    14
  2.  @petermelang6695  Socialism isn't the elimination of factory owners, guy. Socialism is the collectivization of labor and the means of production in the economy. This is why the socialist political economy of Russia in the decade prior to 3rd reich featured factory owners and kulaks. In 1933, 3rd reich implemented Russias New Economic Plan which structural marxists or structural socialits also base their philosophy on. It affects collective (government) control of labor with labor front and of commodities with a state owned cartel dictating allocation. The allocation of labor and of commodities is the means of production, not factory ownership, per sae.
    11
  3.  @directAction3389  Socialism is a form of fascism then. All socialist philosophers justified socialism - control of the means - on the basis of specifically antisemetic racism until Marx changed his tune from his zur Judenfrage by publishing Manifesto without racial basis. All of his anarchist and socialist colleagues were antisemitic national socialists before, during and after his career.
    11
  4. I suggest Georges Sorel was this most profound influence on Italian fascism, but I have not read D'Annuzio directly, to be honest.
    9
  5. The privatization claim is from Germa Bel, a professor and pundit. It is a semantic equivocation of "reprivatisierung" which was quoted from Economist. Reprivatisierung referred to the return of PRIVATE STOCK - a German private DEBT instrument - and not common stock. It was the end of the German bailout of banks of 1932/3.
    9
  6.  @NullParadigm  Cuban communism was started in a putsch like the soviets. This makes it hard to say that any populace approved of what was put in place. Actually, we see counter rebellion in both nations because the communism was hated.
    9
  7. ​ @eldenfindley186  Hitler used the ideology of socialism, that the state should function as a collective and that the state should own and control the economy to benefit the collective.
    9
  8.  @AceFromGorillaz  That's not a definition, guy. Socialism is a philosophy advocating collective ownership of the means of production in an economy. Explanation and definition are different. Only definition encompasses a word whereas your explanation selectively curates claves of socialist philosophy - mainly marx talk - and explains about them.
    8
  9.  @thenarkknight278  Of course it is an ideology. The state does stuff is socialism when the state does stuff to own and control the means of production in the economy in pursuit of collective social justice. You are mistaken about 3rd Reich motivation. Racial social justice in the economy preceded war economy (which was 4-year-plan of 1937). It was the reason for war and war economy and not the other way areound when analyzed through a timeline. War economics is not socialist unless socialists are doing it. This is proven by soviets and nazis being the only nations with complete remand of means of production while United States and United Kingdom doubled down on capitalist economics in order to win. These are ideologies, remember? Now it's time for you to face the facts that nazi policy was driven by the longest-standing socialist traditions in Germany. Further to dishonesty - maybe it is just sheer ignorance on your part or 3arrows' - the first party of reichstag labeled socialist was also ideologically socialist. This party was antisemitic socialism which shows the ideology associated with the term has always entailed what hitlerism did. You mistake or omit that all socialists in German reichstag history have been anticommunist and most were on the right wing. By comintern 1, socialists who were not bigots renamed their caucuses "communist".
    7
  10.  @thenarkknight278  Race is a class. Race is the predominant class recognized in human history and the most popular class system introduced at any time in Germany political economic history.
    7
  11. Hitler was a national socialist and advocated for socialist political economy in Germany since the 1920s. After taking power, Hitler's personal decrees and those of his personally chosen cabinet banned capitalism and installed socialist political economy in Germany by the summer of 1933.
    6
  12.  @bobbwc7011  There's nothing about German language that changes what happened in economic history between 1933 and 1945. The top cited scholarly works on 3rd Reich economics were by Germans living in 3rd Reich, anyhow. You are misinformed because you have never read a book on the history here. You learned trivial history in high school and you believe this is economic analysis and detailed history. The fact is that between February 28 1933 and July 15 1933, capitalism was eliminated in Germany and a socialist command economy was installed and maintained until 1945. All these laws are right there in the Reichsgesetzblatt - in German of course - so you've never had an excuse to be ignorant about your national history. It is the most studied economy of all time and Germans may have studied it the least since putting it in effect.
    6
  13.  @thenarkknight278  3 arrows has ignorant and dishonest reporting on this same matter.
    6
  14.  @thenarkknight278  Presenting falsehood, like his claims of privatization, for example. He also claims historians support his nonsense, but mainstream historians with the most citations on this topic directly contradict his claims. Arrows presents several fallacies in lieu of actually examining 3rd Reich history and fallacy is deliberate dishonesty. Strawman is a pretty core example since he presents the historical consensus in economics as if it is informed by the national socialist name and as if it is the machination of uninformed conspiracists. The name actually does strongly support the fact of nazi socialism, but it is dishonest to make it as if this is the only rationale, especially when nazis rushed to affect socialist political economy as their top priority based on the timing of policies recorded in reichsgesetzblatt. By 1935 3rd Reich owned any and all institutions which controlled means of production, means of exchange and means of distribution in Germany because they expropriated these from private hands to carry out their devoutly socialist political economic aspirations. Dishonest like anyone who claims this is not definitionally socialist, especially (required) when "socialists" in name are doing so.
    6
  15.  @kristoffer3000  If you people WOULD just read. There is zero way you all have consumed an actual book about 3rd Reich nor studied economics out of any book. These videos and wikis have just fueled dunning-kruger effect.
    6
  16.  @westbethkid  Socialism doesn't have a purest form. Socialism is qualified by control of the means of labor and production in an economy. After this is accomplished, there is no greater purity.
    6
  17.  @thenarkknight278  Slave labor relegated in wide use to the socialist economies of Russia and Germany during WW2 is a demonstration of the state allocation and pricing of labor. This is not possibly capitalism, but is pretty typical fare in a socialist mode. It's from each/to each, because to each is just food and dorm, not money.
    6
  18.  @kimobrien.  Reactionary socialism is what. Don't gaslight any further than your philosopher. All of that is socialism and he knew it, now you do. When he was engaged with Bauer (natzoc) in the Judenfrage manuscripts, this was because of socialism. Marx never confronted nor was heard of by actual economists, ever.
    6
  19. ​ @leftistadvocate9718 Hitler abolished private property rights on February 28, 1933, genius.
    5
  20.  @chrisanderson5317  Socialism is only as old as means of production and republic, itself. The claim of this heterodox contrarian that dynastic Egypt could be conceived as socialist is actually quite ignorant as to what socialism is. It isn't when the King stores grain.
    5
  21. Before volkism, one has to give regard to Strasbourg pogram. We see the impetus of socialist thought in Europe's mid ages and that it was race-indexed and antisemitic. It was workers organized in guilds which sought racial collective and implored government to affect the prejudice versus foreigners and jews as policy. Centuries later, Germans made this into some intellectual matter of Judenfrage. Marx is indulged in it in his "zur Judenfrage", Adolf Stoeker is crystal clear as to socialism being an art of racism. Before any of these men, American socialist George Fitzhugh clearly rationalizes slavery for white collectivism. German mittelstandism underscores that it is race notwithstanding economic class which comprised the traditional german collective idea, or one could just read Tonnies who recognized race is human collective #1. Globally, nation and race are linked. There's a reason why Germany is named after germanics and their language. This is how most nations founded before the 19th century are.
    5
  22.  @Jean-rg4sp  I was pointing to the substantial consideration given by naxis to the establishment of a racial heirarchy on Europe. This race element of their philosophy is often believed to be superficial, but it actually drove everything that they attempted and was embraced as science.
    4
  23. This is because the claim "as a whole" is a claim of unilateral dictatorship in sharp contrast to the pluralism in capitalism. "The whole" is the government and can only be a government for its claim to represent the affairs of a group.
    4
  24. Socialism is not not burning books. Socialism is when the government does stuff... to control the means of production in an economy like how 3rd Reich did between 1933 and 1945.
    4
  25.  @CANNNIBALIX  A capitalist is a private citizen allocating the economy at their discretion, so once they put on a government uniform or once their economic allocation is determined by government and not their own discretion,capitalism has ceased and a socialist political economy is in play in any state with such collectivist dogma as 3rd Reich.
    4
  26.  @rust9542  I said "private property rights" were eliminated. The decesis of a government as to when or by whom a right may be used is an abrogation of that right, altogether. The nazis had a better understanding of political science than you and eliminated capitalism in Germany within months using these techniques which fly far above your head because of lacking attention or exposure to civics and political science on your part.
    4
  27.  @rust9542  You're just intimidated by the sort of English you would have to have read in order to be informed about this topic. For example, I read Nazi Economics of Avraham Barkai, the highest cited scholarly work on nazi political economy and it didn't use baby talk to describe nazi collectivism and socialist institutional design (which nazis duplicated from Lenin).
    4
  28. 3rd Reich's economy was dominated by the state and your belief otherwise shows you to be a complete ignoramus. For example, the state and not Krupp, decreed laws which banned capitalism and installed a socialist command economy. For another example, by the late 30s, Hitler's German government, and not Krupp, owned the world's largest enterprise, the Reichswerke Hermann Göring.
    4
  29.  @kylemendoza8860  This is ignorant. Race is the predominant class ever used by socialists in their philosophy. It was famously used by 3rd Reich, debunking any claims of no class concern by the naxis. It is also a mistake to presume of any socialist idea that equality is in mind. Socialism is specifically an unequal treatment in economics in order to favor a specific class. This is due to collectivism specifically being the dominance of an ingroup over outgroups using social economic policy [Tönnies]. For example, Karl Marx who you have claimed to be some egalitarian instead desired to forcefully take economic control from wealthy classes and enfranchise working classes with it by excluding the freedoms of society to pursue pluralism in how productivity is achieved.
    4
  30. 3rd Reich had control of the German means of production from 1933 to 1945 and brought about the same racially bigoted social economic order most German socialists published as the goals of socialism in Germany.
    4
  31. All socialists are ideological killers. This proves 3rd Reich was socialist more than it disproves it. NSDAP popularized national socialism in Germany; they did not pretend to be national socialists to secure preexisting popularity from this philosophy. The first major policies recorded by 3rd Reich were specifically to affect a transition of the mode of production to a socialist means and this debunks any poorly informed claim of socialism in name only.
    4
  32. ​ @JohnSmith-rw8uh  The issue is that you have not studied the history of Germany during 3rd Reich. Most people are not assertive when they are clueless, but socialists are of the character type to be just that: wrong and strong.
    4
  33.  @farzanamughal5933  Because in the 1920s, Hitler and Drexler at least, incorporated Lenin's NEP methodology into the nazi plan. 3rd Reich executed the core aspects of this soviet-styled structural socialism - eliminating capitalist labor, commodity and property/equity allocation in 1933, their first year in office.
    4
  34. Of course he was. He personally decreed most of the laws which made Germany socialist during 3rd Reich.
    4
  35.  @frankthetank5708  Fascism is only differentiated from socialism when Italian Fascism is differentiated from nazism. For you who care to lump assorted political economies under fascist labeling, there is no longer a political-economic categorization implied by the term. For example, socialism is a political economic clave or category. It refers to the philosophy of collectivist states which take remand of labor and the means of production in an economy. Capitalism is juxtoposed to this, calling for prohibition of states to own the means of production in lieu of individuals in society. No label can carry a political economic disposition involving both; they are mutually exclusive modes of the same economy. Such a label - fascism in the inane definition you pose - does not answer what political economic category 3rd Reich political economy fell into. If you insist it was fascism, it was fascism which was socialist political economy because by jan 1935, German government was collectivized by the nazi party and expropriated nearly all institutions controlling labor and means of production (distribution and exchange, too).
    4
  36.  @kimobrien.  Reactionary, what?
    4
  37. If you lay a reichstag seating chart over a congress seating chart, you will also see Democrats were right wing in the European sensibility.
    3
  38. Being very capitalist requires being very able to allocate your own productivity and raw material purchases and this was eliminated in 1933. It's true the fascist Weimar government had the policy of bailing out enterprise - this is capitalism. It's true reprivatisierung was the reversal of this position - this is anticapitalism. 3rd Reich nationalized control of the means of production - the allocation of land labor capital and goods. That's socialism; all businesses need not be government like stalin. That said, the Reichwerke HG was the biggest industrial grup in the world - 100% state owned - and a looming snowball of expropriation without compensation over an economy with no private property rights.
    3
  39. No. "Socialism" refers to racist German and French ideas of antisemitic economics. Germans in the 1920s and 30s knew exactly what was meant by socialism and national socialism.
    3
  40. No. It is incompetent to attempt this generalization based on the alliances of WW2. Philosophy matters and the national socialist and fascist philosophical traditions have different roots and opposite conclusions. For example, Mussolini will go down in history as having orchestrated the largest state bailout of capitalism of all time and Hitler for converting the only developed social democracy ever turned to socialist political economy and means of production.
    3
  41.  @petermelang6695  You are ignorant. Why don't you people read Marx? Marx qualifies the state capitalism of soviet Russia and USSR as "socialism" and early-stage communist society in his Critique of the Gotha Program part 1. He additionally qualifies socialism as you would find it in any dictionary: society based on collective ownership of the means of production.
    3
  42.  @VolrinSeth  Socialism is collective (government) control of a means of production, specifically as opposed to the capitalist market approach. Because NSDAP spent more than a decade claiming their traditional German collectivism, then immediately eliminated capitalism and installed a command economy in Germany, economists regard this as socialism. Socialist political economy.
    3
  43. Big companies did not benefit from 3rd Reich. Most were in complete ruins in 1945, genius.
    3
  44.  @VolrinSeth  Your gaslighting is your proposal that United Soviet Socialist Republics was not socialist when real history is widely known and the name clearly indicative of socialist philosophical subscription. Sound familiar? Socialism is philosophy advocating a collective ownership or control of an economic means of production. Now what?
    3
  45.  @VolrinSeth  You are still this simpleton who believes that socialism is a subjective matter for people after the fact to call into question. Socialism is determined exclusively by precursory philosophy and praxis of this philosophy and not, whatsoever, by opinions of others after the fact.
    3
  46.  @VolrinSeth  You are out of your mind with this gaslighting approach. 100% of dictionaries and textbooks on the topic of economics and political science provide the same definition for socialism as does Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program. Your pretense that there is ambiguity about terms used in these topics is more gaslighting. Take any 4 or 5 dictionary sources and use any one to disprove my case concerning how socialism is defined. My contention which proves that socialism is not defined subjectively (no words ever are, ever) is that all dictionary sources attempting definition of the term will use "collective" or community/society/government as the noun, control or own as the verb and means of production or land/labor/capital as the object. This has been this way since the 1820s before your grandpappy's pappy was born and this is proven by Marx and others' quotes, eg Marx's "society based on the collective ownership of the means of production"
    3
  47.  @VolrinSeth  Dictionaries are a primary source for the objective meaning of words. Common usage is a result of the objectivity which all words have - 100%. We made them up; there is no dispute over terms of trade - that is semantic dispute fallacy obviously so you can reject history.
    3
  48.  @VolrinSeth  1) The fact Marx can be quoted using the same definition in mid 19th century moots any claim that there's any variations of common usage blurring the definition of socialism available to ourselves or the naxis. 2) The fact Marx, Toussenel, Saint-Simon, Compte, Blanqui, Bakunin, Fourier, Böckel, Stoeker, Bauer and more published national socialist theory for posterity debunks any claim that socialism is not founded in national socialism in the first place, so obviously it's inclusive in the overall clave. 3) Of course the alternative you proposed is gaslighting: Marx can be quoted calling for Germany to develop the nürnburg laws of 3rd Reich and other disenfranchisement of 1933-1945 and is the same dude you get the notion about workers' collective from. Your personal definition. Then here you come selecting parts of marxian theory and claiming other parts of Marx's and all other "socialist" collective theory in history is not socialism. That's gaslighting. That's ignorant. "Socialism" is a bigoted set of political economic theories - 100% of it of all sorts - which were derived from specifically antisemitic nativist medieval labor organization. The Strasbourg Pogrom is a prime example of the impetus of socialism on continental Europe. Some of those men I listed are foundational to socialism as philosophy. Marx broadened the appeal of his theory on socialism (communism) by publishing Manifesto versus zur Judenfrage where he indulged in typical bigoted German "socialism". Marxism turns ethnic bigotry into a broad repudiation of people with money, but employs the same bigoted, authoritarian ideation of other socialists. Same difference. It nearly all is national socialist in theory and all is national socialist in praxis. In all the state sorts the economy racially in documented policy. All. Documented.
    3
  49. 3rd Reich was republican and more like present day China - national socialist. Most people have never read what socialist philosophers published for their edification. The founding fathers of socialism were national socialists in their writing and published policy proposals.
    3
  50. ​ @justaguy4742  I challenge you people to actually read books about topics. Why guess and ask for guesses?
    3