Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
TIK could be right as long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist" under the socialists' narratives. Amazon indeed is the Share/Public/Worker ownership of means of production, but it is not Socialist.
The social/public entity of "social/public of means of production" under the Marxist or Marxist Leninism narrative usually refers to the nation, state or government. However, the same social/public entity can mean cooperation, syndicate, or commune, depending on whether you ask Market Socialists, Syndicalists or Anarchists. As long as Amazon is owned by its shareholders, which includes its workers, it is a Share/Public(of the shareholder) and workers ownership. At the same time, Amazon can centrally distribute all means of production within the cooperation, making it control its own means of production.
Yes, Amazon workers don't have much power to change or alter the direction of Amazon, compared to the workers cooperative under the Market Socialism narrative. However, according to Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels, how that entity works or who controls or regulates that entity is not correlated with how socialised (owning the means of production) that particular entity is.
According to [1], joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production. While [2] and [3] indicated that the Social/Public (State in that particular quote) ownership of means of production doesn't necessarily guarantee the abolishment of exploitation or the end of the Capitalist Mode of Production, it is the Proletarian Revolution bring forth the Socialist Mode of Production and the abolishment of exploitation and Capitalist Mode of Production.
[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. At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient: the official representative of capitalist society – the state – will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication – the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.175 )
[2] “But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers – proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”(Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.176 )
[3] "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. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour)." (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.177 )
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pegacorn13
[Socialism advocates for the equal distribution of wealth across all social classes]
Did you really watched the video? Natioanal socialism did seek to spread wealth across all social classes. 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
-
Is the concept and the try implementation of VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT ideological socialistic enough?
“The Nazis’ racist teachings have been read solely as encouragement for hatred, violence, and murder, but for millions of Germans their appeal lay in the promise of real equality within the ethnic community. Externally, Nazi ideology emphasised differences; internally, it smoothed them over.
Hitler demanded “the highest degree of social solidarity and maximum educational opportunities for every member of the German race; toward others, however, [we assume] the standpoint of the absolute master." For all those who legally belonged to the German racial community about 95 percent of the population- social divides became ever smaller. For many people, the regime's aim of leveling out class distinctions was realized in the Hitler Youth, the National Labor Service, the major party organizations, and ultimately even in the Wehrmacht. The Nazis fondness for uniforms is today seen as a manifestation of its militarism. But uniforms, whether worn by schoolchildren or Boy Scouts or sports teams, are also a way of obscuring differences between the well-off and their less fortunate peers.
The goal of reducing class differences also motivated the Nazis to launch, between 1939 and 1942, a series of increasingly ambitious plans to settle Germans in Eastern Europe. Designed to give Germans more living space, greater access to natural resources, and better opportunities for self-advancement, the most extreme proposal envisioned forcibly relocating 50 million Slavs to Siberia. (For years, the German Research Foundation also supported the development of technocratic plans for the slaughter of millions of people. Funds for research in this area were still allocated in the Nazis final budget for the fiscal year 1945-46.)“
(Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," P30.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
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.
2
-
2
-
Ideologically, it is the mentality of National Socialism, which advocated to socialise Germany into a pure Aryan nation by eliminating other races, especially Jews, from the society that caused the Holocaust.
Coincidentally, it is the mentality of Marxism, which advocated socialise the whole world into a proletarian international, through eliminating private property, subsequently eliminating other classes, especially capitalists, aka private property owners from the society, caused the red terror in the USSR and the Cambodian genocide in Khmer Rouge.
2
-
@ramosman0469 Vietnam Communist, they invaded Cambodia after the Cambodia Army invaded Vietnam and committed Ba Chúc massacre inside Vietnam.
The narrative you are using can only apply to African countries, but not Cambodia, because Cambodia lacked natural resources like metal, oil or diamond when compared to African countries. However, during Cold War no African Countries were being classified as Communist State, because they were practising African socialism, which is a Socialism based on Race/Ethnicity/Skin Color ( Sorry I don’t know the proper range of African in African socialism, but I don’t think White African like Elon Musk is included, if you know please tell me). Which make African Socialism more similar to Nazism than Communism ideologically, but without the class nor race genocide from ideology.
Regardless of the inaccuracy from the narrative you mentioned, that was just the first half of the Story for most of the Communist State. The second half of the story was the Communist government Nationalised/ Socialised the economy, and re-educate/eliminate different groups of people range from ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), intellectuals (USSR and PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge) .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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)
_______________
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Employers 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.)
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)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2