Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
@nicknolte8671
We have discussed about this before. You still don’t understand the spectrum of Socialism at all.
Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he can't legally strip administration right from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) Germans were allowed to keep their control to their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State's ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren't obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources, written in the 1940s by Neumann.
"The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..."
(German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," (no page number on Kindle).
"The decree of February 28, 1933, nullified article 153 of the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed private property and restricted interference with private property in accordance with certain legally defined conditions ... The conception of property has experienced a fundamental change. The individualistic conception of the State - a result of the liberal spirit - must give way to the concept that communal welfare precedes individual welfare. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz).”
(Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechtes der Gegenward, ed. by Otto Koellreuther (1935), p. 267. - Quoted from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy".)
So, he controlled the private properties legally. He was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit.
Workers had fixed wages , firms could not fire their workers (also from your source), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934.
So the only parts being social darwinised were the firms. The firms can't cut costs from the workers by firing them or reducing their salaries. Even when the firm went bankrupt or was forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the State could do whatever was necessary to remove the weak firm. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only buyer and seller was also the State, as there is no real free market in the economic system in practice as well as in theory, as stated in the CHARACTERIZING THE NAZI ECONOMIC SYSTEM chapter in the "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry."
"The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the State to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people.
But this "directed market economy," as it was called, had not yet been introduced because of the war. Therefore, a way to characterize the actual German economy of the Third Reich more realistically would probably be "state-directed private ownership economy" instead of using the term "market." But that means neither that the specific measures taken by the State were really helpful in the war effort, nor that "markets" played no role in the actions of enterprises" (BUCHHEIM, CHRISTOPH & SCHERNER, JONAS. (2006). The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry. The Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. )
If the demand and supply were regulated, the employment and wage were also regulated, and the only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. The Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist States' economy systems. If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as one of them.
______________________________________________________________
1.5 "In that case, Hitler did not ban private property because he LIKES private property because he believes in social Darwinism, that you seem to not understand the principle.The price control, rant and wage control was here to protect the economy from the war and the great depression."
Germany has already started recovering from the depression since 1932. They don't need extra policy to protect the economy. Your narrative just dismissed all the social welfare policies of Nazi as necessary good for their evil.
Again, the workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.).
Btw, You see the highest welfare of the Germanic people from the quote in "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If the Nazi system was just something [where all production was rolled into a military industrial complex which made the interests of the capitalists coterminous with the interests of the governing dictatorship], why would they:
The Nazi just only take at most 15% (1938) of its national expenditures in the Military, which the USSR would meet or exceed for most of the time in the Cold War years, before the war?
Levied most of the taxes against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren't levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. ( Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.)
"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.)
Implement 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.)
Imposed heavy social regulations 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.)
Established DAF, which used the 'Labour Book' to prevent employers from hiring people they liked.("The Vampire Economy," p109. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," p327.)
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.)
Forced capitalists to join the Nazi party. If the "leaders" refused to join the Nazi Party or cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Heinrich Lübbe, Hugo Junkers, and Fritz Thyssen were thrown out from their own business because they refused to join or cooperate. (Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
Force implementing “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)
3
-
3
-
3
-
Stating that Jews and Communists were the targets of the fire decree doesn't make TIK's claim, the fire decree abolished private property rights, wrong. Those two narratives are still not mutually exclusive. Both narratives can be right at the same time.
Regarding the "old bosses" can still keep their position, that is not a very relevant indicator that NAZI was not running the country socialistically.
As the economic relations between firms and the workers were still heavily regulated by the DAF(9:17,17:25). The only buyer and seller was also the State, as there is no real free market in the economic system in practice as well as in theory, as stated in the CHARACTERIZING THE NAZI ECONOMIC SYSTEM chapter in the "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry."
"The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the State to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people.
But this "directed market economy," as it was called, had not yet been introduced because of the war. Therefore, a way to characterize the actual German economy of the Third Reich more realistically would probably be "state-directed private ownership economy" instead of using the term "market." But that means neither that the specific measures taken by the State were really helpful in the war effort, nor that "markets" played no role in the actions of enterprises" (BUCHHEIM, CHRISTOPH & SCHERNER, JONAS. (2006). The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry.)
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, as again private property right was abolished, 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.
Buchheims described here that the Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly. According to Das Kapital V3, what the Nazis did was the socialist way to run a society.
"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.)
Even though there was a deterioration in the working condition and longer working hours, it was not the capitalist, but the state/Nazi/DAF exploiting the workers.
Regarding the Nazi privatization from Against the mainstream.
Nazi scammed the buyer who brought the “privatised assets” 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)
2
-
Edit: The word “literal belief” means interpreting the bible as literal statements, if Voegelin claimed that st. Augustine dismissed the literal belief in millennium from the Revelation as “ridiculous fables”, Voegelin was claiming St. Augustine dismissed the writing of Revelation as “ridiculous fables”. TIK didn’t misinterpret Voegelin at all.
To be fair, Voegelin claimed the literal belief of the concept of the "New Millennium" was from the Book of John itself.
Here is the related context just before the passage you quoted:
“Nevertheless, the expectation of an imminent coming of the realm was stirred to white heat again and again by the suffering of the persecutions; and the most grandiose expression of eschatological pathos, the Revelation of St. John, was included in the canon in spite of misgivings about its compatibility with the idea of the church. The inclusion had fateful consequences, for with the Revelation was accepted the revolutionary annunciation of the millennium in which Christ would reign with his saints on this earth. Not only did the inclusion sanction the permanent effectiveness within Christianity of the broad mass of Jewish apocalyptic literature but it also raised the immediate question how chiliasm could be reconciled with idea and existence of the church. If Christianity consisted in the burning desire for deliverance from the world, if Christians lived in expectation of the end of unredeemed history, if their destiny could be fulfilled only by the realm in the sense of chapter 20 of Revelation, the church was reduced to an ephemeral community of men waiting for the great event and hoping that it would occur in their lifetime.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There was not common understanding between the industrialists as a whole and Nazi in 1932
in the same November 1932, there were 339 representatives of industry, finance and agriculture signed election manifesto “With Hindenburg for the People and the Reich”. The call supported the Papen cabinet and turned against the NSDAP. (Henry Ashby Turner : The big entrepreneurs and the rise of Hitler)
_____________________
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.
“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)
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)
_________________
Nazi did oppress the capitalists even after July, 1934. 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)
——————————————
Expropriation did happened
Thyssen AG was expropriated in 1939 after Thyssen, a Nazi member, sent Hermann Göring a telegram saying he was opposed to the war, shortly after arriving in Switzerland with his family. (I paid Hitler, p.38)
The properties of Heinrich Lübbe (Arado Flugzeugwerke), Professor Junker (Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG) (Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P17.) were seized by the State just because they refused to joined the Nazi Party.
—————————
Nationalisation did happened
The Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - officially nationalized in 1937 under the Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn.
The corporate law in 1937 that removed 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)
2. Bank Act of 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)
_____________________
Capitalists definitely didn't get richer under Nazi Ruling
"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)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508 those points are for before getting the power not after. And you censored and modified the last point for your own aganda.
"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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations"
"...used as a means for putting through measures ..."
It is democracy result needed to guarantee those changing the system.
Not
the only way you can guarantee democracy and fairness for the workers is by changing the system as it existed before
And those measure were
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.
(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.
(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.
(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.
(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508 or the proletariat can just do those measures by force.
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.
Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.
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 same source)
Get the actual power doesn’t mean need to in the highest position, but it is fine what ever you say.
2
-
@trogdor1977 The argument of why National socialism can be classified as socialism because National socialism did advocate to appropriate means of production to the workers and to the Society as a whole. Here are the relevant quote from the video:
"Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.)
"The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)."
"Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)."
"As Götz Aly’s book “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Firstly, those happened after 1933, after Hitler get into power.
Secondly, those companies didn’t “support” Hitler unconditionally. They profited from it, just like Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers profited from having business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively.
To answer your more fundamental question, would anyone become a Capitalist/Fascist/Nazi/Monarchist just because they traded with or were supported by a Capitalist/Fascist/Nazi/Monarchist?
If Hilter can be classified as Capitalist just because American capitalism “supported” him, Hitler would also be a Communist, because not only did Foreign Capitalist “supported” Nazi, Soviet Union also “supported” Nazi Germany with 1,600,000 tons of grains, 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum though German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939).
At the same time, Nazis entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods.
Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer Tashkent.
Soviet communists were “supported” by Nazi German, Fascist Italy, not to mention the supported by lend-lease from the Capitalist USA during WWII.
With that logic USSR communism would just be the Nazism, Fascism, and Capitalist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2