Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry actually privatistion was irrevent to German collectivisation of private property. It is a term Economist use to discribe the policy of the German banks selling shares.
"This issue of The Economist did not include the word “reprivatization.” But several months later, the following sentence appeared in the August 1, 1936, number of The Economist (CXXIV, 4849, p. 220): “‘Re-privatisation,’ as it is called, has, however, been under way in the cases of all three banks. Some 40 per cent of the G.D. Bank’s holding of Deutsche-Disconto shares had passed back into private hands by the end of 1935. The new advance of bank shares to above par ought to smooth the way for complete ‘re-privatisation.’” This may well be the first recorded use of the term “reprivatization” in the English language. Later, in The Economist, the April 3, 1937, issue (CXXVII, 4884, p. 16), the correspondent in Germany wrote: “The DeutscheDisconto Bank announces that it is now fully ‘reprivatised.’ The D.D. Bank’s reprivatisation was in part financed by sale to the Reich of the former Disconto Bank’s central offices. The reprivatisation of the Commerz- und Privat Bank is not yet complete. . . . The Finance Ministry’s holding has been reprivatised."
( Bel, "The Coining of "Privatization" and Germany's National Socialist Party,")
By 1937, legislation codified Nazi shareholders lost the right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96) and the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101).”(Burhop, Carsten & Chambers, David & Cheffins, Brian. (2018). The Rise and Fall of the German IPO Market, 1870-1938. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte / Economic History Yearbook. 59. 9-37. 10.1515/jbwg-2018-0002. )
So even those reprivitise stocks were centrolise back to the state 1 year later.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WhiteWolf126 Furthermore, even if party member was not counted as an extension of the state. Even if those property were sold to individuals. The ownership of that property is still belong to the state.
As the right of private ownership has already been abolished in 1933
"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".)
Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Without the permission of DAF the leader (so-called owner) cannot change the wage of and hiring and firing workers. (17:15, 17:31)
DAF also have the right to decide the employment of the leader (9:17)
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
How was that still count as private ownership.
2
-
2
-
@WhiteWolf126 [Direct orders were incredibly rare, and on the few occasions it happened it was projects concering the war effort. US during the war seized over 64 companies because of the war effort due to the Defense Production Act. You telling me USA was a socialist country at the time?]
German did that even before the war, the war effort is not an explanation.
"Then you list two outspoken Nazi critics being jailed as if this is evidence of socialism. Absolutely ridiculous and low IQ. Here's a tip for you though; not only socialists jail their political opponents. Imagine being this delusional."
Junker and Fritz Thyssen are both industrialists, with all their property expropriated after send to jail. Saying that those two people was jailed because of outspoken is just deliberately ignore of evidence.
"Companies were free to pursue their interests however they wished, and invest their capital how they saw fit. There were regulations, yes, just like in every state in existence. Is the USA a socialist state because regulations exist in America as well? Yes or no. If you are making the case that Nazi Germany was socialist because of regulations then every state that has ever existed was socialist as well."
Not in Nazi Germany, "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.)
"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."(Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.)
“The kommissar in charge of the supply of iron and steel sent many circulars to industrialists blaming them for and warning them against the use of non-quota iron and steel, as well as against exceeding their quotas.” ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p57.)
Firms cannot fire and hire or rise and low the wage of workers without the approval of DAF ( Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
2
-
@WhiteWolf126 Regarding Fascism.
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
______________________
There is no social Darwinism base on race or class in fascism ideology. (Hawkins, M. (1997). Nazism, Fascism and Social Darwinism. In Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (pp. 286, 289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558481.012)
_____________________________________
2
-
@WhiteWolf126 ["The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by participating in government contracts for military production—but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and historians Christoph Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."]
Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he couldn't legally strip private property 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 control of 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 (17:15, 17:31), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934.
So the only parts being social Darwinism were the firms. The firms can't cut costs for 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' economic 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.
2
-
@WhiteWolf126
[ It was not "privatized into the state". There's no such thing. That would be collectivization.
It was privatized into individuals.]
Then Nazi nationalization all the stocks in private sector back to the state sector in 1937.
In 1937 Nazis changed the corporate law and shifted away powers from shareholders to act collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of "Führerprinzip", with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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, Carsten Burhop)
In other words, shares (including state-owned shares) didn't entitle any ownership status and control of said firms in any portion. Nazi Privatization was just a scam to steal investors' money, aka the nationalization of capital in the private sector.
Let's look at all the examples of privatization provided in "Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany" by Germà Bel and see how many Nazi party individuals got any property privately.
Deutsche Reichsbahn:
nationalized by the Act for the New Regulation of the Conditions of the Reichsbank and the Deutsche Reichsbahn (Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn) of 10 February 1937.
Gelsenkirchen Bergbau:
sold to United Steel Trust, controlled by Fritz Thyssen, one of only two big industrialists to support the Nazi Party before it won political dominance in 1936. Fritz Thyssen's property was expropriated in 1939.
Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, Reichs-Kredit-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag” . All the cases here were just the government selling the state-owned shares to the private sector.
Hamburg-SüdAmerika, sold to a Hamburg syndicate in 1936, a Nazi Hamburg ship-owners group.
Hansa Dampf, Norddeutscher Lloyd sold its remaining shares in Hansa Dampf to a consortium made up of the Deutsche Bank & Berliner Handels-Gesellschaft in mid-1937. Both Deutsche Bank & Berliner Handels-Gesellschaft were controlled by the State.
The Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose (Nathan, 1944a, p. 321). In this way, delivery of these services was privatized.
Transfer the State-owned property to the organizations set up by Nazis, not individual Nazi members. Just ownership transferred from State to the ruling party. If that is privatization, then the People's Liberation Army would be the world's largest privately owned military organization now. As to the Rules of Internal Affairs of the People's Liberation Army, the CCP created and has sole control over the People's Liberation Army.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WhiteWolf126 [ Either way, I'm done with you. You are a fanatical ideological zealot who's way too low IQ to interact with. If you ever stop becoming a fanatical ideological zealot maybe you'll understand that fascism is neither socialism nor capitalism, because guess what? Fascism is fascism. It's a seperate ideology, and for good reason.
Just like a flat earther you'll deny the evidence even if it's right in your face, because you already have your conclusion made up beforehand, then you desperately try to bend everything to fit into your ideological zealot lens.]
Hitler's ideology advocated the social (Aryan State) ownership of the mean of production, but he failed. However, as he tried to do so, he was still a Socialist 36:47. Despite Hitler failed to implement full socialism, Nazi German socialistic practice is well within the range of Socialism IRL set up by every Communist Country ever existed, from tolerating private ownership(USSR) to running Mix Economy (Cuba). Hilter and fascist were in third position not because of any ideology reason, but because they were both anti-Communism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tpxchallenger Hitler didn’t enrich capitalist with his policy
"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)
_____________________
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)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Admiral-General_Aladeen
I am not the one who play the meaning of Democracy, it had been played since at least Karl Marx.
Socialism is not about democratic from Robert Owen's New Lanark mill experiment through "Communist Confession of Faith" to "The Capital Vol 3"
"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." ("Communist Confession of Faith")
“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.)
Just a "socialized man," not a "democratically elected man."
Therefore, USSR actually quite faithfully followed the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifesto (which didn't guarantee any contemporary Liberal Democracy, not North Korean-style Democracy). The problem stopping it to become a classless society was the implementation of those measures didn't lead to an increase in production and could not reach the final goal of the communist State. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to an increase of productive powers, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ReadGospelOfJohn TIK never made the statement that business didn’t support Hitler.
TIK said:
"Prior to Hitler's seizure of power, the only major industrialist who was actually a committed supporter of Hitler was Fritz Thyssen" (20:48)
"Of course, there were more industrialists who gave some support to the Nazis, but as Turner points out in "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", most of this support went to individual Nazis rather than the Party itself. Also, support for the Party itself came late in the day (either at the 11th hour, or even after the Nazis had gained power), and the big businesses were simultaneously supporting other parties." (21:22)
"None of these industrialists could be considered committed Nazis prior to 1933 "(21:59).
In this video, TIK was just debunking these two narratives regarding Big Business and Nazi:
1. Hitler was a pawn of big business (who were the real puppet masters);(19:59)
2. the industrialists financially supported Hitler into power(19:59)/capitalists brought Hitler to power (23:28).
When compare to modern “New Socialism”, “Hitler’s Socialism” certainly didn’t support business, they put them under national control though nationalisation or replacing the executive with Nazi member.
Hitler’s Socialism was actually more antagonise toward capitalists than the “New Socialism”.
2
-
@ReadGospelOfJohn Nazis were way more hostile against the Capitalists than the “Modern New Socialism”.
Nazis replace the executives of German Firms with Nazi members. 3:56
Nazis also heavily stripped the right of stock owners.
The corporate law in 1937 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)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist. 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
-
“despite the German Army stealing food from numerous other countries.” 15:16 It seems you missed the last sentence.
Here is the origin quote.
“By June 30, 1939, Germany had 5.5 million tons of grain reserves, and the figure remained constant a year later. But by June 30, 1941, the reserves had dwindled to 2 million tons; a year later they were down to a meager 670,000. In response, officials at an emergency meeting called by Goring in August 1942 decided to step up Germany's extraction of food from occupied countries. As a result, Backe was able to get grain reserves back up to 1.2 million tons in 1943 and 1.7 million in 1944.”(170, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,”)
With your logic why the more war torn Germany would have a higher grain reserves?
Allied bombings never focus on food production of Nazi Germany, bombing against transportation began in 1944. In 1943, the Allied bombing targets inside Germany were mostly Heavy Industrial Zone, and Urban area. Most of the transportation system and farm land were still intact.
TIK point was, from 1939 to 1943, under Nazi ruling, even with the extra land, extra manpower, purposefully creating artificial hunger amongst the occupied native to ensure extra food would send to German and furthermore purposefully store up grain reserves in 1942, Germany can still able to had their grain reserves decreased from 5.5 millions to 1.2 millions.
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508
"Historians explained the selling off of government assets to private individuals. TIK called that nationalisation."
You missed the following part, “the state/party order was not an suggestion but reinforced by enforcer and precaution. The mean of production (the freedom of production) is in the hand of state/party.
If the “leaders” refused to cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Professor Junker of the Junkers aeroplane factory was the first to be thrown out of his own business as a result, but he wasn’t the only one.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
"Historians explained thay unions were crushed and had all their powers removed. members had no say in how the unions were run. TIK called that union nationalisation and said it made them stronger."
USSR did the same thing, and those historian agreed that USSR was a Socialist state.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2