Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@brandonmorel2658
The material conditions were not a factor to be blamed, all those genocide happened in peacetime, and after the communist parties controlled all means of production, all those genocide was just the mean to conduct social engineering.
Even if their meterial condition were miserable, it can not legitimised any atrocities, one of the main reason Nazi Germany start the war and execute the Holocaust was because of the degrading material conditions, the lacking of oil, the upcoming economic crisis, and the losing of the war. If you believe “the material condition” can legitimise atrocities. The Nazi’s atrocities were well justified.
Are you implying that a regime can still strive for social justice and egalitarianism to eliminate property/ex-property owners and their families (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), different ideologies(every Communist State), religion (every Communist State) intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge).
If your answer is yes, then what makes purging people because of their race suddenly more evil and unacceptable? Can’t you see the hypocrisy here, the only difference between authoritarian Marxism and Nazism is just in their political fiction and the reasons behind the execution, people are still going to be killed and exploited by the state under the façade of “ the greater good”?
4
-
4
-
@israelcontreras5332 If you need to use a definition of Socialism, that requires equivocating socialism with communism and refuting all other socialism from Socialism in order to refute Nazism from Socialism. You argument doesn’t seems hold much water.
Now your new definition of Socialism is [the economic requirements of the government owning the means of production and private property] and [was very clear about common control]
For the first requirement :
[ the government owning the means of production]
Nazi together with Liberal Socialist and Authoritarian Socialist did able to meet this definition in practice. As the concept of social(state) ownership of means of production is not equal to social(state) ownership of property. A society(state) is not required to own one property to control its means of production. A society(state) can control its (like a factory) means of production by appropriating its surplus product among the producers and/or to the whole society.
The second requirement:
[the economic requirements of the government owning the means of production and private property]
Even in Marxist theory, the total abolishment of all private property would only happen after the establishment of communist Society. As according to Karl Marx.
"Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
This definition also refuted all liberal socialism from socialism as they still guarantee private property rights.
IRL, together with Nazi Germany, not a single communist state can be classified as socialist state under such definition, because of the constant existence of household plot, and their different economic reforms in different era that allow the existence of private market.
However, legally together with Communist States, Nazi Germany can still be classified socialist state under this requirement as private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. -Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.
The third requirement:
[(Socialism) was very clear about common control]
Karl Marx indeed had a big part Common ownership in his mind, but for Communist Society, not Socialist State.
“Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society“ (Critique of the Gotha Programme I)
This requirement also fundamentally refuted Vanguardism, a core theory of Marxist Leninism from Socialism.
“….a vanguard capable of countering the inevitable petty bourgeois waverings of this mass, of countering the traditions of, and inevitable backsliding to, a narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all aspects of the proletarian movement or, in other words, all the labouring masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is unthinkable.”(On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party, Lenin)
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@KenCunkle
[One of those, maybe, due to local/special circumstances, but looking at the whole set of them, it's quite clear the Nazis were violent right-wingers. Or perhaps you could explain why a supposed "left-wing" regime would have book-burning events where an awful lot of the books to be burned were works by Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, and others of the same ilk. Sorry, Junior, but there are just too many facts you have to ignore in order to try to stuff the Nazis into a "left-wing" box that it is a total fool's errand. You would be better off not double-down on being a total fool.]
For the records, your original argument was Nazis were right-wingers because only right-wingers would commit genocide out of Social Engineering. Now you said Nazis were right-wingers because only right-wingers would burn Leftist books.
I think you are too clueless and have too high expectations to socialist history.
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 in the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or remaking into new paper.
Other examples of socialist burning socialist book 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 in any list I can find.
[The point is that if the only way of refuting the positions of those who disagree with you is by attacking what you IMAGINE their motives to be, rather than by taking up facts to show that they're wrong, you're not really being honest, and you're not a serious historian, which TIK seems to be trying to represent himself as being. As I say. once I hit that section, that was the end of it for me.]
Henry Ashby Turner was suggesting a reason, not a motive.
Stating, “Historian dishonestly dismissed the presented evidence despite knowing the fact that Nazism was Socialism because of some Culture Marxism.” is an accusation of a dishonest act because of an imaginary motive.
Stating, "they tend to view big business with a combination of condescension and mistrust." is a suggested reason and the previous limitation that academic literature would usually included.
If people cannot challenge any pre-existing point of view, it is a religion instead of academia. So here I asked you again, other than the tone of Henry Ashby Turner, what is your argument to support your stance against Turner criticising the common bias of historians and refute the historical evidence presented in this video and the cited source?
[It would be fun to hear you describe how the essential mentality of the Israelis is just like that of the Nazis, not to mention the Russians and the Communist Chinese. What is this "essential mentality"? Specifically, I mean. Knock yourself out.]
Strong state control of mean of production (Socialism in one state) for one nation, and one leader with great urge of land expansion.
Israel until 1966, had strong state control of the mean of production for one race and one nation with a little urge for land expansion.
USSR was a multi-national state with strong state control of means of production for one nation great urge for land expansion (despite they committed so many cultural and ordinary genocides).
Current PRC had weak state control of mean of production for one race, one nation with great urge of land expansion.
[Well, you put Israel in the same bucket with China and Russia and other left-wing/socialist states, so presumably their leaders would also share goals or behaviors or attitudes with that of those other states, right? Seems pretty clear. So again: please tell us how the Israelis are like the Soviets, the communist Chinese, and the Nazis. Heck, if you're ambitious or smart, you could even manage to point out their similarity to the Khmer Rouge!]
All those Marxist Socialist even include revisionist like Karl Kautsky has the share ultimate goal of achieving the stateless classless Communist Society. You seem little bit clueless regarding the Marxist Ideology.
[This is silly, because obviously you're just trying to play "gotcha" with me, which is a sign that you would rather not face the substance of my remarks. Now, it's true that Spain was neutral in WW2, but only a historical know-nothing would suggest that Spain was not affiliated/associated with the Nazis. To prove it, I offer you one word, which you may possibly have heard of: "Guernica." Check the history of what happened there. The Nazis totally backed Franco, not only in word, but with material support.
…
Quite the opposite, in fact. The list goes on and on. Nazi supporters were effectdively on the right, almost exclusively, largely becausd they shared the outlook of the Nazis.]
How about Finland and Sweden ( which is as neutral and cooperative to Nazi Germany as Spain, assistance included sending volunteers and help transport German troops from Norway to Finland) for Axis, they are both democratic regime. Social Democratic Party even got majority seats in Finnish parliamentary election in 1939 and 1945.
On the other hands, how about ROC, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina for Allies? They were all considered as Fascist. Your narrative just was filled with historical inaccuracy, there is really no gotcha as I am just pointing at one of the many plot holes.
[(And seriously, if the Nazis were "left-wing," why did they hate communist countries so much?)]
So as Soviet Union hated Czechoslovak Communist, Chinese Communist hate Vietnam Communist , Vietnam Communist hate Khmer Rouge, Weimar Republic’s SPD hates Bavarian Soviet Republic. The former Communist had invaded the latter in every example I listed.
[ If so, then while you're at it, feel free to explain why guys like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were fans of the Nazis, when they were by no means left-wing or even liberal.]
Lenin also supported by the Imperial Germany monarchy and capitalists like Armand Hammer and Alexander Parvus.
If you can determine someone and their ideology is right or left just by their Supporter, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would be far right too.
[The Pope --and anybody who knows anything would recognize that at this point in history the Catholic Church was definitely a "conservative" institution--supported the Nazis partly because he feared and hated teh communists more and thought that the Germans represented a good bulwark against such left-wing stuff.]
It seems you treat a fail comprised as a sign of collaboration.
In 1941 the Nazi authorities decreed the dissolution of all monasteries and abbeys in the German Reich, many of them effectively being occupied and secularized by the Allgemeine SS under Himmler. However, on 30 July 1941 the Aktion Klostersturm (Operation Monastery Storm) was put to an end by a decree from Hitler, who feared that the increasing protests by the Catholic segment of the German population might result in passive rebellions and thereby harm the Nazi war effort on the eastern front.
(Mertens, Annette, Himmlers Klostersturm: der Angriff auf katholische Einrichtungen im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Wiedergutmachung nach 1945, Paderborn; München; Wien; Zürich : Schöningh, 2006, pp. 33, 120, 126.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@andyknowles772 Here are some socialist policies implemented by Nazi Germany
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.)
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)
4
-
4
-
Sadly those refutative critiques you stated can also be commonly found in Communist States in real life.
If you can refute Hitler and his ideology from socialism just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would also not be socialism.
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.
Ideologically, Lenin said
“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)
In real life, 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).
USSR: 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.
PRC: Just in Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
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.
4
-
1/
TIK call them Socialist because
The actual Nazi policy was called “Gleichschaltung”. This stands for “coordination” or “synchronisation” - as in, synchronisation of the economy and society into the State. Everything was to be merged together as one, into the social state - the exact opposite of so-called “privatisation”.
“Business and professional associations, sports clubs, choral societies, shooting clubs, patriotic associations, and most other forms of organised activity were taken under - or more frequently hastened to place themselves under - National Socialist control in the first months of the Third Reich. ‘There was no more social life; you couldn’t even have a bowling club’ that was not ‘coordinated’, was how one inhabitant of Northeim in Lower Saxony remembered it.”
(Kershaw, “Hitler: Hubris,” p479.)
“The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a person who’s sleeping.” (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107.)
“Between 30 January and 14 July 1933... [the Nazis] had coordinated all social institutions, apart from the Churches and the army, into a vast and still inchoate structure run by themselves. They had purged huge swathes of culture and the arts, the universities and the education system, and almost every other area of German society, of everyone who was opposed to them.” (Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle: Chapter 6 “A ‘Revolution of Destruction?’”.)
Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933.
"The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalised.”
(Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Kriegserinnerungen
[ Any contrarian point of view against the common consensus is naturally going to be brought to question. If I am to be cast as incorrect for personally discrediting these conclusions due to their narratives, why then are those allowed to see the conclusions of these narratives (that the Nazis were socialist), as an objective fact? ]
So those historians were just discredited by you instead of "being largely discredited" in your previous statement.
It is because your discrediting is based on your own subjective bias/dislike against right-wing economists and Misesean, not through historical facts or logic.
Besides, narratives are not objective facts and should never seen as one. If the conclusions of these narratives are seen as objective facts. TIK would not need to make an almost 5 hours video to prove Nazism was socialism.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
[The factual substance and place of these conclusions in common consensus came up to questioning during the Historikerstreit in the 80s, and they lost to their opposition. Zitelmann and many others within his side which shared similar points of view continued to write books from their positions after this, many of which still provided great substance in their respective areas. However, for the reasons I have just mentioned, the conclusions of this video, remain and stay exactly that, a conclusion made in a YouTube video. This same conclusion stays within the realm of YouTube videos and the followers of these historians, instead of being common knowledge taught in our public schools. The existence of such differing opinions regarding the Nazis, shows how difficult and convoluted of a subject it is, and the creators of videos with this narrative stand as a testiment to that, however, not as fact.]
Firstly, you lied; no one has been largely discredited because of Historikerstreit.
Secondly, Historikerstreit is about "normalisation" of the nation's Nazi past, was about "the Holocaust was not unique and therefore Germans should not bear any special burden of guilt for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".[3][4] Nolte argued that there was no moral difference between the crimes of the Soviet Union and those of Nazi Germany, and that the Nazis acted as they did out of fear of what the Soviet Union might do to Germany.[5]”
Historikerstreit is not about the classification of Nazism. You can be both left communist and guilty at the same time. Look up what happened in the Cambodian Genocide. Putting the Nazi on the left had nothing to do with the Nazi Guilt.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
[You're right about my point with Zitelmann, I must admit. The validity of a historian is judged upon their ability to report on that which is objective. I however disagree that the point of view of a historian cannot be brought into question, or condemned when it comes to historical validity. You must admit, that the narratives of the historians cited in this video, those such as: Rothbard, Manish, Reiman, etc., draw conclusions from their points of view which is precisely that which shapes their narratives. These historians share something in common, they are right-wing economists or Miseseans. Their points of view, lead them to conclusions which differ from the consensus that the NSDAP were far-right fascists. If this were not the case, this video, highlighting this alternate point of view, would not exist. Points of view, and the political opinions of the author, shape their narratives and conclusions.]
In the same video, he quoted Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, George Orwell, Joseph Stalin and Rosa Luxemburg. All of them are on the left of the spectrum.
He also quoted historians like Richard J. Evans, Avraham Barkai, Guenter Reimann, Germa Bel, Götz Aly and Adam Tooze, which stated that Nazism is a right-wing fascist ideology.
I would say the sources TIK used in this video are quite politically diversified.
Shouldn't your accusation of [ Points of view, and the political opinions of the author, shape their narratives and conclusions] applied to everyone?
Why only the sources from right-wing economists or Miseseans were in question and condemned?
What authority are you basing on when questioning or condemning the historical validity based on their authors' points of view?
Is there any academic rule or regulation that forbids the use of right-wing economists or Misesean sources like the retracted Andrew Wakefield's MMR Lancet paper?
People with points of view different from yours don't mean they are dishonest or lying (which you did). If you want to question or condemn the historical validity of this video or source, please use historical evidence to debunk it.
Otherwise, what you are saying now is just Ad hominem with fancy words.
[This has been the case since written history, and it plays a vital role in the process of what is submitted into historiography. The differing view of not only TIK, but the authors which he cites, led to the creation of this video, and its contrarian nature. ]
Even if there is a great conspiracy of a bunch of white historians wanting to revise the "common consensus" historical narrative, what is the problem? There is freedom of speech as long as the narrative doesn't contradict any historical facts and does not advocate for any harm to anyone ( even though there are a lot of exceptions). Those narratives should be objectively viewed as moral and valid and should be respected.
______________________
[The difference between that, and which is here in this video, is that the narratives provided in the video leads to a re-classification of the popular conclusion of a historical fact.]
Firstly, no, they are not. Communism is the antithesis of feudalism. A Communist State should not be run as a Feudalist state—one on the left, one on the right.
Secondly, what is the problem of "reclassification of the popular conclusion of a historical fact".
The facts would not change. Regardless if Nazism and Fascism were Left Socialism or Right Capitalism, the holocaust still happened, Germany still started and lost the war and every policy the Nazis implanted was not refuted, including privatisation ( short answer: it was a nazi scam, Nazis stripped all company share right with Cooperation Law of 1937 {1}) and the killing of thousand Socialists (short answer: Soviet and PRC killed hundreds thousands, just killing Socialists is not enough to refute Nazism from Socialism).
Regarding the reclassification of the popular conclusion, everyone should have the right and freedom to believe or not to believe what narratives or conclusions they want, including Nazism is socialism, right-wing or Misesism. It is called freedom of thought.
Again, as long as the narrative doesn't contradict any historical facts and does not advocate for any harm to anyone ( even though there are a lot of exceptions), those narratives should be objectively viewed as moral and valid and should be respected.
{1}: "right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96) and empower the government to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101)." (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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)
For the others two, their Executive members were either joining the Nazi Party, or replaced by Nazi members.
Those who disloyal or refused to joined the Party were getting their company redistributed to other Nazi members.
Notable examples as follow:
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
4
-
@Squeaky_Ben
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")
1.Even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
The surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source.
"Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10)
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)
________________________________
2.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.
Ideologically, Lenin said
“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)
In real life, 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)
______________________
3.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).
USSR: 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.
PRC: Just in Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
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.
_______________________
4.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."
4
-
4
-
4
-
@@DiotimaMantinea-gr6rx
Good luck trying to refute Marxism from the definition of Socialism.
As the idea that socialism is achieved on the state, not in the workplace, level 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)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@opanike87 Firstly Nazism is not fascism. Even if it is. Fascism is still as Socialism as Social democracy.
"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell ,despite scattered, illustrated the the Socialist origin of Fascist economical and political ideology.
The political aspect of Fascism originated from 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)
Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required.
(Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.
"The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) )
The economical 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