Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@jakovvukelic4797
Nazism was not just a Hitler’s ideology. There is another branch of Nazism from Gregor and Otto Strasser.
Besides, the original text from Karl Marx permitted violent revolution.
“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
“the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
Can you kindly point out what Lenin and Stalin did really contradicted what Karl Marx said?
And again why can't “Real Nazism has never been tried” just like Marxism.
For the rest of your comment, your grammar was so bad that I cannot understand what you’re saying. Please kindly rewrite the comment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
From TIK's another video-- "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming"
As numerous historians have pointed out, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was a grassroots organisation that financed itself from donations and selling tickets to Hitler’s speeches. Here is Richard Evans confirming this.
(Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle Chapter 3: “The Roots of Commitment”. Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 6. Turner, “German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler,” p347, p352-353.)
“The Nazi Party depended on such commitment [finance from the grassroots]; much of its power and dynamism came from the fact that it was not dependent on big business or bureaucratic institutions such as trade unions for its financial support, as the ‘bourgeois’ parties and the Social Democrats to varying degrees were, still less on the secret subsidies of a foreign power, along the lines of the Moscow-financed Communists.” (Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle Chapter 3: “The Roots of Commitment”.)
“The notion that Germany’s capitalists contributed significantly to Hitler’s rise has become something of a truism. More often than not, that is the message conveyed by American textbooks for students of European history and by other instructional works. With astonishing frequency, in short, evidence and purported evidence bearing on the subject of this book has been dealt with by historians in a fashion marked by a striking suspension of professional standards.” (Turner, “German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler,” p350.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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 Minecraft (The real name of the book is censored, but Hitler only wrote two books and the second one is called "Second Book”.)
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)
_____________________________
Economically
The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriate the surplus product, produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics")
By the fact that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. This make Nazi economic system met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source.
"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)
Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, 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.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. 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.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
3
-
@Ahng_Noying9574
In practice, every moderate social democrat is built on class collaboration. Otherwise, you will see property owners getting purged in social democratic states like Denmark right now.
Ideologically permitting/supporting class collaboration is not enough to refute an ideology from being Socialism, as Karl Marx said socialism that advocated class collaboration, together with Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism as Karl Marx said in the Manifesto:
“
…
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)
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.
For eradicating leftist.
Socialists often fought against other Socialists in human history.
Lenin eliminated the Kronstadt rebellion and revolutionary Socialist, and Stalin for the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, and the Trotskyists.
If acting against different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and their respective Leninism and Stalinism should also not be socialistic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andyknowles772 Nope, more leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939).
According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge.
While in Nazi German:
“Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000.
In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
“[Hitler] rejected from the outset the idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden” [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. )
“By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. )
The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
3
-
@JS-el3zm No, in. 1945, by the atrocities USSR has already done, their totalitarian ruling for more than 20 years, and the existence of Eduard Bernstein’s Revision Marxism since 1899, you can firmly place Nazism within the spectrum of Socialism.
Indeed, the Nazis and Fascists hated communism and killed many Marxists. In the meantime, Marxist Leninists also hated and killed many more revisionists, anarchists and revolutionary Socialists.
USSR and PRC both sent more socialists into concentration camps and caused more socialists' death than the Nazis.
However, USSR and PRC and their ideology were regarded as the pinnacle of Socialism, while the Nazis and Fascists were regarded as the opposition of socialism.
I believe this double standard is more laughable than discarding the historical fact that the Nazi killed Marxists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As stated by Engels, joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production,[1] however, socialisation for someone’s private interest did not constitute Socialism.[2] As long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist", TIK is right under Marxism theory, even using the theoretical standard which no Socialist regime IRL would able to pass.
Amazon being public or worker-owned (in share) doesn’t necessarily means it is socialist. Fredda is either confused with the concept, or he was putting words into TIK’s mouth to defame him.
[1] “This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognised, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the SOCIALISATION of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
[2] “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, 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. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company [founded as a commercial and banking company in 1772 and granted a number of important privileges by the state. It advanced big loans to the government and, in fact, became its banker and broker], the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
Regarding Nationalised Trade Union:
Historically Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions.
Use the CTC of Cuba as an example.
Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba)
“There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba)
Regarding arresting opposition:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939).
According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge.
While in Nazi German:
“Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000.
In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
“[Hitler] rejected from the outset the idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden” [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. )
“By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. )
The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
3
-
Congratulations you refuted Marxism from the definition of Socialism.
As the idea that socialism is achieved on the state, not in the workplace, level was proposed by no one but Karl Marx and Frederick 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)
“
…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. 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. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Without owning private property, how could bourgeoisie exist, how could different class exist, they were just people in the same class with different positions. Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory.
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those properties were sold to party members only, the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06.
The consequences of failing to comply the party orders were property being seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialists in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3