Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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")
Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology not just because they call themselves National Socialists. It is also because 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 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)
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. 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)
2
-
The action of “Privatisation” did exist, however it didn’t diversified the ownership of public property from the state sector to the private sector .
As the “Privatisation” was just the first step of a Nazi Scam.
Nazi renationalised the control of 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.),
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)
Every public own firm that were sold to the bank or the private sector during privatisation were all eventually went back to the control of the Nazi State.
Regarding the DemocraticMarxist01, In a one-party totalitarian state, party property very often equals to state property. The very notable example would be the People's Liberation Army, it is the army of the Chinese Communist Party, instead of the People Republic of China. Does it make People's Liberation Army a privately owned Army?
2
-
@jawaddddd6730 [It did.]
I am not saying privatisation never took place. I am saying Nazi later pushed out a regulation that stripped all the control of the firms from the stockholders of firms in 1937 and a regulation that made the Nazi Regime able to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management" in 1934.(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224)
Nazi sold the property as stocks , then nationalised the control of means of production given by the stocks.
All those policies were pushed out years before the war, how would [The liberal countries also exercised tighter control over banking because of war making reasons but their banks weren't nationalized.] can be the a reason to refuted anything.
[The USW was sold to Thyssen, the 4 biggest banks became private again and the shipyards and shipping lines were sold to private companies. ]
The buyer were either all Nazi members, or were sold as stock which really didn’t provide any control of said companies to the stockholders after the corporate law in 1937.
[There's literally a chart in Bel's paper (the JSTOR version, use sci hub to get it) that shows which capitalists got which firm.]
There is no chart in Bel's paper (the JSTOR version, use sci hub to get it), the closest thing to what you described is Table.1. Table.1 only indicated the position of the state after the sale(s).
[False, that was the Nuremburg defence and it failed. Krupp, Flick were punished, BMW and Hugo Boss apologized for benefitting heavily from Nazism.]
They are all Nazi members, of course they were benefitting heavily from the Nazi Regime.
[The liberal countries had war economies and were even stricter (UK adopted total war measures 1.5 years before Nazi Germany) but they still had private property the same way Nazi Germany had an 85% private sector.]
I am very curious where does your conclusion [Nazi Germany had an 85% private sector] come from.
"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)
[The PLA was the army of the PRC as a whole.]
PLA is an Army of the Patty not the state.
“第四条 中国人民解放军是中国共产党缔造和领导的….” (中国人民解放军内务条令（试行）,2018）
That is why party property very often equals to state property in a one-party totalitarian state.
[State Capitalism]
Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of USSR, where “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control". (V. I. Lenin Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy).
Claiming a state practising State Capitalism, doesn’t mean that state was not practising Socialism, as they were not mutually exclusive.
[The capitalist companies in Nazi Germany were identical to the ones in other capitalist countries; independent capitalists who owned large firms and sold goods on a market for profit, there was competition and the capitalist class benefitted tremendously from Nazism (shown in DemocraticMarxist01's video).]
There was no free market in the economic system of Nazi German 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.)
2
-
@jawaddddd6730
[The problem with this argument is that every country that doesn't have a feudal or slave economy would be socialist (state regulations are needed in capitalism).]
It can be true according to Karl Marx, otherwise Proudhon’s Anarchism cannot be defined as Socialism. As Karl Marx did put any state run by a Bourgeois, building roads and having social healthcare, and Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, as Karl Marx said in the manifesto that:
“
…
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
…
A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
2
-
@jawaddddd6730
1. TIK didn't define Capitalism in this video and the another video that he put in this thread. Where do you get that [TIK’s definition of Capitalism]?
2. Regarding UK regulation, what regulation and how tight? Is it tight to a point that "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) Did UK also abolish the Constitution that enshrined Private property rights, as Nazi did in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933? (2:40) Did UK also Nationalised all Trade Unions? Just because UK is a Capitalist State and have bank regulations, rationing system and other plan economy policy during WWII, it doesn't refute those policies from being a policy of practicing social ownership of means of production.
3. Regarding “'The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich” That data can also indicated that Nazi Germany taxed more on business, less on the worker. As 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”).
4. Regarding the doubt of German Nationalisation, again Nazi renationalised the control of 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.),
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)
Every public own firm that were sold to the bank or the private sector during privatisation were all eventually went back to the control of the Nazi State.
Nazi would usually took the control of Germany firms through replacing the executive members of saids firms with Nazi members.
Notable example would be the executive board of IG Farben
“Every member of the executive branches of IG Farben was member of the Nazi Party, except the one who was a Swiss national and therefore exempt. 3:54”
Direct Nationalisation did also happened in Nazi German.
The properties of Heinrich Lübbe (Arado Flugzeugwerke), Professor Junker (Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG) (Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P17.), and Fritz Thyssen (Thyssen AG ) were seized by the State.
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”.
5. Regarding German Firms profiting, I literally show you the data that "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)
And you are trying to refuted that just by quoting Tooze said business did profit, and neglecting the fact that the net private wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% under Nazi ruling.
6. Regarding Free Market is an oxymoronic term. Regardless how you see free market, it doesn't relevant to how Nazi German was practicing Socialism. The definition of Socialism is Social (can be state or ruling party) 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")
As Nazi did appropriate the surplus products produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it to society as a whole by the State or to the workers by DAF. They did meet the definition of practising Socialism
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 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.)
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