Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
@xtoll123 1/x
Fascism is pretty left ideologically. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies.
The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelianism, while the economic aspect of Fascism originated from from Émile Janvion’s revolutionary syndicalist.
Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors:
1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price.
2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism.
3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency).
4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away)
5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes."
6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts.
(Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions.
The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
"class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52)
The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147)
"In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
To archive this final goal, a Fascist Revolution will be required.
(Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.)
"The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52)
3
-
@xtoll123 2/x
The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics.
The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society.
To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole.
In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation.
Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order.
As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production.
One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests.
Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process.
The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems.
Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
3
-
Firstly, those happened after 1933, after Hitler get into power.
Secondly, those companies didn’t “support” Hitler unconditionally. They profited from it, just like Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers profited from having business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively.
To answer your more fundamental question, would anyone become a Capitalist/Fascist/Nazi/Monarchist just because they traded with or were supported by a Capitalist/Fascist/Nazi/Monarchist?
If Hilter can be classified as Capitalist just because American capitalism “supported” him, Hitler would also be a Communist, because not only did Foreign Capitalist “supported” Nazi, Soviet Union also “supported” Nazi Germany with 1,600,000 tons of grains, 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum though German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939).
At the same time, Nazis entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods.
Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer Tashkent.
Soviet communists were “supported” by Nazi German, Fascist Italy, not to mention the supported by lend-lease from the Capitalist USA during WWII.
With that logic USSR communism would just be the Nazism, Fascism, and Capitalist.
3
-
Using Karl Marx standard, most of the modern countries nowadays are running a (reactionary) socialist system in a free market environment ( which Karl Marx still acknowledged that is still a kind of socialism).
A democratic state ran by a capitalism believer ,that did everything you said in the comment, fit the following segment of Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism in Manifesto “A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
However, If we are using historical definition of Socialist State, which are mostly anchored to Communists Dictatorship regimes. Nazi German economic system were very similar to that of the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000 Even North Korea has abandoned the old direct controlled economy.
If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Dumpsteret1 Firstly, secret meetings in 4/1/1933 is not funding, which is the main point of this video. Beside directly from your second source, banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder stated that “I took no part in them.” to the “Meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house of the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder in Cologne”.
Secondly, those foreign companies didn’t “support” Hitler unconditionally. They profited from it, just like Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers profited from having business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively.
To answer your more fundamental question, would anyone become a Capitalist/Fascist/Nazi/Monarchist just because they traded with or were supported by a Capitalist/Fascist/Nazi/Monarchist?
If Hilter can be classified as Capitalist just because American capitalism “supported” him, Hitler would also be a Communist, because not only did Foreign Capitalist “supported” Nazi, Soviet Union also “supported” Nazi Germany with 1,600,000 tons of grains, 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum though German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939).
At the same time, Nazis entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods.
Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer Tashkent.
Soviet communists were “supported” by Nazi German, Fascist Italy, not to mention the supported by lend-lease from the Capitalist USA during WWII.
With that logic USSR communism would just be the Nazism, Fascism, and Capitalist.
3
-
@Dumpsteret1 “Meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house of the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder in Cologne” is the only evidence you used to try to prove Hitler was funded by Capitalists into power.
Again, the secret meeting on 4/1/1933 was just a meeting and didn’t involve any funding to Hitler, which is the main point of this video. Besides, directly from your second source, banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder stated that “I took no part in them.” in the “Meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house of the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder in Cologne”.
Which aspect of that meeting can make you conclude that the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder or any other capitalists funded Hitler into power?
[No, but Many]
Nearly all Communist states traded with Capitalist States or Capitalist companies, maybe except Albania or Cambodia.
For the foreign capitalists, you haven’t provided any source that indicated there was any having any financial transaction with the Nazi party prior to 1/1933. Ford, GM and others all came after Hitler rose to power.
[You obviously don't understand the
circumstances that forced Stalin to ally with his arch enemy Hitler.]
Many, including securing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, made Nazi Germany turn a blind eye to the USSR's westward expansion to Baltic States, Finland and Hungry.
[AFTER 1939, again nothing to do with the claim made in this post, or my responses.]
"Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer
Tashkent." happened in 1935 and 1937.
Besides, what did [AFTER 1939] mean to the Soviet Union? It was still a Communist state practising Marxist Leninism.
[One having zero to do with the BS claim that Capitalists didn't fund Hitler into power, ]
You still weren't able to provide any substance evidence to support this argument, as just because Schröder had many connections with the US capital before 31/1/1933, Schröder arranged a meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house before 31/1/1933, and Schröder was involved in many international money/resources funnelling to Nazi Germany after Hitler got into power. It doesn't mean that Schröder or any other capitalists funded Hitler into power.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Dumpsteret1 “Meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house of the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder in Cologne” is the only evidence you used to try to prove Hitler was funded by Capitalists into power.
Again, the secret meeting on 4/1/1933 was just a meeting and didn’t involve any funding to Hitler, which is the main point of this video. Besides, directly from your second source, banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder stated that “I took no part in them.” in the “Meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house of the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder in Cologne”.
Which aspect of that meeting can make you conclude that the banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder or any other capitalists funded Hitler into power?
[No, but Many]
Nearly all Communist states traded with Capitalist States or Capitalist companies, maybe except Albania or Cambodia.
For the foreign capitalists, you haven’t provided any source that indicated there was any having any financial transaction with the Nazi party prior to 1/1933. Ford, GM and others all came after Hitler rose to power.
[You obviously don't understand the
circumstances that forced Stalin to ally with his arch enemy Hitler.]
Many, including securing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, made Nazi Germany turn a blind eye to the USSR's westward expansion to Baltic States, Finland and Hungry.
[AFTER 1939, again nothing to do with the claim made in this post, or my responses.]
"Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer
Tashkent." happened in 1935 and 1937.
Besides, what did [AFTER 1939] mean to the Soviet Union? It was still a Communist state practising Marxist Leninism.
[One having zero to do with the BS claim that Capitalists didn't fund Hitler into power, ]
You still weren't able to provide any substance evidence to support this argument, as just because Schröder had many connections with the US capital before 31/1/1933, Schröder arranged a meeting between Hitler and von Papen in the house before 31/1/1933, and Schröder was involved in many international money/resources funnelling to Nazi Germany after Hitler got into power. It doesn't mean that Schröder or any other capitalists funded Hitler into power.
3
-
3
-
@Rundstedt1
1/
Hitler did do that.
Here is a section of TIK video regarding this issue. Hope it can let you know his reasoning.
TIK call them Socialist because
The actual Nazi policy was called “Gleichschaltung”. This stands for “coordination” or “synchronisation” - as in, synchronisation of the economy and society into the State. Everything was to be merged together as one, into the social state - the exact opposite of so-called “privatisation”.
“Business and professional associations, sports clubs, choral societies, shooting clubs, patriotic associations, and most other forms of organised activity were taken under - or more frequently hastened to place themselves under - National Socialist control in the first months of the Third Reich. ‘There was no more social life; you couldn’t even have a bowling club’ that was not ‘coordinated’, was how one inhabitant of Northeim in Lower Saxony remembered it.”
(Kershaw, “Hitler: Hubris,” p479.)
3
-
2/
“The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a person who’s sleeping.” (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107.)
“Between 30 January and 14 July 1933... [the Nazis] had coordinated all social institutions, apart from the Churches and the army, into a vast and still inchoate structure run by themselves. They had purged huge swathes of culture and the arts, the universities and the education system, and almost every other area of German society, of everyone who was opposed to them.” (Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle: Chapter 6 “A ‘Revolution of Destruction?’”.)
Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933.
"The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalised.”
(Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576.)
3
-
3
-
5/
Those industries that had their former owners removed (expropriated) were then sold to individuals in the Nazi Party, who then ran them for the benefit of the Nazi Party. In other words: they were nationalised. This fact is pointed out by Bel’s “Against the Mainstream” - a text that is often used by Marxists to “prove” that it was ‘privatisation’. Except it doesn’t, it accidentally proves the exact opposite. If only they had actually bothered to read it.
“It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.” (Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany," Universitat de Barcelona, PDF p3.)
“Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates(Pollock (1938, p. 43-68) provides an extensive revision of the organizational characteristics of the Nazi Party holding of organizations.) or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose (Nathan, 1944a, p. 321). In this way, delivery of these services was privatized.”
(Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany," Universitat de Barcelona, PDF p9.)
[The Party of the Government is not private sector](TIK remark)
"Both governments [Nazi and Soviet] reorganised industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity. The Nazis reorganised industry into 13 administrative groups with a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. The state therefore could direct the firms’ activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. The pre-existing tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilise prices.”
(Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p582-583.)
"...in practice the Reichsbank and the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs had no intention of allowing the radical activists of the SA, the shopfloor militants of the Nazi party or Gauleiter commissioners to dictate the course of events. Under the slogan of the 'strong state', the ministerial bureaucracy fashioned a new national structure of economic regulation."
(Tooze, “Wages of Destruction," p112.)
“We worked and governed with incredible elan. We really ruled. For the bureaucrats of the Ministry the contrast to the Weimar Republic was stark. Party chatter in the Reichstag was no longer heard. The language of the bureaucracy was rid of the paralysing formula: technically right but politically impossible.”
(Schacht, speaking of the situation after 1933, quoted from Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p112-113.)
“Manufacturers in Germany were panic-stricken when they heard of the experiences of some industrialists who were more or less expropriated by the State. These industrialists were visited by State auditors who had strict orders to “examine” the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company (or individual businessman) for the preceding two, three, or more years until some error or false entry was found. The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error. Obviously, the examination of the books was simply a pretext for partial expropriation of the private capitalist with a view to complete expropriation and seizure of the desired property later. The owner of the property was helpless, since under [National Socialism] there is no longer an independent judiciary that protects the property rights of private citizens against the state. The authoritarian State has made it a principle that private property is no longer sacred.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
3
-
3
-
3/
And heavy social regulations were imposed on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc.
(Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p71-74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Rundstedt1 7/
Regarding None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places.
With private property rights abolished, under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise
and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
However, by the same token, some “leaders” and “followers” also embraced the new order, as it reminded them of the previous war.
(Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p83.)
“As “plant leader”... [Ludwig Hermann from Hoechst] perceived himself as an officer
and his “followers” as his soldiers. Hermann recognised the community spirit of the trenches of the First World War again in the “national community” (Volksgemeinschaft) of the Nazi regime - as did other industrialists and managers.”
(Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p83.)
Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community - which it was.
(Feder, G. “The Program of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions.” RJG Enterprises LTD, p32.)
As Götz Aly’s book “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State.
(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
3
-
3
-
@Rundstedt1 First this is TIK point.
Secondly, in the video. TIK use other sources show that the market was under heavy control and being regulated.
As a great example of regulation, in January 1938, the Nazis decided that if even one Jew worked for a business, then that business was defined as a ‘Jewish firm’. So by July of that year, the remaining Jews were removed from the businesses, and in some cases, taken straight to the camps. The businesses had to do this in order to apply for an official certificate that declared that they were a “German firm”. If they didn’t get this certificate, they would be in violation of the Reich’s Race Laws. In other words, the firms were being socialised - the German people (the social majority) were running the show.
(Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 9.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy.
(Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.)
“Millions of questionnaires are sent out in order to get a true picture of demands, stocks, etc. Questionnaires and statistical reports of thousands of firms are collected and catalogued. A vast number of office workers labours over them in order to calculate normal requirements, the volume of demand, and other figures necessary for getting a picture of the market situation.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p56.)
They even had Reich’s Kommissars, like the Reichs Kommissar for prices - Joseph Wagner - who tried (and failed) to set all prices in the Reich. He failed because Socialism always fails, but the point is, he tried.
(Neumann, “Behemoth,” p309. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p71-75.)
“The kommissar in charge of the supply of iron and steel sent many circulars to industrialists blaming them for and warning them against the use of non-quota iron and steel, as well as against exceeding their quotas.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p57.)
3
-
@Rundstedt1 Furthermore, the point of Evan part you’re quoting seems contradicted to other reference TIK used.
"Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people's net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor. Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had.”- Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500
Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community - which it was.
(Feder, G. “The Program of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions.” RJG Enterprises LTD, p32.)
As Götz Aly’s book “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State.
(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“In the end, the aristocracy's power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany's future political elite.” - Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500
Class struggle/removal is a Communist ideology, other socialism like Utopia Socialism and Bourgeoisie Socialism and Reactionary Socialism mentioned in the Communist Manifesto did not require Class struggle/removal
“Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual CAPITALIST profit motive." - Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500
German farmers had all their private debt collectivised, and a national bank was set up to oversee this process. Yes, there was no more private debt for farmers. But even better, farms could no longer be repossessed or sold, effectively forcing farmers to be farmers, all of which are forms of farm collectivisation. This was done through an inheritary system, and, due to various reasons, it was limited to certain farms - so it wasn’t done for every farm - but nonetheless it shows they were trying to move in that direction.
(Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p182-185.)
Is the part you quoted from Ewan’s conclusion?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Rundstedt1
Regarding
"Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. " Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500
NS Germany tried but fail to collectivise the
agriculture sector.
8/
German farmers had all their private debt collectivised, and a national bank was set up to oversee this process. Yes, there was no more private debt for farmers. But even better, farms could no longer be repossessed or sold, effectively forcing farmers to be farmers, all of which are forms of farm collectivisation. This was done through an inheritary system, and, due to various reasons, it was limited to certain farms - so it wasn’t done for every farm - but nonetheless it shows they were trying to move in that direction.
(Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p182-185.)
And again, prices for agricultural produce were fixed,
(Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p186.)
and subsidies were given to the farmers.
(Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p55.)
Farmers were encouraged by state regulations to stop producing meat and eggs, and to concentrate on grain production, because the guys in charge decided that this would be a more productive use of the land - showing that the farmers were not in a free market.
(Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p170.)
3
-
@Rundstedt1
Again the origin statement is NS Germany tried but fail to collectivise the agriculture sector. In TIK word
"This was done through an inheritary system, and, due to various reasons, it was limited to certain farms - so it wasn’t done for every farm - but nonetheless it shows they were trying to move in that direction. "
Your statement seems contradictory to the law itself, farmers cannot sell the distributed land. If true please provide first hand accounts. It is too easy to fabricate this claim.
"
Any farm of at least one Ackernahrung, an area of land large enough to support a family and evaluated from 7.5 to 125 hectares (19–309 acres), was declared an Hereditary farm (Erbhof), to pass from father to son, without the possibility to be mortgaged or alienated. Only those peasants were entitled to call themselves "farmers" (Bauern), a term the Nazis attempted to refurbish from a neutral or even pejorative to a positive term.[3][4]
A Greater Aryan certificate was required to receive its benefits, similar to the requirements for becoming a member of the Nazi Party.
Farms too small could become an Hereditary farm by combination, and larger farms would have to be subdivided.[1][5]
"
From wiki
Further reference
3 Stackelberg, Roderick (2002-01-22). Hitler's Germany: Origins, Interpretations, Legacies. Routledge. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-134-63529-0.
4 Richard Grunberger, The 12-Year Reich, pp 156-7, ISBN 0-03-076435-1
Talk about in practice, USSR also have back market store selling resources made by private own mean of production. Does it make USSR not a socialist state?
3
-
3
-
@Rundstedt1
Your comment seems lack the professionalism of an “old history teacher”. You didn’t criticise an argument by first reading the thesis, (aka watch the video), and counter the arguments in the thesis, but just throwing out your own arguments regardless are your counter arguments relevant to the origin argument or not.
You also prefer name-calling your opponent than elaborate or explain your point. When there is no further option , you will eventually show your the lists of citations with minimal elaboration.
Now would you mind to lecture us, what should we do when a statement of one citation contradicted to several others citations, Mr. Rundstedt?
PS: In this video/thesis, TIK also indicated that fascism, aka National Syndicalism, is also a Socialist ideology. In another video, it should that socialist the people of the whole nation, and minimise the class different between the rich and poor by heavy tax and social welfare rather than the elimination of class hierarchy like Marxist proposed. Maybe you need to debug that premise first, before you want to excluding National Socialism by classifying them fascism.
3
-
@Rundstedt1
It seems you are just playing dump, to not sincerely debunked a false believe and antagonise the victim that brainwashed by this "alt-right" theory, even in your point of view. You are not doing good any good to your own believe.
___________________________________________________________________________
Under the definition of
"Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of relationships between the individual and the collectivity WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity - The profit motive or its foundation - private property or its necessary framework - the market economy, this was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market." - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p7
So:
"Fascist regimes functioned like an epoxy: an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left, and a shared willingness to stop at nothing to destroy their common enemies." - Robert O. Paxton. "The Anatomy of Fascism", p147
Fascist Italy in 1930 was not a Fascist as it didn't has a common enemies
Francoist Spain after 1959 was not a Fascist too as they didn't sought to change the nature of relationships between the individual, intervention the social economy structure of society, and they move toward liberalism in 1959 instead of amalgam with the conservative order and no common enemies. (wiki-Francoist Spain#Economic policy)
Nasser Egypt can be a Fracist State
with their compromised partial socialist reform WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity,
supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market.
an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left. Embrace Nasserism not liberalism of the Wast and Communism on the East.
and have a common enemies of Jews.
And Oswald Mosley would not be classified as Fascist, as he didn't utilise dynamism, and crossed the floor from the conservative party in 1920(wiki- Oswald Mosley).
This is just a check list of not so accurate description describing the general characteristic of Fascist State, whether than the definition of the ideology itself. The neo fascist won't tell you how other people descript fascism, but the ideology of fascism itself. Change the name, Fascism will reborn again. Again, you are not doing good any good to your own believe. Don't you think it would be more relevant to post the origin or the ideological principle of Fascism here.
3
-
@Rundstedt1
"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" is a very good book. It debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism.
"Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction.
Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime." - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
3
-
@Rundstedt1
Furthermore, despite scattered, it illustrated the the Socialism origin of Fascist economical and political ideology. You should not just select an arbitrary section to generalise the whole ideology that the book aimed to illustrate. Maybe read further before quoting next time.
The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors:
1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price.
2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism.
3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency).
4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away)
5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes."
6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts.
(Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions.
The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
"class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52)
The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147)
"In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required.
(Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.
"The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) )
_____________________________________________________________
The economical aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics.
The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society.
To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole.
In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation.
Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order.
As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production.
One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests.
Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process.
The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems.
Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
3
-
@Rundstedt1 Nope the author didn’t do that, he only use “Fascism” in the start of the sentence. He used “Italian fascism” to refer your “Fascism”.
Further quote
“In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government.
Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.8” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialism ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organise the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.)
But as the lowest boundary of Socialist state is set by how unfaithful those Cold War/ Contemporary Communist State economic policies to socialism. It is very likely that Nazi Germany is still valid to be classified as Socialist State.
Use Soviet Union as example, they used Slave Labor, in gulag and build the road of bones.
Soviet also tried to let free market economic incentives to improve economic growth with NEP, and permitted household plots since it foundation from 1922 to 1928, Kosygin reform from 1965 to 1970, permission of private garden markets since 1971, the expansion of the khozraschyot in 1985 and countless economic reforms.
And they have a Hyperinflation in 1917-1924.
If USSR can still be classified as Socialist State while broke multiple criteria that you set, I believe Nazi Germany can also be classified as Socialist State under the same standard.
Furthermore, how can you tell the the “capital gain” of the firm and the firm itself were the private property of those industrialist right before the Nazi regime ended. The private ownership of those firms of those Industrialists were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3