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

  1. Why would this make Nazi Germany less Socialist in any means? Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers also have business with USSR in 1987 and 1933 respectively, did it also proof USSR was also not a Socialist State in those years? Cuba also actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies. Does it make Cuba less Socialistic by the same logic you applied to Nazi Germany?
    5
  2. Maybe you should have a look at the Soviet Union and its ideology. Means of production, distribution, and exchange regulated by the state. Equally nationalising all 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) And equally imprisoning and purging socialists. Lenin, who purged the Anarchists and Revolutionary Socialists, Stalin, who purged the Mensheviks and Trotskyists
    5
  3. The communist history of the last century indicated that socialism can co-exist with totalitarianism
    5
  4.  @Schnoz42069 Almost every Communist State leaders beg a differ.
    5
  5.  @Schnoz42069 USSR under Stalin, PRC under Mao
    5
  6.  @123skillax  USSR also use slavery with WWII POW to build the road of bones too. Nazism was not really about discriminating Jews, but eliminating Jews Just like Marxism want to eliminate the bourgeoisie not discriminating them. Every Communist state also had at least one leader with cult of personality. PS: I am not defending Nazism, I am saying Marxism is as bad as Nazism.
    5
  7.  @123skillax  Like abolishing Private Property? Which civilised world used that principle? Hitler use the same reasoning( World controlling Slavery Promoting puppet master) to justify the elimination of the Jews. But in both Germany and USSR not just the rich were killed, most of the victims were just small businesses/property owners.
    5
  8.  @hobbso8508  1. like who actually has any power in real life? 2. DAF had actual control over how every firm run. 3. Nazis changed the law to remove the shareholders' right to vote in board members in 1937. Don't distort what people said. 4. Hitler called Marxism not all socialism, a Jewish invention, again don't distort what people said.
    5
  9. Good luck trying to refute state control of means of production from the definition of Socialism. As the idea that socialism is achieved by state ownership of means of production was proposed by no one but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “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) “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. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    5
  10. LGBT is not really a good indicator to differentiate political left and right. In the 1930s, along with increased repression of political dissidents and non-Russian nationalities under Stalin, LGBT themes faced official government censorship, and a uniformly harsher policy across the entire Soviet Union. Homosexuality was officially labelled a disease.[135] The official stance could be summarized in the article of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1930 written by medical expert Sereisky: Soviet legislation does not recognize so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest ... while recognizing the incorrectness of homosexual development ... our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures with all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective —Sereisky, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593 In 1934, the Soviet government recriminalised homosexuality in the Soviet Union. Mass arrests occurred in several cities in Russia, including Moscow, and many artists were arrested. On 7 March 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, throughout the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited only male same-sex sexual intercourse with up to five years of hard labor in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding same-sex female sexual intercourse.[7] During the Soviet period, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121.[136]
    5
  11. The re-privatisation from 1933 was a Nazi Scam. Nazi scammed the buyers who brought the share of “privatised assets” with corporate law in 1937 by removing the shareholders “right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96). Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101).” (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
    5
  12. ⁠ @SkeeterHowitzer Those happened after 1/1933, Hitler became the chancellor of Germany, aka Rise of Hitler.
    5
  13.  @TlsMS93  [The national socialist perception of the means of production involved the conception that everything that was under the ground belonged to the German people, that what would be built above it belonged to the individual in a kind of symbiosis and Hitler made it very clear in speeches that no one could dispose of their capital in any way he wanted, capital would serve people and not the other way around, he clearly wanted to control dividends to the minimum necessary, the world doesn't seem better to me with its billionaires or even trillionaires, does it?] Isn't that just a description of how means of production should be socialised and distributed to the society (the German people) as a whole from every and any individual of the said society (the German people)? What are you trying to disprove with that socialistic statement describing Nazi Germany?
    5
  14. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism or third way.
    5
  15. Are you sure about that, the communist society Marx claimed was a society without oppresstion everyone can do whatever activity they wish, doesn't need to work, and no politic. This seems way further than just an improved world for the working class, and closer than a utopia. “communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’) "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party') "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')
    5
  16. Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can cooberate with conservative nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
    5
  17. Soviet Union was also capitalist under your definition, as it imported jet engines from the UK and ship engines from Japan. Firstly, fascism is also a socialist ideology. Secondly, associating nazism with fascism doesn't necessarily mean dissociating nazism from socialism.
    5
  18. Seems you missed Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism from the definition of Socialism. There internationalisms are definitely nationalistic.
    5
  19.  @Aria-Invictus Again, I never stated that Private property right or right itself actually existed, I am just saying that right itself is a foundation concept of Sociology. If you refute the concept of right, you will invalidate many Sociology theories.
    5
  20. Big government and regulation (control of means of production ) did equal to socialism according to Karl Marx. “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) For the Enslavement, the existence of Gulag and the enslavement history of WWII POW of the USSR has already proven that Socialism can co-exist with enslavement.
    5
  21.  @paulsame1124  Lenin's greatest enemy after he rised to power was Socialist Revolutionaries. How do you come to the conclusion that Lenin was a socialist.
    5
  22. Nazism is not Marxist Communism, TIK admitted that in the video already. 28:50 But it is still a kind of socialism.
    5
  23. Unfortunately, the fact that the leaders of communist states also did the same things made your point nearly meaningless, as that hypocrisy has become an intrinsic part of Communism ( one of the Socialism) in real life.
    5
  24. owns the mean of production of its society.
    5
  25. The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates 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") Even after ditching Otto Strasser, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production. The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by 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) Nazi Germany did 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)
    5
  26. 40:57 He literally said he could not deny the Holocaust “because of the evidence that the Holocaust happened.”
    5
  27. What defined racism, nationalism and Lebensraum as Right Wing? Arab Socialism and Labor Zionism are both regarded as Left Wing ideologies and both have racist, nationalist and Lebensraum mentality.
    5
  28.  @andyknowles772  There are plenty socialist policies implemented by Nazi. 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.)
    5
  29. Full or high level class socialism also required totalitarianism. Or else how can proletarians dictate the state economy as Karl Marx intended
    5
  30. Nope it is Karl Marx definition. 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) And according to Karl Marx, democracy is not even an essential component of Socialism. "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.)
    5
  31. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @Kriegserinnerungen  [No, as I stated in my comment, I have a problem with many of his sources in general, I used Zitelmann as an example. There is a motive behind this video, and looking at the sources for it show that. Of course Hitler is going to look like a socialist when you use outdated right-wing historians and political scientists who have been largely discredited since the 80s. Those such as Tikhistory will find the fringe sources which go against common consensus, and use them in videos such as these to try to "teach you the truth," as if they have some forbidden knowledge, a truth, that the world's most accredited experts don't have. It's his motive.] Edit 3: Your argument was not even based on truth. Regarding the discrediting, Andreas Hillgruber was not discredited, not to mention Zitelmann. Hillgruber was not fired from his post at the University of Cologne after Historikerstreit. Historian Eberhard Jäckel paid tribute to Hillgruber in a foreword to his memorial with the words: “The fact that German research reconnected with international research after the Second World War is probably […] the merit of […] those conservative historians who expressed their judgment against enforced their prejudice and thus helped the initially reluctant public opinion to have an unobstructed view of reality. […] The first and most important of them was Andreas Hillgruber, and that will remain his honor.” [13] Der Spiegel honored Hillgruber in 1989: “With his sober, technically sound work on the Second World War, he was one of the first class of German historians; his habilitation thesis on Hitler's politics and warfare ("Hitler's Strategy") became an internationally recognized standard work . n] step” of research towards a better understanding of Hitler’s “racial ideologically oriented expansion policy”. His study is a “standard work that is still essentially valid today”. [15] Hillgruber was a full member of the Historical Commission at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences (from 1982) and the North Rhine-Westphalia Academy of Sciences and Arts. Shortly before his death, Hillgruber received the Federal Cross of Merit, 1st Class. [13] Edit 1: Wait, Your whole argument is because Zitelmann defended a historian who wrote "wrote that historians should "identify" with the Wehrmacht fighting on the Eastern Front and asserted that there was no moral difference between Allied policies towards Germany in 1944 and 1945 and the genocide waged against the Jews.", which is just a subjective statement and not even denying the existence of holocaust, which I think should be discredited, so that Zitelmann should be discredited? Discrediting a historian not because of what he wrote but because of whom he defended is a very far-stretched accusation. In your logic, shouldn't you also discredit every historian who had defended any communist regime, especially Noam Chomsky, because of his stand on the Bosnian genocide, just because of the actual atrocities those communist regimes those historians supported? Edit 2: How about those who defended Israel or Palestine? They both committed atrocities against people from the other side. Should all of those who defended either side be discredited too? Otherwise, are you implying that defending someone saying something controversial, in your point of view at least, is more worthy of being discredited than those defending someone who killed people? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As I can find from the script, most of the Zitelmanns’ quotes were used to support the ideology and mentality and the point of view of the Nazis and Fascists behind their policies instead of proof of historical economic data or the existence of any policy. What would be the degree of inaccuracies you would get to quote of fascist’s and Nazi’s mentality even from a “proto-fascist” if no factual evidence their arguments based on was refuted. If those narratives have been discredited, would you kindly provide the discrediting reviews? If those narratives have been discredited just because of their point of view instead of fault evidence, why should they be dismissed? For example, there are two narratives regarding the reason behind the Chinese Great Famine: the Western narrative would blame the failed socialist policies. In contrast, the Eastern narrative would blame Mao for being an incapable ruler as some Emperor in the previous Chinese Dynasty. As long as both narratives fit historical facts, both narratives are valid.
    5
  32. Lenin also eliminated the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists Stalin and Mao disagreed with were also eliminated in the respective political movement. If eliminating different leftist groups and other atrocities you mentioned would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their respective Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, should also not be socialistic. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. “Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919) Use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) 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. Regarding Anti Semite: Stalin had his own Doctors plot.
    5
  33. Those capitalists throw in money to save their lives and become a part of the administration. Socialism is not when communists kill the capitalists but when the means of production within the nation get into the control of the state.
    5
  34. Because Nazi Germany is an Aryan State not a worker state. The socialised the race, Aryan, not the class, worker.
    5
  35. 1. It can be before the night of long knives 2. Socialism is when there is absolutely no private property whatsoever? People in Soviet and PRC still had it since they found 3. and 4. As 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 mentioned in the video since 5:06. 5. Their theoretical final goal and concept are totally different, fascist is still a class socialism while Nazism is a racial socialism. Their socialist entity are totally different. Fascist is not an racial ideology, There were 10000 Jews fascist party member in Italy in 1938. 6. So as USSR, this is not a whataboutism, this is a logic gate that work like this, if Nazi did something horrible and a communist country did the same horrible thing and still being considered as a socialist state, then you cannot really used that horrible thing to prove Nazi German was not practicing Socialism. 7. Krupp is still under the state control, if Krupp didn’t privately own the mean of production of his property (the control of production), how capitalist can he be. 8. USSR and PRC did the exact same thing, Limiting the freedom of employment is the first step of plan economy. You may look at the Hukou System for PRC and the internal Passport system of Soviet Union. 9. Yes “rationally regulated” is the characteristic of initial state of socialism it also stated in “The Communist Manifesto”. And so as PRC in 1950 also did that. 10. Economically motivated doesn’t mean they are Capitalist. USSR and PRC also trade with capitalist country with economic incentives, still didn’t make them capitalist. 11. Anti-Marxist doesn’t mean anti socialism, socialism predate Marxism. 12. The objective fact of socialist country IRL actually quite mirror what Hitler did to the world and Germany. If you say he is lying because he cannot deliver what he said, he is as lying as other socialist leaders in the world. 13. That is communism,as you said communism≠ socialism. This not a valid point to prove Hitler is not a socialist. 14. Lenin, Stalin, Mao they all purged their comrade and other Socialists, it cannot prove they were not socialist.
    5
  36. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 17:15 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    5
  37. "I am a socialist." - Hitler, from his "Zweites Buch" (Second Book) Page 50.
    5
  38. “Socialism includes democratic control of the mean of production”? right. Like Soviet Russia and PRC?
    5
  39. The Soviet Union also bust unions, harass striking workers, and arrest leftists.
    5
  40. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    5
  41. Socialist regimes often burned other socialist books. Surely you can refute Hitler and his Nazism from being a Socialist and Socialism by the fact that he burned other socialist books, but under the same standard, you must also refute Stalin and MaoLenin and their Marxist Leninism and Maoism from being Socialists and Socialisms. 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 remaking into new paper. Other socialist burning socialist books included SPD Weimar Germany burning political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz. 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 can find.
    5
  42. Lenin and Stalin also eliminated the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, the Trotskyists, and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists Stalin and Mao disagreed with were also eliminated in the respective political movement. If eliminating different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their respective Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, should also not be socialistic.
    5
  43. ⁠ @hobbso8508  Yes it can (“Apologize.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster)
    5
  44.  @hobbso8508  It all depends on the context, which it seems you are unable to comprehend.
    5
  45.  @hobbso8508 Don’t be mad when you fail to be a grammar nazi.
    5
  46. Dictatorship also didn't contradicted with socialism. Hitler can be a dictator and a socialist at the same time.
    5
  47.  @bobsager7034  Oppressed by the Marxist Communists. Where are your sources showing that Anarchism is ideologically expelled from socialism? As far as I know, famous social anarchists in the 1800s to 1929s like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Ernest Tanrez and Peter Kropotkin, were all regarded as Socialists.
    5
  48.  @bobsager7034  Even if TIK talked about the “Black Front” and Otto Strasser, which Hitler just banned but not purged, it wouldn’t disprove Hitler from being a socialist. 4:08:54 Regardless of how many National Socialist or Socialist Parties Hitler purged, those facts are not able to disprove Hitler being a Socialist due to the very low standard set up by other famous Socialists like Lenin, who purged the Anarchists and Revolutionary Socialists, Stalin, who purged the Mensheviks and Trotskyists, and Mao who purged any Marxists that didn’t obey him.
    5
  49.  @opanike87  The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism.
    5
  50. Then under your definition what make socialism?
    5