Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@saphy45-uu8rd It seems you missed the great purge in your History class.
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.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
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
-
@gladys2563
And your statement of [Hitler followed corporate interests, bargaining for bills and debt, lowering taxation.] contradicted with the following sources.
"Through higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
"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)
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.)
Average Worker real wage has been gradually increase from 88.5 at 1933 to 107.5 at 1938 (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). With the price control imposed them on the German people since 1936, by 1937 the total food expenditure of Nazi household reduce to 964 RM from 1369 RM of 1927 where the average real wage per week was 92.3 compare to 103.0 of 1937 (Table 1 ”Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”,).
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. The "capitalists" were also people 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.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Loregamorl The next part from "let all" to "similar systems" I cant really comprehend, I am sorry.
“Let” means assuming that, As I don't want to over simplified the history, that why I am assuming here.
" I do not know what you mean about Marxist or socialist stuff, iirc there were very much ideas on how individuals or people must be represented.
Then I am pretty sure the Communist State IRL can pass fulfilled the requirements on how individuals or people must be represented.
"There is a common misconception that socialism, Marxism, or communism means absolute death of free will or individualism, at least as I have understood it."
I didn't said that "Marxism, or communism means absolute death of free will or individualism". If that phase is true, I would just said : Marxism, or communism didn't forbid the absolute death of free will or individualism. Marxist, or communist state IRL that made the absolute death of free will or individualist of its citizen should still be considered as Marxist, or communist state.
"At the end of the day, it does come down to philosophy and definitions, morphing definitions is possible but then you can fall down the trap of "everything that I dont like is [insert socialism/communism/fascism]"."
That why I started and confined the discussion on Marxist/Communist state only at this stage to ensure we will not fall down the trap of "everything that I dont like is [insert socialism/communism/fascism]".
"For example, stated goal of Lenin would be to create a vanguard party to usher in socialism then communism. Result was state capitalism, lots of people killed through a failure of the party and the existence of a secret police, and so on."
In 1920-70 communist eyes, that was not a fail model at all, bassically all the "communism states" followed just used the similar systems to govern their countries.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DoktorDoomJr Hold it right there, neither I nor Gellatelys claimed that [nazism is "left-wing”.]
He stated that:
“Nolte was not alone in dismissing the "socialism" of National Socialism, which others have characterised as either "fake" or the enemy of the socialist idea. German writers commonly identify "genuine socialism" with the established left-wing parties of those times and today. Yet it is worth recalling that socialism came in infinite varieties that stretched back into the nineteenth century. By the early twentieth century, numerous parties around the globe declared that they were the "real" socialists, and they damned all the others.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p7. )
The most notable example of those “Real” Socialists was Lenin, who wrote “"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder” to attack the leftist critics of the Bolsheviks, the majority of whom later became the left communists or council communists.
If you really want to argue that Socialism must be “left-wing”. Then I must ask what is your definition of “left-wing”, as it seems the definition of “left-wing” can be very flexible when it comes to Communist States history.
Like one can commit the Cambodian Genocide, which targeted racial minorities, people speaking French, and people wearing glasses;
orchestrate the National Operation, which targeted people of different nationalities within the USSR; or
implement legislation (《关于划分农村阶级成分的决定》) that systematically discriminated against people from specific family backgrounds (Five Black Categories) within PRC,
and can still be classified as “left-wing”.
3
-
@DoktorDoomJr
Regarding the Strasserites.
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")
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
The surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were still appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product 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)
Nazi Germany did 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.)
DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. 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
-
3
-
@LactoseTheeIntolerant
Regarding definition, it is the socialized "entity", not "entities". There can only be one entity representing society to own the means of production. If the current Society is really bourgeoisie ownership of mean of production, there will be no business competition anymore as all the mean of production is own by one class of bourgeoisie as a whole. Even under "workers ownership of the mean of production," the definition leftist usually use, it doesn't mean every worker owns a piece of a means of production that they have a full range of control like selling as private property. The ownership belongs to workers as a whole, not equally separated and distributed to each worker.
Regarding democracy, the contemporary definition of democracy, aka bourgeoisie democracy or Liberal Democracy, was not well established before the 1950s. Under the old "people rule" definition, Soviet democracy, and even North Korea, is democracy.
Marx anarcho-communists????? "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." ("Manifesto of the Communist Party", 1848)
"The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not 'abolished.' It dies out." (Engels, “Anti-Dühring,” Part 3 Chapter 2, Sonnenschein edition, 1892, p. 76)
I know his claim of achieving a stateless society, but his proposed measurements are all empowered the State. I cannot see how his state-empowering measures would lead to a stateless society.
This brings us to the next point, USSR faithfully followed the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifesto (which didn't guarantee any contemporary Liberal, not North Korean-style Democratic governments). The problem they were facing was the implementation of those measures didn't lead to an increase in production and could not reach the final goal of the communist State. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to an increase of productive powers, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.) Under Marxism's definition, a socialist State is an intermediary phase between a capitalist State and a communist State. USSR was following those revolutionary measures to eliminate capitalism. Hence by definition, it is a socialist state under Marxism. Therefore, by refuting USSR as Socialist State, you also deny Marxism from Socialism.
3
-
3
-
@LactoseTheeIntolerant [Having some amount of control is literally the founding principle of socialism. Without it, your labor is being exploited by someone else and their interests. Without it, there is likely a class system.]
This is just your wishfully thought stipulated into Socialism; Robert Owen didn't introduce any concept of control for each workers into his New Lanark mill social experiment, and neither did Marxism.
"Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature." (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
If I was wrong, please kindly prove it with evidence.
_____________________________________________
All the quotes you are using cannot address the issue of North Korea, as they were just statements against the monarchy, feudalism, or aristocracy system lacking democracy. However, North Korea and the Communist style democracy were using controlled democracies. They indeed have universal suffrage, and everyone needs to vote. The real issue of North Korean democracy was totalitarianism, which originated from the people. Thus, I believe I can fit North Korea Democracy into most of the democracies described in that quote, except "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," as Marxists fundamentally oppose the right of private property within it. As the Communist-style democracy ( which North Korea is currently using) can deceive people from 100 years ago with controlled democracy, I don't think ideology from 200 years ago even had the concept of controlled democracy.
Furthermore, all the democracy you are mentioning here was not the contemporary Liberal Democracy that we are saying now. The most apparent indication of it was women, and minor ethnicity were not included. Even in America, universal suffrage, one of the foundations of Liberal Democracy, was achieved in 1965, French in 1945, UK in 1928, Canada in 1960. The first batch of countries with universal suffrage were those new European Countries established after WWI, but most were decent back to dictatorship, so I didn't count them. Finland has done an excellent job since its independence in 1918, but it was still 35 years after Karl Marx's death.
Human Rights are another foundation of Liberal Democracy. "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" in 1804 didn't ban slavery and mentioned women's rights, which are significant parts of Human Rights. The Earliest contemporary standard Human Rights related document is the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," passed by the UN in 1948.
[I didn't say he was anarcho-communist. You misread what I stated.]
"Marx… who essentially are anarcho-communists."
Maybe you can show me how to understand this sentence.
[ It was a critique of capitalism and a theory on how communism would come about. They weren't saying that the state controlling labor and capital was socialism. ]
Surely they didn't say what you exactly said, he said :
"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)
When the state controls labor and capital, society would be able to slough off the old economic habits that fixated on "social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now" ('The German Ideology')
It would not just become a socialist state; it would become "a communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." ('The German Ideology')
In "Critique of the Gotha Programme," Marx claimed that
"Between capitalist and communist society, there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." (Critique of the Gotha Programme)
While in "Part III: Socialism of Anti-Dühring", Engels suggested
"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 more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, 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. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as the proletariat abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms and also abolishes the state as a state. … When at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out." (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
These statements outline the last two stages of the economic development of Marxism.
The proletarian revolution(The Manifesto of Communist Party, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Anti-Dühring)
The dictatorship of proletarian (Critique of the Gotha Programme, Anti-Dühring)
State Socialism (means of production, socialized, into state property" (Anti-Dühring ) )
The abolish of Class and State (Anti-Dühring, The Manifesto of Communist Party)
The Communist Society (The German Ideology, The Manifesto of Communist Party)
[They were outlining what they thought would be a natural progression towards communism.]
From the name of The Manifesto of the Communist Party through the formation of the Communist League to the following content within The Manifesto of the Communist Party, it is quite evident that they were not just outlining what they thought would be a natural progression towards communism. On the contrary, they wanted to change it.
"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (The Manifesto of the Communist Party)
"Workers of the world, unite!"(The Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Furthermore, Das Kapitals, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, and Anti-Dühring had a lot of guidelines on how to introduce the Communist State. Do I need to list out those revolutionary measures in The Manifesto of the Communist Part?
The critique of capitalism was not wrong but also used as justification for the necessity of Marxism.
3
-
@LactoseTheeIntolerant
_______________________________________________________
[They further stated a clear understanding of that.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize 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."]
Reality proves my logic is correct then; Total state control didn't lead to a Stateless Society, no matter their justification.
[ummm, no. Where does Marx say that? Where does Marx ever mention or define a "socialist state"?]
Marxism is not just about the ideology of Karl Marx; it also includes the ideologies of Friedrich Engels and other Marxists.
Even Marx and Engels didn't propose "a socialist State is an intermediate phase between a capitalist State and a communist State." Yet, from their pieces, this narrative has already been well-accepted amount the Marxists and Sociologists.
Pieces used this narrative included:
"Capital and Community: the results of the immediate process of Production and the economic work of Marx" by Jacques Camatte.
"The State and Revolution" by Lenin.
and
"From state socialism to Capitalism" by Professor David Lane.
___________________________________________________________
[Engfles and Marx's work wasn't to explain what socialism or communism necessarily was.]
He did at least for communism in his Private Property and Communism Manuscripts of 1844.
[ Though, I would argue that the ruling class wasn't the proletariat, as Marx had envisioned.]
May you kindly provide any quote and source regarding the Marx's envision to support your argument??
[They wouldn't be classified as socialist. Socialism doesn't equal the one aspect of Marxism that you are pointing out (overthrowing governments).]
Before Gorbachev, USSR was also in the progress of entirely socializing the means of production into state property, as Anti-Dühring suggests. So yes, if you really refute USSR as Socialist State(except during the Gorbachev period), you also deny Marxism from Socialism.
3
-
Seems you read “Against the Mainstream” out of the context.
Privatisation was a Nazi Scam.
Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to private sector as stock since 1933 with corporate law in 1937 by removing the shareholders “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)
Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
No one could fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF( 17:23). ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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)
Nazi was not selling the property right of the company, they were just selling the administrative right, which they can take it back if they want, of the company.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andyknowles772
Here is your up to 80% profit tax reference. This is the fourth time I posted it.
"Through higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
_________________________
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.)
Krupp AG was owned by the state and co-controlled by Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach under the name of Bertha Krupp up until Lex Krupp of 1943. By Lex Krupp of 1943, the ownership of Krupp AG was transferred to Alfried Krupp, an SS member since 1931.
Again, regardless of who owned the property of Krupp AG, it still doesn't change the fact that the surplus product produced by means production of Krupp AG, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product 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)
3
-
@andyknowles772
As long as Krupp was a German company subject to the German Constitution, its private property status would be gone along with every private property in Nazi Germany with the enshrinement of articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution.
For the rate of taxes, I also provided the general cases in which the German tax law should be applied universally among all companies within Nazi Germany. And I never claimed any Nazi Germany taxed Krupp at any specific rate. It is just like your defamation against TIK, you made up imaginary arguments and even videos that people never made, and then you argue against those points instead of the points people actually made.
If you believe and argue what happened in Nazi Germany was precisely opposed to the sources I provided, the least you can do is provide your own sources to prove your points. Would you kindly provide those sources so that this discussion can be carried on meaningfully way?
Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, which can be achieved by appropriating the surplus product produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. (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).
____________________________________________
Keep running from the request of sources that you have never been able to provide!😂😆
Where are the timestamps for
[The entire video argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialist.] and
[Thik argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism. This, a company with an IPO is, as he has argued, socialist]
Where is the link for
[Oh, Thik absolutely argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism.
He even made a four hour video on Roman building codes to support it!]
Where is the reference for
[The Nazis didn't strip ownership of the means of production.
The vast majority of the means of production remained in private hands, for private profit.] and
[Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the means of production was in private hands for private profit under the NSDAP...]
3
-
@andyknowles772
Nazi Germany didn’t have the features of capitalist mode of production.
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state.
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
____________________________________________
Keep running from the request of sources that you have never been able to provide!😂😆
Where are the timestamps for
[The entire video argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialist.] and
[Thik argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism. This, a company with an IPO is, as he has argued, socialist]
Where is the link for
[Oh, Thik absolutely argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism.
He even made a four hour video on Roman building codes to support it!]
Where is the reference for
[The Nazis didn't strip ownership of the means of production.
The vast majority of the means of production remained in private hands, for private profit.] and
[Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the means of production was in private hands for private profit under the NSDAP...]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
“Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.”
Is right under your quote, the democracy, communist established would consider as valueless if they loss the election.
Don’t distort the meaning of valueless if democracy cannot achieve socialism into thinking that a result that isn’t socialism would be a loss for workers. The second statement recognised the meaning of democracy while the first one didn’t. What he written definitely not pro democracy. Especially from a man who also written
“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 Communist Manifesto)
and
“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)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It seems you are the one who wants to character assassinate TIK with lies here.
[He claims in other videos that one must look at all the sources to come to an objective conclusion, but instead relies on only a small amount of libertarian sources such as Leonard Peikoff and conspiracy theorists such as James Lindsay whilst ignoring modern academic scholarship]
Here is the books sources of this video:
[Goldstein, P. “A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism.” Facing History and Ourselves National Foundation, 2012.
Hobsbawm, E. "How to Change the World: Tales of Marx and Marxism." Abacus, Kindle 2011.
Jones, G. "Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion." Penguin Books, Kindle 2017.
Kengor, P. “The Devil and Karl Marx.” Tan Books, 2020.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume I Book One: The Process of Production of Capital.” PDF of 1887 English edition, 2015.
Marx, K. "On the Jewish Question." Edited by Tucker, R. PDF. (Originally written 1843)
Marx, K. & Engels, F. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." PDF 1969, original 1848.
McLellan, D. "Karl Marx: Interviews & Recollections." MacMillan Pres LTD, PDF 1981.
Mises, L. “Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.” Martino Publishing, 2012. (Originally 1949)
Mises, L. "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." Liberty Fund, 1981. 1969 edition (roots back to 1922).
Morris, M. “Edward I: A Great and Terrible King.” Windmill Books, 2009.
Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.
Peikoff, L. "The Cause of Hitler's Germany." Plume, 2014 (originally 1982). ISBN 978-0-14-218147-8
Samuels, L. "Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum." Freeland Press, 2019.
Wheen, F. "Karl Marx." Harper Press, Kindle 1999.]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hoztravels2024
As you said, being left like GDR doesn't require actual democracy. It also doesn't require to have any respect for humanity as in the cases of Stalin and Mao. With those two factors out of the table, what makes the Nazis being set on the left side unacceptable?
Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because:
1. Regarding arresting leftist opposition:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of the USSR and PRC than in Nazi Germany in peacetime (1933 to 1939).
USSR: According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personnel were sentenced to death by Military Courts, and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executed in the Gulag during the great purge.
PRC: Just in the Sufan movement of 1955-1957, which targeted the counter-revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal deaths.
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 that can be found online, the highest number of German Communists (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration camps ranged from 20000 to 30000.
At 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 per cent 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.
_______________________
2. Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism
Socialism can cooperate with conservative nationalism and racism, as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism 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.
Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
______________________
3. 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. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics")
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production.
The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product 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)
Nazi Germany did 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. 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)
________________________________
4. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union:
Historically Nazi, 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.
Ideologically, Lenin said
“Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919)
In real life, use the CTC of Cuba as an example.
None of them have the 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)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3