Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@eduard.1917
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.
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.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Rundstedt1 Furthermore, I wish to know under your definition of Socialism, is partial socialism like social democracy or other socialism (Utopia Socialism, Reactionary Socialism, and Bourgeois Socialism) that Karl Marx criticised in the Comunist Manifesto as socialism? Even the socialist state which transforming from capitalist state to communist state mentioned in the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith
"(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance
taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.)
forced loans, etc. " - Manifesto of the Communist Party p.49
, and USSR had household since it founded.(wiki-household plot) If you defined socialism as "economic political economy that rejects private ownership of the means of production."
No Socialist State ever exist IRL, and only the theoretical Communist State in Marxism would fit though your definition of Socialism.
4
-
4
-
@nukethepentagon
Socialists often fought against other Socialists in human history.
Lenin were resisted therefore eliminated the Kronstadt rebellion and revolutionary Socialist, and Stalin for the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, and the Trotskyists.
So If acting against different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and their respective Leninism and Stalinism should also not be socialism.
___________________________
Permitting/Supporting class collaboration is not enough to refute an ideology from being Socialism, as Karl Marx said socialism that advocated class collaboration, together with Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism as Karl Marx said in the Manifesto:
“
…
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)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hobbso8508
Nazi Germany was not capitalistic in any sence.
The industries and businesses were nationalised.
(Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p3 + p9. Mierzejewski, “The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich,” p4. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
The people who ran the industries were NS.
(Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p3 + p9. Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 9. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p124.)
And heavy social regulations were imposed on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc.
(Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p71-74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
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.)
4
-
1. 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
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1. National socialism did appropriate means of production to the workers.
"Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.)
"The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF."
"Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community."
2. Most Communist State ever existed also paired with some sort of racism, nationalism and a sense of supremacy.
3. That is the most horrifying part, people can recognize Fascism from the bigotry of they practice, but not from their ideological origin.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The socialism definition TIK used in this video is Social(State) ownership of the mean of production. (25:42)
And even according to Karl Marx, the control of means of production is only on the hand of some people (associated producers), not everyone as:
“Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised 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 favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
___________________
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")
Socialism is not just about working classes.
The Spectrum of Socialism is beyond the Marxist Class Socialism and its variant. Proudhon’s Anarchism, Bourgeois Socialism and Owen's Utopian Socialism didn't have the ideology of working class solidarity, yet still classified as Socialism by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.
___________________________
Ideologically Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because:
1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf.
2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member.
3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47).
4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48)
_____________________________
Economically, Nazi Germany was practising a Socialist Economy because:
By the fact that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. This make Nazi economic system 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)
a.Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. 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)
________________________________
b.Nazi Germany did reach the lower stage of Socialist Mode of Production. As the economic policy of Nazi Germany did able to make its economic system ascend from capitalist mode of production under Marxist theory.
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state.
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
4
-
4
-
4
-
Firstly, Nazi Germany paid for those [schipping]. Ford didn't “support” those [schipping] unconditionally. Those “Supports” that you claimed were just international trading.
Secondly, not only did Foreign Capitalist supplied resources to Nazi, Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany with 1,600,000 tons of grains, 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum though German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939).
At the same time, Nazis entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods.
Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer Tashkent.
If Hilter can be classified as Capitalist just because American capitalism “supported” him, would it also make Hitler a Communist because the USSR also supported him?
How about those Soviet communists? They were also “supported” by Nazi German, Fascist Italy, not to mention the supported by lend-lease from the Capitalist USA during WWII.
The other case would be Cuba. It is currently actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies. Does it make them not practising Socialism?
4
-
25:30 The definition of socialism use in this video is here, one of the references is Das Kapital V3 from Karl Marx.
Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00.
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 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory.
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
4
-
1/2
It is quite amateur to say fascism is just about power and stealing.
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)
4
-
2/2
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)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Schnoz42069 And the state is society, this idea is not from Lenin nor Hitler 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)
4
-
@tcironbear21 In practice, both ideologies can contain the elements of egalitarianism (within its designated people) and Nationalism.
While Hitler claimed ending class inequality is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Minecraft (the real name is censored in YouTube).
On the other hand, Stalin initiated the National Operations of NKVD during the Great Purge.
From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD. It is estimated that this would make up 34% of the total victims of the Great Purge.[4]
Polish Operation of the NKVD ~111,091 killed[5]
NKVD Order No. 00485
German Operation of the NKVD ~41,898 killed[6]
Greek Operation of the NKVD ~20,000[7]—50,000[8]
Latvian Operation of the NKVD 16,573 killed[9]
Korean Operation of the NKVD ~40,000 killed[10]
Chinese Operation of the NKVD
Estonian Operation of the NKVD 4,672 killed[11]
Finnish Operation of the NKVD 8,000–25,000 killed or disappeared[12]
Harbin Operation of the NKVD ~30,992 Harbin Russians were killed[13]
4
-
4
-
4