Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @michaelmoran9020  Yes it does, under Marxism, the way to transform a capitalist state into a stateless Communist Society is by total state ownership of mean of production. “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) 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 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. … 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) He didn’t monopolise the definition didn’t mean his definition is wrong or have any contradiction to the idea of Socialism.
    7
  2. 7
  3. 6
  4. 6
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 6
  8. 6
  9. 6
  10. 6
  11. 6
  12. 6
  13. 6
  14. 6
  15. 6
  16. According to Karl Marx, State is a synonymous with the society/public of “Social ownership of mean of production”——the definition of Socialism. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
    6
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20.  @KenCunkle  [Now, if you want to go on a rant about how much you hate the Chinese commies and Khmer Rouge, knock yourself out. But please don't be so narcissistic as to think that everybody else has to share your obsessions on a discussino about something else.] Seems you missed the point. If both left and right-wingers would commit atrocities out of intimidating opposition and eliminating undesirable, how can you identify Nazism as a right-wing instead of left-wing ideology from the [motive/goal] behind the atrocities they committed? [ Seriously, now. Don't make such childish and dishonest accusations about "ad hominem" or "slander" without looking into it. Because by doing so you verge on engaging in slanderous ad-hominem yourself. Or maybe you're just hopelessly lazy.] You are then just criticising the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument. By definition, you are still just responding to the tone of Henry Ashby Turner. Would you mind telling everyone that your argument against Turner criticising historians was biased (not dishonest, you are just putting words into Turner's mouth as people can ingenuously believe in their bias.) in this subject matter because "they tend to view big business with a combination of condescension and mistrust." [I'm not sure what your final rant is supposed to be about or prove. The fact that the Nazis were statist, like the Chinese and Russians, says nothing about whether they are "right-wing" or "left-wing" or "capitalist" or "socialist." (I'm not sure how Israel exactly gets into that mix, and for what reason? ] I listed those examples to illustrate that Nazis were not [about something else entirely]. The essence of their mentality can be easily found in other Socialist States. Labour Zionism is social democracy(MAPAI)/militant socialism(MAPAM) for the Jewish Race and their Jewish State. Labour Zionist parties had a plurality of seats in Israel from 1948 to 1977. As Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion were prime ministers before 1977, yes, they were Labour Zionists who embraced both Isreal Nationalism and Marxist Socialism. [Do you think that the Israelis, and Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion, fall into the same category with Mao and Pol Pot?] Did I correlate Israel with Mao and Pol Pot, or are you just playing straw man? I am pretty sure that I just typed [current PRC (which is not ruled by Mao) with stricter state control], [Isreal from 1948 to 1977 with greater ambition], and [Soviet Union but race orientated instead of class orientated]. [Like the aforementioned Spain under Franco, Japan was pretty statist from the rise of militarism until the end of WW2--and both of these were also strong allies of the Nazis as well as being recognized as pretty right-wing--but for some reason nobody seems interested in putting the Nazis in the same category with them. Why not? The answer is simple: Because doing so doesn't advance their patently silly desire to try to "prove" that the Nazis were actually left-wing.] Maybe you should consider correcting your narrative when it starts to distort the historical facts. Spain was a strong ally of the Nazis, despite the fact that they stayed neutral in WWII?? Anyway, using your narrative, the UK and the USA were liberal democrats and pretty capitalistic and strong allies with the USSR in WWII. Under your logic and narrative, the USSR should be put into the category of Liberal Democratic Capitalist States with UK and USA.
    6
  21. Karl Marx wrote the “On the Jewish Question” and has offended at least one Jew (“Hyam Maccoby”) while also being suggested by multiple scholars it is anti-Semitic. Lenin also sent socialists to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did. Sent socialists to death camps: During the Red Terror First, Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were banned and burned in the USSR during the Stalin Era. Other than Communist Books, Anarchist Books by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during the Cultural Revolutions in the PRC. Once discovered by the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or recycling as waste paper.
 Other examples of socialist burning socialist books included Political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz burned by SPD Weimar Germany. Besides, the Nazis didn’t burn all Socialist books. They mostly burned the Marxist Books. The books from other socialists like Robert Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin were not on any list I could find. Stalin proposed Socialism in one country and purged a lot of people because of their foreign identity during the Great Purge. If you can determine whether Hitler and his ideology are far right or left just by all those criteria you mentioned, Lenin, Stalin, and Karl Marx, with their Marxism, would be far right too.
    6
  22. 6
  23.  @andyknowles772  Saying public companies are not publicly owned is valid when you define “public” in “publicly owned” only as government and state, which we would usually do in daily life. However, suppose you only define "public ownership" as government and state ownership when discussing Socialism. In that case, you are going to exclude Anarchism (not An-Cap) from Socialism, as the production units(cooperatives) of Anarchism are not owned nor controlled by the state/government ( not in the public sector). Using the Anarchist Collective of Revolutionary Catalonia as an example. "Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise. … Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives." (Seidman, Michael, "Agrarian Collectives during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War") The "public" of the collective just means the members of the collective, not the state, everyone in Spain, or even everyone in that legislation area. Under the same logic, the public in the publicly owned cooperation only means the owner of the shares of that cooperation, just like the "public" of the Anarchist Collective just means the members of that Collective.
    6
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelianism, while the economic aspect of Fascism originated from from Émile Janvion’s revolutionary syndicalist.

Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) To archive this final goal, a Fascist Revolution will be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.) "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    6
  36. Also Nazism is not Fascism "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    6
  37. Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. 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.
    6
  38.  @nickdipples8562  [He didn't "nationalise" trade unions, he abolished them.] We have been that several times already: Either Hitler and every Communist country nationalized trade unions, or Hitler and every Communist country abolished trade unions. No matter which narrative you prefer, Nazis treated Trade Unions the same way every Communist Country treated their Trade Unions. __________________________________________ [How are price controls or "infiltrating companies" Socialist?] "Infiltrating companies" is a peaceful means to socialize the private MOP to the state. A similar scheme was done by the PRC in 1956 with the "Public-Private Partnership" (公私合营) campaign. Both "infiltrating companies" and "Public-Private Partnership" (公私合营) focused on tightening the state control on the MOP of private firms while not explicitly mentioning the property ownership status of said private firms. While the PRC did it more thoroughly and dictated the control of the private firm's MOPs, Nazis reserved their power to intervene or take over until they deemed it necessary. Nevertheless, infiltrating companies and price-controlled both fit the socialist way of running a society, as stated in Das Kapital V3. "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.) _____________________ [The companies remained in private ownership for private profit, so clearly private property was not abolished.] 1. Those companies did not remain private because of the 1933 fire decree. Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. If Nazis suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to own property, Private property didn’t exist de jure. The property seized of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of even Aryan was not de facto guaranteed. 2. Yet 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. Not all socialism required the abolition of private property. Private property is still permitted in Proudhon anarchism. (“What is Property?”, 131.)
    6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. Seems you missed the following parts and some more addition information. Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Nazi party also infiltrate the executive boards of firms, 3:54 13:24 As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controlled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Nationalized union that controlled the firing and hiring of employees, 17:24 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. 11:24 (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) 
There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy. 11:41 (Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.) Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), and make a corporate law to remove the shareholder's "right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96) and empower the government 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)
    5
  48.  @RightfulArchon186  ​​⁠​⁠Fredda the guy that cannot even define what Socialism actually is? Even pretending what he said is absolutely true, that every private property he mentioned in that video was actually privately owned and not owned or controlled by mostly literally Nazi members. Free Market and private property can co-exist with Socialism. 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") "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) As long as Fredda not able to disprove every facts and Nazi’s Lied ( because Communists States also constantly lied in their policy/ achievements) in this video. It won’t change the facts that Nazism is indeed as Socialistic as many Authoritarian Socialism and Liberal Socialism, despite all the Capitalistic feature, assume that they are all true, mentioned in Fredda video.
    5
  49. 5
  50. 5