Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933.
The top leader was replaced with Nazi member. Every business owner were mandated to redistribute their surplus profits among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government with most notably force employment, fixed wage, price controls and heavy social subsidies to the workers. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) It was really those policies characterised the socialist nature of Nazism.
The firms can't cut costs for the workers by firing them or reducing their salaries without DAF approved. Even when the firm went bankrupt or was forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, a private property right was abolished in the fire decree of 1933, the State could do whatever was necessary to remove the weak firm by the Corporation Law of 1937. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms, which mostly controlled by the Nazi.
Regarding remained private after the war. Again private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933.
The private ownership of those firms of those Industrialists were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime. On the other hands, Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream) It was not the Nazis who gave the postwar owners private ownership. It was the West German Government.
3
-
1/2
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
-
2/2
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
-
3
-
3
-
@janusprime5693
Here are some examples where Hitler lied in his speeches
[“You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” Hitler 1930]
He lied, as he increase the social welfare to the workers, banned private firing and fixed the wage of the workers, and minimiseminimize the unemployment rate to 1-2% after he rose to power in 1933.
Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
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.)
Worker pay may have shrank in nominal terms, but in actual real terms, it definitely went up, thanks to wage and price controls, rent controls, subsidies on food, rent, coal, insurance policies and more besides.(Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, “Behemoth,” p306. Overy, “Nazi Economic Recovery,” p31. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p71.)
The ‘Labour Book’ that the German workers had did prevent them from just swapping jobs, but it also stopped employers from hiring people they liked. Remember, a socialist economy is centrally planned, so the central planners dictate where you go and what you do. The fact that the workers were centrally planned is proof that the economy was “rationally regulated” - a central tenet of socialism. ( “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
[“The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932]
He lied as he abolished the private property rights, which enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
The industries and businesses were nationalised.
(Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p3 + p9. Mierzejewski, “The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich,” p4. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
The people who ran the industries were NS.
(Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p3 + p9. Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 9. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p124.)
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.
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
If the “leaders” refused to cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Professor Junker of the Junkers aeroplane factory was the first to be thrown out of his own business as a result, but he wasn’t the only one.
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EmeraldVindicator7 Socialism often collaborate with nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism (Ba'athism) and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. The former one didn't see non-Muslim, especially their counterpart in Palestine, as equal, and the latter one is a Socialism for the God's choice people in Israel.
For class hierarchy. In PRC, Commissioners considered themselves upper class, and the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral class of Five Red Categories compared to the lower classes of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories had already been stripped.
Under the of legislation 《关于划分农村阶级成分的决定》, members of the Black Classes were systematically discriminated against, as one's classification could affect employment opportunities and career prospects and even marriage opportunities. This could also be passed onto their children. Over time this resulted in a victimized underclass that was treated as if it were still composed of powerful and dominant people.
So yes, both class and racial hierarchy can fit into Socialism.
3
-
3
-
Lenin also rised to power though a coup d'état not a democratic election. The mean to rise to power is not a criteria to determine is a regime Socialist or not.
Nationalsation of mean of production is a kind of Socialism according to Marx and Engels.
“Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. ..." (Part III: Socialism, Anti-Dühring)
3
-
3
-
3
-
@brandonmorel2658 Yes they do, 34% of the victims in the Stalin’s great purge were exterminated in the national operations against nationality and ethnicity.
From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD.
——————————————————-
During the Cambodian genocide, Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and other minorities were also targeted for persecution and genocide. The Khmer Rouge forcibly relocated minority groups and banned their languages. By decree, the Khmer Rouge banned the existence of more than 20 minority groups, which constituted 15% of Cambodia's population.
By January 1979, 1.5 to 2 million people had died due to the Khmer Rouge's policies, including 200,000–300,000 Chinese Cambodians, 90,000–500,000 Cambodian Cham (who are mostly Muslim),[20][21][22] and 20,000 Vietnamese Cambodians.[23][24] 20,000 people passed through the Security Prison 21, one of the 196 prisons the Khmer Rouge operated,[3][25] and only seven adults survived.[26] The prisoners were taken to the Killing Fields, where they were executed (often with pickaxes, to save bullets)[27] and buried in mass graves.
3
-
@brandonmorel2658 If you are going to exclude Marxist Leninism, Maoism and to the furthest extent Marxism from the definition of Socialism because of the atrocities those ideologies actualised in real life, just like how you exclude Nazism from the definition of Socialism. Surely Nazism would not be a kind of Socialism from which Marxism is excluded its definition.
PRC in Mao’s era, the USSR and the Khmer Rouge also had their own class and “old-establishment” genocide, where their kill count exceeding all those communist racial genocides.
I still don’t know what your standard is. But it seems you would still consider a regime and its ideology strived for social justice and egalitarianism, when the regime was just imprisoning and eliminating different groups of people ranging from property owners and ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), different ideologies(every Communist State), religion (every Communist State), intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge).
3
-
3
-
3
-
@derekturner3692 Regardless of the incentive of the policy, no matter wants to make the populace happy or suffer. It is irrelevant to the definition of “left”——the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes.
Furthermore, what is the meaning of making the populace happy?
The Jews, the other socialist, the Catholics, and the LGBT were sent to concentration camps.
Taxes were levied against the rich and the corporations. ( “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,”)
The administrative power was stripped from the Manager by the Nazi Party of Labor Trustees. ("The Vampire Economy")
Workers working hours needed to increase from 6 hours to 12 hours. ("The Vampire Economy")
Minorities, upper, middle, and working all have suffered from Nazi rule. Who were the happy populace?
Besides, Cold War USSR was also constantly preparing for war, with more than 15% of its national expenditures in the Military (a similar amount of national expenditures Nazi Germany used in 1938) for most of the Cold War. They also (sort of) made the populace happy that there is a great sum of Russian wanted to return to the Socialist System. Are you suggesting USSR were running a Rightist system because they made the populace happy under the same standards you put on Nazi Germany?
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508 Yes, and they are wrong in this regard, their reasoning behind their decision was “Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector”
However, they failed to mention Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member.
With the consideration of those facts, Nazi would be on the left side of the compass. However, if you not considered Authoritarian state as a cooperative collective agency, the whole Marxism and most of its variants would not be on the left side of the compass.
3
-
@hobbso8508 Of course, that is called critical think, and not blindly believing in what others said. My new conclusion of Nazism is on the left side of the political compass is based on historical fact.
Their conclusions of Hitler was in the Authoritarian Right was based on limited/flawed information, which I previously debunked with historical sources ( those capitalist sectors were actually created by the Western Germany. Due to the 1933 fire Decree, during the Nazi era, they were just administer (mostly just Nazi members) of firms that were managed by DAF.)
By considering the new historical facts that Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member.
Nazi did desire for the economy to be run by a state (cooperative collective agency). Thus, Nazi would be on the left side of the compass.
The conclusion I made for your assumption is based on logic and the fact that you believe socialist state cannot be authoritative. If I replaced their definition of cooperative collective agency from including all kinds of sovereign states, to yours which didn’t include states without collectivism (both capital and authoritarian states) then, the whole Marxism and most of its variants would not be on the left side of the compass.
If I am wrong, please debunk it with source.
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
[That's just categorically false. Robert Owen attempted to establish communities with their own self-contained governments.]
"The other type of Socialism required both criteria of Social ownership of the mean of production and total control of the economy. Owen Utopia Socialism... are in this group of Socialism. "
You distorted other people statement once again. Or were you just incapable to understand that paragraph? In that case, maybe your previous insults against my English level suit you better.
[Yes it is. I know English is hard, but your entire argument makes sense once you realise that they are one in the same.
[You really are an odd one Oscar. Maybe study up on that English a bit more.]
["Regardless of Democracy or not, populace would have common control over the public property"
How?]
By the definition of public property. Everyone have the right to use public property and use it as a mean of production, example of it would be placer mining and fishing from the river.
["Democracy would not guarantee the populace would have common control over Socialism"
Yes it would. You also keep using an incorrect defintion. I already showed that they don't just get surplus, but have control over it directly.]
You again excluded Democratic Socialism, which didn't have the control of their economy. Neither the Democratic Socialist Government or the populace have directly control over thier econmy through democracy.
[Again, y... result. ]
No matter what you said, it still didn’t change the fact that Karl Marx still recognised Bourgeois Socialism and Feudal Socialism as Socialism in the Manifesto.
[By your definition capitalism would be a form of socialism, since the surplus value of the means of production end up in the hands of some of the people. It's totally nonsensical.]
Do you know the definition of capitalism is just "private ownership of the means of production" , and pure capitialism state never exist?
3
-
3
-
You are right, under the broadest definition of Socialism according to Karl Marx. Any modern state run by a Bourgeois, building roads and having social healthcare, and Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, as Karl Marx said in the manifesto that:
“
…
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
…
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, a socialist regime is not determined by how nationalised or high the taxes the country they rule is, it also determined by their ruling ideology.
Liberal Socialist like the SPD which practised Orthodox Communism can be classified as Socialist is not because of their income tax rate which Germany kept their top income tax rate at 40%, while the UK’s was fluctuated in the range of about 50% to 70% in the year of 1920s to 1930s. (Are progressive taxes an artifact of war?- Vox) Using the same narrative to refute Nazism from Socialism, are you also going to refute SPD’s Orthodox Communism of 1920s from the definition of Socialism?
Ideologically Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because:
1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf.
2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member.
3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47).
4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48)
________________________________
Regarding privatisation/Stock Market.
It is a Nazi Scam.
All the state property that was previously privatized through selling stock was renationalized in 1937 by the 1937 corporate law, which removed the shareholder's "right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96). Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101)." (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
The Bank Act 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and nationalised every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation and the concept of stock market. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
3
-
Regarding Fascism
1/2
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
-
2/2
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
-
@israelcontreras5332
Are you implying Von Mise and Sowell are more authoritative and have more expertise in Socialism than Karl Marx?
This seems to be an ignorant belief from a person who studied history in graduate school.
Right-wing detractors of Socialism, most notably Austrian School economists, often refer to state socialism simply as socialism.
This narrow view of Socialism is reflected in Mises’s Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth: An Exposition of the Ideas of Classical Liberalism, and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.
Austrian School economist Walter Block even admitted that in "Was Milton Friedman A Socialist? Yes".
“In section 2 of this paper we base our analysis on the assumption that socialism is defined in terms of governmental ownership of the means of production.”
Stating Socialism is just mean State ownership of means of production ignored the existence of other liberal socialism like Anarchism, Orthodox Marxism and Fabianism, which define Socialism as people, public, commune, common or any other socialised entity other than the state ownership of means of production.
Furthermore, this MAGA definition of Socialism, as you stated in previous comment, even contradicted with your previous statement something like “Communism is when the rich voluntarily share their surplus profits” in your previously deleted comment.
3
-
@israelcontreras5332
[If im not wrong the stock markets were privately owned..and germany only retained control over them as as any government would in a time of emergency…and even then that was throughbthe price controls and other moves german made to build their war machine. The government didnt own the stock marketsbor the companies on them.]
Nazi Germany literally did that by stripping all the control of means of production entitled by stock to the stockholder with the 1937 corporate law.
As the direct quoted from "THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938".
"While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96). Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101)"
[Would you mind sharing where you are getting this stuff from? Are you using ai to generate stuff?]
University Library Access and Google. They are pre-written arguments I previously made; you are not the first to use those arguments.
3
-
@israelcontreras5332 I don’t need you to agree with me I am just stating the fact the the definition of socialism you are currently using is refuting other liberal socialism like Anarchism, Orthodox Marxism and Fabianism, which define Socialism as people, public, commune, common or any other socialised entity other than the state ownership of means of production.
Furthermore, according to the following quotes, I don’t think any Karl Marx quote can refute Marxist Socialism(Marx's approach to achieving full communism from capitalism) as being about State ownership of means of production.
“Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
“
…These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
…
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
…
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. …” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
3
-
@israelcontreras5332 [you cannot have socialism without common control of the economy and private property...and you cannot have control without the ownership of the economy as well as private property....or at least the vast majority of it.]
You can literally have socialism without common control of the economy and private property, as the concept of social(state) ownership of means of production is not equal to social(state) ownership of property. A society(state) is not required to own one property to control its means of production. A society(state) can control its (like a factory) means of production by appropriating its surplus produce among the producers and/or to the whole society.
As again.
The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates the surplus product produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it to society at large or the workers themselves. (Lerner, A. P. “Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics.” The Review of Economic Studies 6, no. 1 (1938): 71–75.)
"Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10)
3
-
Because Karl Marx said so in the Preface to The 1882 Russian Edition of Communist Manifesto.
“The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?”
3
-
3
-
["if nationalisation is a socialism measure then. Then Napoleon must be numbered among the founding fathers of socialism for nationalising the tobacco industry" - Friedrich Engels]
You distorted the original quote. It should be:
"But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously." (Anti-Dühring)
Nationalization is not a socialistic measure only when it only fulfills the ruler's personal interest or goal. However, Hitler's intention was for all Aryan people, according to his book. So, his nationalisation can still be considered as a Socialistic measure.
Socialistic measure under Marxism can mean nationalization, according to the following two quotes.
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
"Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. …” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
[the DAF, much like the Chinese ACFTU and soviet ACCTU, was a trade union in only name.]
USSR and PRC in the Mao era are still well regarded as Socialist Countries.
[you need to learn the difference between corporatism and socialism. social democratic ideas like a minimum wage and price controls does not make the economy socialist. the fact the owning class till exists is the definitive proof that it's not socialism it really isn't that complicated.]
Private ownership is still permitted in Proudhon anarchism. Private ownership of businesses was allowed in Tito Yugoslavia.
Owning class still exists in your socialism examples.
["a socialist economy is centrally planned" objectively incorrect, see Tito, see Catalonia, see Ukraine during the Russian civil war, see Bakunin, see Krapotkin, see Proudhon.]
Their existence didn't exclude USSR and PRC in the Mao era from being Socialist Countries.
["socialist economies banning independent trade union is actually an indicator that is it's socialist because independent trade unions would have to take private initiative to strike" actual brain rot. look up what private property means, look up Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. the more independent the trade unions the more socialist the system is.]
Is this the "more socialist" of Catalonia during the Spanish civil war you are referring to?
"Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise. Property holders resented the seizure of their land and the prohibition on employing wage labor. However, Seidman notes while there was coercion, many rural Spaniards also joined willingly out of a belief that they would enjoy the good-life that was promised by various forms of socialism and communism.[33]
Seidman also observes that peasants were not always as revolutionary or ideological as the anarchists would like; families might join a collective not because they agreed with its principles but rather to receive better rations. More individualistic sharecroppers would abandon collectives. Anarchists expressed frustration that peasants were more interested in what they could gain from the collective than commitment to revolutionary ideals. On a larger scale, Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives. CNT officials lamented the "egotism" of the collectives, finding that the collectives were resistant to control (driven by fears that CNT officials would exploit them, which Seidman argues was not always an unreasonable fear). Due to wartime inflation and economic problems, the Republican government struggled to incentivise the collectives to follow their policies.[34]”
[why did you include the war section of your video. its imperialism, the exploitation of other nations. its one of the main things socialists are against. this is just you showing it wasn't socialist. what?]
Nearly every communist/socialist party in WWI was pro-war, and don't forget the Soviets invaded Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine right after the end of WWI.
[socialism by definition is about class, it's always been about class. hitler making it about race proves he's not a socialist. even Robert Owens utopian proto socialism was about class. he wanted the workers to control the means of production in a market economy (something I wouldn't expect you to understand since you thought socialism = centralised economy). "but he was a rich mill owner". and? Engels was also rich. No one doubts he was a socialist.]
Robert Owen's experimental community still has classes difference. He was the ruler who set the rules which those workers followed.
"The first period of Owen's management of the New Lanark Cotton Mills was characterised by his efforts to expand the business and make it more efficient. He introduced such initiatives as report books and product books to record daily production as well as new reporting systems and stock control. A much stricter regime than under previous managers meant that employees could be dismissed for theft, fraud, absenteeism and persistent drunkenness. But although he was strict, Owen was also fair and established an unusual form of discipline known as the Silent Monitor- a daily grading system on behaviour and effort. White was excellent, yellow was good, blue just about acceptable and black- well as they say, 'your jacket was on a shoogly peg'!" (New Lanark Visitor Centre)
Btw have you ever heard of Arab Socialism, which used the race of Arabs as the socialized entity?
["defunct labour theory of value" hasn't been defunct]
Which Hitler also believed.
3
-
3