Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
@nicknolte8671
Talk about reading comprehension.
The subject of the first sentence was [the "Baltikum" corps].
The subject of the second sentence was [their "volunteer corps"]
The subject of the third sentence was [the "Black Reichswehr"].
The subject of the fourth sentence was [these "combat leagues"].
If you are going to interpret the first sentence, it was unrelated to the other sentences. You can also interpret that the third sentence has nothing to do with the fourth sentence.
The "Black Reichswehr"—as these different squadrons were called—was formed to transform the official "passive resistance" of big business to democratic gains into "active resistance", and these "combat leagues" can be unrelated.
But anyway, other than the geological barriers, we also have the confession statement of Bruno Ernst Buchrucker, indicating that Küstriner Putsch had no association with Hitler. Plus, Schwarze Reichswehr was dissolved upon the failed Küstrin Putsch about five days after September 25, 1923.
It would be quite impossible for the Schwarze Reichswehr to merge with other combat leagues into a single organization, and led by Hitler."
Do you have any concrete evidence that can prove the Schwarze Reichswehr was actually put under the leadership of Hitler?
[@nicknolte8671
Again: "The Kampfbund ("Battle-league") was a league of nationalist fighting societies and the German National Socialist Party in Bavaria, Germany, in the 1920s. It included Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party (NSDAP) and its Sturmabteilung (SA), the Oberland League and the Bund Reichskriegsflagge. Hitler was its political leader, while Hermann Kriebel led its militia."
"dissolved in 1919"
And then another sentence starts which clearly says "in 1923" and then lists the events that happened in 1923. Funding of the Baltikum corps is an example of capitalists funding right-wing paramilitary organizations. Hello, reading comprehension?
"Schwarze Reichswehr was in Küstrin, while Hitler was in Nuremberg from 26/9/1923 to 1/10/1923."
The year 1923 was 47 years after the invention of the telephone. I'm pretty sure that one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world had telephone lines at that time.]
3
-
3
-
If the following policies can be described as a marriage of state and cooperation, then Indentured servitude can also be classified as a kind of marriage.
Hitler abolished the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Without owning private property.
Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.).
The corporate law of 1937 removed the shareholder's “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)
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those properties were sold to party members only by the extension of the state when the party equals 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.
Firms in Nazi Germany were co-controlled by the "leader",ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50
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)
The consequences of failing to comply with the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialists in Nazi Germany was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
3
-
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")
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)
3
-
Your definition of Socialism contradicted itself
You claimed that [Socialism is an ideology that strives for social justice and socialization the means of production, this may be achieved wit state policy or more decentralized measures.]
The [socialization the means of production, this may be achieved... more decentralized measures] part makes no sense. As in the Marxist definition, “socialization” means something centralised to some social entity. If the government decentralises it, those means of production must be socialised to some other entities. Just like you can not just say, I will find a dog a new host by letting the dog go.
[1) The fact that the Labour Front controlled the workers and employers in that country does not mean the capitalist laws of motion didn't function. The cases you mention were minorities and most businessmen were let to accumulate capital anarchically. Capitalism and Nazism were symbiotic as proven by the examples of monopoly and it's beneficiaries, which the Circle of Friends of the Economy (Freundeskreis Reichsführer SS") represented, it was a club of captains of industry friendly to the regime. You tell that the economy was socialist yet there existed capitalist affiliated to the government and a labour corporation -- in the fascist sense of the word -- (DAF) which abolished collective bargaining and worker autonomy. This is without mentioning the fact that the wages didn't increase and the work hours got longer in the peace time. Your definition of socialism, labour politics and social justice are ass-backwards.
Regarding your argument about me using a Marxist critique of the USSR, it is irrelevant. State capitalism means a nation in which the laws of capitalism still function, but the state intervenes in the economy in an unliberal manner. The Marxist theory of the USSR as state capitalist was debunked by Marxist economist Ernest Mandel in his economic polemics some 40 years ago. I was using the term squarely to place Germany in the bourgeois capitalist camp. . . I also too consider the social democracies of the western Europe capitalist and reactionary, not really socialist. They just had welfare.]
Historically, 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.
Use the CTC of Cuba as an example.
None of them have the 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)
Regardless of the BS reasoning behind the consolidation, workers under both systems are still exploited by the higher classes, the righteous communists or the nationalised state representing industrialists. There is no difference for the workers and no difference for the conditions. As the profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( 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)
and with the controlled market with fixed buying and selling price. As the only buyer and seller was also the State, as there is no real free market in the economic system in practice as well as in theory, as stated in the CHARACTERIZING THE NAZI ECONOMIC SYSTEM chapter in the "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry."
"The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the State to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people.
But this "directed market economy," as it was called, had not yet been introduced because of the war. Therefore, a way to characterise the German economy of the Third Reich more realistically would probably be "state-directed private ownership economy" instead of using the term "market." But that means neither that the specific measures taken by the State were really helpful in the war effort, nor that "markets" played no role in the actions of enterprises" (BUCHHEIM, CHRISTOPH & SCHERNER, JONAS. (2006). The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry. )
The functioning laws of capitalism, under the [unliberal] state, intervene in the economy of State capitalism, making the economy of Nazi Germany more socialised than that of the Mexican but more liberal than the Communist System.
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
[3) The number 3 argument really shows your ignorance of political economy. An economic depression doesn't mean a country failed to accumulate capital, it means the productive forces experienced a finance fiasco or a crisis of overproduction. The number one superpower of the world, the USA experienced a crisis in the 20s, does this mean the government and the nation failed to accumulate wealth up to that point, no! It means that capital accumulation experienced such a growth spur that a sector experienced a crisis of overproduction and the wages of the proletarians didn't keep up with the increase in supply, consequently ruining many industries, and thusly the failure of the nation to pay back it's debts. This is simple economics. To argue that a country was socialist because it experienced a crisis is an ignorant argument.]
According to Hjalmar Schacht, the economic crisis faced by Nazi Germany was over the demand for the product during ineffective resource allocation by the state, and the state-direct economy of Nazi Germany failed to accumulate wealth and growth its productivity to meet the state quota demand. The economic crisis faced by Nazi German in 1935 and 1938 was the direct opposite of the overproduction example you gave and very similar to every Communist state’s financial crisis.
“During the economic crisis of 1935–36, Schacht, together with the Price Commissioner Dr. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, helped lead the "free-market" faction in the German government. They urged Hitler to reduce military spending, turn away from autarkic and protectionist policies, and reduce state control in the economy. Schacht and Goerdeler were opposed by a faction centering on Hermann Göring.[23] Göring was appointed "Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan" on 18 October 1936, with broad powers that conflicted with Schacht's authority. Schacht objected to continued high military spending, which he believed would cause inflation, thus coming into conflict with Hitler and Göring.”
Through what evidence can you conclude the US Great Depression and the Nazi Economic crises were caused by the same economic problem ———overproduction?
[Regarding your interjection of the USSR, this is irrelevant. I never said capital accumulation didn't happen in the soviet union.It just wasn't private capital but public proletarian capital in the hands of the government, which reinvested most of it to expand production, hence the great industrialization the Nazis couldn't handle when fighting against the heroic soviets in the Eastern Front. ]
Through your narrative, Nazi German capital also accumulated in the hand public Aryan capital in the hands of the government, which reinvested most of it to expand weapons production since 1933.
Regarding how the Soviets won the Eastern Front economically——lend-lease from the USA, by a significant margin. Please don’t distort history to further your narrative. It takes the whole team for allies to win every front against the Nazi.
[2) I recognized the Cardenas administration as socialist even though it was corporatized because the example was radical. The socialist policies of that regime were the extensive land reform, the institution of Marxist educators in the ministry of education, the increased proletarian share of the national income, the increase of wages, the lessening of work hours, the nationalizations. If we compared Nazi Germany with the Mexican corporatist regime of the time, we would see the Nazis were reactionary and capitalists, as they didn't imposed similar measures. If we compare the political economy of the Nazi with that of the soviet we would see it doesn't compare at all. As the soviets abolished liberal markets, private property, collectivized the rural part of Russia, anihilated all of the capitalists elements and created a proletarian democracy. ]
Nazi government also let the poor have their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised 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 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, and rent controls. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Despite the fact that worker pay may have shrunk in nominal terms because of the failed Nazi socialist economic crisis that I previously mentioned, workers can still get their wage and price controls, rent controls, subsidies on food, rent, coal, insurance policies and more besides. (Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, “Behemoth,” p306. Overy, “Nazi Economic Recovery,” p31. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p71.)
Yeah, you think the Nazis looked [reactionary and capitalist] when comparing with best case scenario. Still, compared to the starving people in numerous Communist artificial famine, Nazi Germany was a Socialist Paradise.
[Regarding the inequality of the populace in Russia, it was there, but they owned the means of production, had guaranteed housing, food, water, and other innate rights. Do you really want to compare Nazi Germany, a regime which instituted genocide into the national agenda and the soviet union, and argue about which one had more inequality? You would come out losing there.]
[4) To be a truly socialist -- by definition and intention -- a government has to orient itself towards social justice and socialization of the means of production. The Mexicans did this. The Nazis DID NOT. . . Jesus!]
If you can recognise the Soviet Union, PRC and other Communist States as Socialist and striving for social justice even with all those atrocities in their hands, under the same standard, Hitler and Nazi Germany also strived for social justice and socialisation the means of production as I can guarantee that Nazi cleanse much lesser people than USSR in terms of number and category. The living standard of Nazi Workers is much better than that of those in the USSR during the worst peacetime. If you think the atrocities of the USSR were not bad enough, Mao’s PRC and Khmer Rouge are still on the list.
Using the leftist killed count as an example:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of the USSR and PRC than in Nazi Germany in peacetime (1933 to 1939).
According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personnel were sentenced to death by Military Courts, and 10,000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executed 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 found online, the highest number of German Communists (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration camps ranged from 20000 to 30000.
At 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 the Sufan movement of 1955-1957, which targeted the counter-revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal deaths.
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
1) A non-contradictory definition.
Thank you for the clarification. The government give the mean of production to the syndicate, which is easy to understand.
2) The nature of the trade unions in the discussed countries.
By using "State Capitalism" to describe Nazi Germany's economy, you are admitting Nazi Germany was running a socialist economy because Lenin also used State Capitalism during the NEP period of the USSR, where "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control". (V. I. Lenin Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy). USSR was still being regarded as a Socialist State even before their collectivisation movement.
This make Nazi Germany sat right in the middle of Cuba and Mexico. The economy of Nazi Germany was more socialised than that of the Mexican but more liberal than the Cuba Communist System.
Suppose capitalist laws of motion only constituted by the state net invested its capital accumulation into the capitalist mechanism, none to expand welfaresystem . The concept of capitalist laws of motion is pointless. As long as Nazi Germany provided any state welfare, it would invalidate this accusation.
If all the capital accumulation need to reinvested back to non capitalist mechanism, and all need to used for expansiing welfare systen, the capitalist laws of motion can also applied to your beloved Mexico Socialist Government.
3) An economic crisis in Germany
[The original point you made about the political economy of Germany is that they somehow constituted a socialism because they failed to accumulate capital up that to point in history…]
My point is your premise regarding Nazi Germany is wrong. Therefore, your whole argument constructed on that premise is invalid.
[The military industrialisation generated an over-supply of military equipment and personnel that started to eat at the economy.]
Nope, Nazi Germany still underproduced according to its rearming target. Nazis need to choose what plane and what ship to build. Unlike your example, the 1930s US great depression, where the economy was ruined by the influx of surplus products within the market, there was no influx of surplus products in the Nazi Germany Market.
4) A capitalist investment of the "Aryan" surplus value
[Your point about soviet investment being of the same nature as Nazi Germany is odd. In my original response I explained that Soviet capital accumulation does not constitute a capitalist tendency, because it was net invested again into a non capitalist mechanism, the centrally planned economy for production expansion and welfare…
This political economy is anti-socialist, and continued for most of the existence of that state, thusly, it is ridiculous to assume Germany had a single kernel of socialism when it spent most of its time committing itself to capitalism.You haven't proved anything of Nazi's supposed socialism with your claims, as you are most preoccupied with proving the state had control, not that it abolished private ownership of the means of production and the capitalist laws of motion. Economically, it is set in stone that Germany was state-capitalist. [1]]
You admitted that Nazi Germany centrally planned the economy for production expansion and welfare in point 5) already, claiming that those [Welfare and state intervention don't constitute socialism, as proven by the USA in the depression and post-depression, which had much welfare for her citizens.] didn't change the fact that Nazi Germany didn't net invested its capital accumulation again into the capitalist mechanism. The capitalist laws of motion also didn't apply to Nazi Germany.
[… the state invested it to subsidise industrialists, and the importation and manufacture of weaponry for capitalist expropriation of foreign surplus value. This political economy is anti-socialist, and continued for most of the existence of that state, thusly, it is ridiculous to assume Germany had a single kernel of socialism when it spent most of its time committing itself to capitalism. ]
According to the Nazi ideology, the weaponry of Nazi Germany was used for the "Aryan", the Socialised Entity of Nazism, war not for capitalist expropriation of foreign surplus value.
Furthermore, during the cold war, USSR was also constantly preparing for war, with more than 15% of its national expenditures in the Military (a similar amount of national expenses Nazi Germany used in 1938) for most of the time in the Cold War. The Soviet state also invested the accumulation to subsidise their military-industrial complex and the importation and manufacture of weaponry to suppress their own people. Why didn't you account that.
5) The Nazi welfare.
[Welfare and state intervention don't constitute socialism, as proven by the USA in the depression and post-depression, which had much welfare for her citizens. [1].]
Did the USA governing party also infiltrate the executive boards of firms; 3:54 13:24
have its nationalised union that controlled the firing and hiring of employees and redistributing the profit gained by the company; 17:24
have a Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, "Against the Mainstream," P20.); and
make a corporate law to remove the shareholder's "right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96) and empower the government to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101)"? (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
The socialisation of those welfare policies even exceeds those of the Mexican government. Therefore, it made the Nazi regime more socialised than the Mexico Socialist regime.
6) The numbers one-upmanship game.
[Your argument for how many people were "cleansed" in other socialists countries is irrelevant, Nazi Germany sent to concentration camps millions of people, and over 17 million people were unfortunate victims of the Nazis supposed socialism [1]. . . What a great socialism!]
Communist leaders could did much worse.
Mao:
Mao's policies were responsible for vast numbers of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions, and his government was characterised as totalitarian.
Stalin:
Some historians claim that the death toll was around 20 million,[64] a figure based on Conquest's book The Great Terror (1968), with some estimates relying in part on demographic losses such as Conquest's.[65] In 2003, British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people.[66]
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
For the whole economic picture of the CCP, using food on other people rather than feeding the starving people in famine was a national phenomenon. During the Great Chinese Famine, the Chinese Government exported 6.8779 million tons of food to foreign countries.
What a low standard you are setting for the Communist country. Even the Greedy Fascist counterpart—-PRC able to achieve an increase of 68% in life expectancy (59) in 3 years (Adelman, 1999, p. 295), it is because the life expectancy of China was only just 35 years in 1949 (Wilenski, 1977, p. 7). Between the dictatorship regime from 1952 to 1982, the economic growth of ROC was, on average, 8.7%. It seems the whole picture is people living in communist regimes were even worse than people living in fascist regimes.
Regardless of those Tankies defend which can also applied to fascist regimes, it doesn’t change the fact that Mao killed more people than Hitler by about 2 to 4 times.
Do I need to remind you that weapons are not a capitalist mechanism? They cannot used to accumulate capital. Admitting that already admit the capitalist law of motion didn’t apply to Nazi Germany. Cuba and USSR also spent no less than 7.8% and 15% GNP on military expenses, respectively, during most of the Cold War. Why were those expenses justified under your narrative?
As you said, it is the capitalist helping the Nazis, not the Nazis helping the capitalist. 6. As his action aimed to serve its socialised entity, the race 32:44, instead of maximising profit, the capitalist law of motion didn’t apply to Nazi Germany.
The mentality of completing the socialist transformation/revolution is not unique in Nazism. It is also presented in terms of Revolution from abroad within Bolshevism.
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
1) is too long will reply later
[2) A mistake on both parties
Your opinion that Germany didn't suffer a crisis of overproduction and over-achievement doesn't cast out the reality that the rearmament was made specifically to invade other countries and capitalistically redirect their surplus towards Germany. The armament and industrialization of the economy for war does not contradict any capitalist law of motion and constitutes a reactionary imperialist-capitalist policy, which is very unbecoming of the socialist prescription for foreign policy.] You haven't cast out the fact that Germany's goal was far right in conception. ]
Because the foreign people are not Aryan, just like the Communist would redirect the surplus of bourgeoisie to the proletariat.
Germany's goal was to end Jewish capitalism (including Marxist Socialism because Karl Marx is Jewish 33:28) and end the Shrinking Market problem (The tendency of the rate of profit to decline) 34:00, instead of maximizing profit 37:56. By what definition of right ,Germany's goal was far right in conception?
[3) Irrelevancy and ignorance]
The military history and War plan of Soviet Union suggested otherwise, both The Warsaw Pact War Plan of 1964 and Seven Days to the River Rhine of 1979, and the suppression of East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia revolution, the export of weapon to Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and its involvment in War of Attrition, Ogaden War, Eritrean War of Independence and the invasion of Afghanistan proved their weapons were more than just for defending themselves from the USA.
[4) A question of welfare]
What critical lens. You never clearly stated the criteria of being Socialist and just keep repeating the term capitalistic but never defined it. What is your actual definition of Socialism?
Norway or Denmark are an ideology that strives for social justice and socialisation the means of production with state policy or more decentralized measures
Even under your origin definition, Norway or Denmark are being consider as the model standard of social democrat, if Norway or Denmark are not consider as social democrat, and therefore being socialist, under what criteria you can define your Mexican Democratic Socialist government as Socialist?
Even if we used the definition from the Manifasto, most of the modern countries nowadays are running a (reactionary) socialist system in a free market environment ( which Karl Marx still acknowledged that is still a kind of socialism). As Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism in Manifesto means “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)
[5) a sequel to an upmanship game of numbers
Do the one-time actions of Marxists-Leninist leaders constitute as the representation of all hitherto socialism? What happened to including the anarchists, the social democrats, the council communists, the anarcho-syndicalists, &c. You are playing up the fallacy in which one or two unnuanced examples suffice to represent a complex issue.]
Stalin Mao and Pol Pot, I counted at least 3 times. Surely not the Marxists-Leninist leaders didn’t represent all hitherto socialism, it just represent the lowest stand of socialism that allow Nazism and Fascist with their atrocities to slip within the definition of Socialism.
You didn’t count the victims from all the political movement since 1949 to big leap forwards, regardless it still prove my point.
The atrocity of Nazism and Fascism regimes were within the spectrum of Communist Regime. You cannot refuted Nazism and Fascism from Socialism nor striving for Social Justice without refuted Marxists-Leninist by the atrocities the ideology practicer committed.
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
I didn’t say the Great Chinese Famine is how communist countries operated normally. As I just need to define the range of socialism, how Nazism can fit into the spectrum, and the fact that you cannot refute Nazism and Fascism from Socialism nor striving for Social Justice without refuting Marxists-Leninist by the atrocities the ideology practicer committed.
—————————————————
ROC industrialised in less than 10 years after 1949. Communism is the worst system you can get for a functioning country. For a Latin American Black Caribbean country, you don’t need extreme left Communism, you just need a moderate left Nationalist Dictator government (quite important) that can control/eliminate foreign and internal power groups （like cartels) within the state, then democratised like Spain or ROC. You don’t need to polarise the society to achieve any of the Economic Miracle.
——————————————————-
As you said, if there is “social imperialism”, war itself is not a characteristic that only exists in capitalism, it cannot used to differentiate Capitalism and Socialism.
————————
Every communist state is illiberal anyway, thus it is irrelevant.
Again, from what you can determine Nazi Germany is anti-workers, when Nazi Germany spent a similar % of its capital surplus on military expenditure as USSR, and was able to eliminate unemployment, established a safety net for the workers with numerous welfare programs.
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
1) A very detail narrative, however contradicted with a lot of historical facts.
Your assumption of Private property rights is factually baseless.
Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.
If Nazis suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to own property, Private property didn’t exist de jure.
The property seized of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of even Aryan was not de facto guaranteed.
Regarding the compliance, Abolishing private ownership didn't necessarily mean the administrating system or the administrator of said property must be replaced.
The illusion of that "private ownership" were only retained by the ex-owner with administrating power (which were mostly Nazi member); for other private owners in the form of shareholders, all their rights entitled by their shares were stripped by the 1937 Corporate Law, which removal of the shareholders "right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors. Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders". (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
For those ex-Jewish firms that sold to the Nazi member during Ayranitsation campaign.
Those Nazi members were not buying the property right of the company, they were just buying the administrative right, which they can take it back if the State want, of the company.
In practice, the administrator (namely owner) of those firm only co-controls the firms with the DAF. They could not fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF( 17:23). ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
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)
Regarding privatisation since 1933.
Privatisation was a Nazi Scam.
Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to private sector as stock since 1933 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)
Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
Every public own firm that were sold to the bank during privatisation were also eventually went back to the control of the Nazi State.
——————
The organic composition of capital didn't increase, because DAF gradually reduce the unemployment rate year by year, and again, 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 indirectly by the subsidies from Nazi Government.
The real wage of worker didn’t decrease, because of the fixed price and the fixed wage. According to the table 7.2.1 of “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”, the Average real Wage of workers was at its lowest of 88.5 at 1933 and gradually increased to 107.5 at 1938. With the price control imposed them on the German people since 1936. According to Table 1 of ”Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”, by 1937 the total food expenditure of Nazi household reduce to 964 RM from 1369 RM of 1927 where the average real wage per week was 92.3 compare to 103.0 of 1937.
——————
The internal competition also didn’t decrease the employment nor wage of worker in Nazi Germany because, the economic relations between firms and the workers were heavily regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25). The only buyer and seller was also the State, as there is no real free market in the economic system in practice as well as in theory, as stated in the CHARACTERIZING THE NAZI ECONOMIC SYSTEM chapter in the "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry."
"The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the State to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people.
But this "directed market economy," as it was called, had not yet been introduced because of the war. Therefore, a way to characterize the actual German economy of the Third Reich more realistically would probably be "state-directed private ownership economy" instead of using the term "market." But that means neither that the specific measures taken by the State were really helpful in the war effort, nor that "markets" played no role in the actions of enterprises" (BUCHHEIM, CHRISTOPH & SCHERNER, JONAS. (2006). The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry.)
The firms can't cut costs for the workers by firing them or reducing their salaries. Even when the firm went bankrupt or was forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the State could do whatever was necessary to remove the weak firm. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
——————————
Nazi Germany never overproduced from 1933 to 1939, if they really over produce, the Nazi State could just use cheaper price to purchase war meterial, and Nazi people can enjoy food with lower price, the Naxi government would not need to impose price control on food and other material to further reduce the price.
[The socialization of labour expresses itself in the national and international separation of labour Nazi Germany engaged, which meant that they relied on the importation of materials from other countries, in the cooperation with other Fascist nations and their wider market. ]
Autarky, self-sufficient, is always the goal of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany only imported raw materials that they didn’t produce from USSR. Most noticeable in the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940), Nazi Germany brought over 820,000 metric tons (900,000 short tons; 810,000 long tons) of oil, 1,500,000 metric tons (1,700,000 short tons; 1,500,000 long tons) of grain and 130,000 metric tons (140,000 short tons; 130,000 long tons) of manganese ore from Stalinist USSR.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
[opening up it’s economy to the International market letting cheap imports flood it….]
Again, Autarky, self-sufficient, has always been the goal of Nazi Germany. An elaborate bureaucracy was created to regulate imports of raw materials and finished goods with the intention of eliminating foreign competition in the German marketplace and improving the nation's balance of payments. The Nazis encouraged the development of synthetic replacements for materials such as oil and textiles.[38] As the market was experiencing a glut and prices for petroleum were low, the Nazi government made a profit-sharing agreement with IG Farben in 1933, guaranteeing them a 5 percent return on capital invested in their synthetic oil plant at Leuna. Any profits in excess of that amount would be turned over to the Reich. By 1936, Farben regretted making the deal, as the excess profits by then being generated had to be given to the government.[39]
[38] Tooze, Adam (2006). The Wages of Destruction: The Making and the Breaking of the Nazi Economy p. 131.
[39] ibid pp. 106, 117–118
_________________________________________________________________
Still, the capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production existed in Cardenss’s Mexico. As those thing can only be eliminated by a planned economy with quota and fix price and a planned labor system where all jobs are being assigned by the state. If the capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production can exist in Socialist state under your definition of Socialism, how can you classified Nazi Germany as Capitalistic with those two criteria?
_________________________________________________________________
Beside Nazi Getmany economic system didn’t match the defined criteria of Capitalist mode of production:
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)
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.).
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
[Even if the legal definition (which is useless to define what is actually private property) "abolished" the privelege to own, monopolies and giant capitalist firms were still encouraged.[1] The regime chose to collaborate with the industrialists and subsidize their efforts. [2] Workers and petit bourgeois elements were suppressed in favour of the big capitalist. The fact that some industrialists and financiers were betrayed by the regime does not erase the fact that an even larger group of individuals and capitalists firms were supported.(3)]
[Germany had a reactionary social policy...]
What suppression and what reactionary social policy, Nazi Germany have forced employment and fixed wage, workers and petit bourgeois elements were guarantee to get a job and be paid.
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Both the “employers” and “employees” were 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)
Together with all those soical welfare and state directed market, the firms can't cut costs from the workers by firing them or reducing their salaries. Even when the firm went bankrupt or was forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the State could do whatever was necessary to remove the weak firm. The workers would still have their jobs and wage.
The demand and supply were regulated, the employment and wage were also regulated, and the only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. The mean of production of Nazi Germany was heavily socialisted to the State and Party.
______________________________________________________________
[...the capitalist laws were in motion...]
Still, the capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production existed in Cardenss’s Mexico and Popular Front Chile. As those thing can only be eliminated by a planned economy with quota and fix price and a planned labor system where all jobs are being assigned by the state. If the capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production can exist in Socialist state under your definition of Socialism, how can you classified Nazi Germany as Capitalistic with those two criteria?
______________________________________________________________
[...and also engaged in imperialist war.]
Again, Germany's goal was to end Jewish capitalism (including Marxist Socialism because Karl Marx is Jewish 33:28) and end the Shrinking Market problem (The tendency of the rate of profit to decline) 34:00 for the Aryan People( The Socialised Entity of Nazism) , instead of maximizing profit 37:56. By what definition of right ,Germany's goal was far right in conception?
3
-
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
1) and 2)
As I have shown you again and again with the historical facts that the Nazi Economic and welfare policies neutralised, not enhanced, the formation of those “reactionary policies” ( characteristic of the capitalistic system that will automatically form within a market economy system)
Even if those “reactionary policies”, namely the organic composition of capital, capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production, still existed in the Nazi Economic System. It must also existed in Cardenss’s Mexico and People Front Chili. Those “reactionary policies” can only be eliminated by a planned economy with quotas and fixed prices and a planned labour system where the state assigns all jobs. If the organic composition of capital, capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production can exist in Socialist states under your definition of Socialism, how can you classify Nazi Germany as Capitalistic with those three criteria?
3)
Nazism advocates the elimination of Jews, while Communism advocate the elimination of capitalist. It is Communism/ Marxist Class Socialism set up such low moral standard for Socialism.
Again, the definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, gender or even chauvinistic (Maoism and Stalinism, both were chauvinistic from the personal level to the National Policies Level). National Socialism is not Marxism, but both are Socialism. Hitler's Socialism is race socialism that is socialized by race instead of class, like Marxist Class socialism. The socialized enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialized enemy of race socialism is the Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jew), he also hated them as Class Socialists hate capitalists.
3
-
3
-
@brandonmorel2658 It is a free stock market. The Chinese government didn’t force the price of Alibaba to decrease.
—————————
Again if Chile and Mexico have any of the organic composition of capital, capitalist laws of motion and Capitalist mode of production. How can you definetgem as Socialist states under your definition of Socialism, while classifying Nazi Germany as Capitalistic with those three criteria?
Nazi also regulated the organic composition of capital ( it cannot be prevent/avoid/eliminated as long as their is labour and capital costs) by socialisation of industry and Market to Party control (Monopolistic Cartels), and eliminated the Capitalist mode of production through rapid investment of armament and other industries to fill the domestic labour supply and regulate the all employment with the nationalisation (destruction) of trade union. The “ridiculous“ policies, which USSR also implemented, were parts of many economic policies Nazi Germany used to implement their authoritarian socialism.
You are still unable to disprove this narrative.
PS: The weekly real wages for German Workers were increased from 107.5 to 111.1 from 1938 to 1939. I took 1938 instead of 1939 was just because the start of WWII on 1/9/1939 may change the context
——————————————-
Mao,Stalin and Lenin all did their share of Genocide against the national ethnic or religious minorities in their own countries, yet Stalinism, Marxist Leninism and Maoism are still considered as Socialist ideologies.
Arab socialism and Labor Zionism are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both wanted to cleanse the other side from the holly land they shared to strive for their respective social justice.
3
-
3
-
3
-
It seem it is not very convincing to state that German Capitalist elite was so for profit that:
They made Nazi levied most of the taxes 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.)
Force Nazi to implement 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.)
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.
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
Force Nazi to establish DAF which used ‘Labour Book’ to prevent employers from hiring people they liked.( “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
Made Nazi abolished the private property rights, which enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
Control Nazi to forced themselves to join the Nazi party. If the “leaders” refused to join the Nazi Party or cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Heinrich Lübbe, Hugo Junkers, and Fritz Thyssen were thrown out from their own business because they refused to join or cooperate. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
Force Nazi to implement “higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hilter did [recognize and challenge systemic issues, like racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression.]
"The so-called national-minded bourgeoisie, blinded by its own material interests, opposes this life-or-death struggle of the workers and places the most difficult obstacles in their way. Not only does this bourgeoisie hinder all efforts to enact legislation which would shorten the inhumanly long hours of work, prohibit child-labour, grant security and protection to women and improve the hygienic conditions of the workshops and the dwellings of the working-class, but while the bourgeoisie hinders all this the shrewd" (Mein Kampf)
Do you know successful Socialist leader usually have two phases, they would advocate for everything before they took the power, and suppressed everything they don't like after they took the power.
The main component of Maoism before 1949 was New Democratic Revolution, which advocated universal suffrage and multi-party system, but after the revolution he ditched everything and went for dictatorship.
Lenin also said "defund the police"
"Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy. The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker." Lenin, April Theses (1917)
Then Lenin initiated the Red Terror campaign once he took the power.
What make you think the woke activist nowaday would not do the same thing?
By the theory of "The Authoritarian Personality"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chesthoIe
Hitler lied to be a capitalist in his speech to ease the social tension caused by his Socialist policies that were listed out in this video.
Here are some examples where Hitler lied in his speeches
[“You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” Hitler 1930]
He lied, as he increase the social welfare to the workers, banned private firing and fixed the wage of the workers, and minimise the unemployment rate to 1-2% after he rose to power in 1933.
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.)
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) 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.)
Worker pay may have shrank in nominal terms, but in actual real terms, it definitely went up, thanks to wage and price controls, rent controls, subsidies on food, rent, coal, insurance policies and more besides.(Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, “Behemoth,” p306. Overy, “Nazi Economic Recovery,” p31. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p71.)
The ‘Labour Book’ that the German workers had did prevent them from just swapping jobs, but it also stopped employers from hiring people they liked. Remember, a socialist economy is centrally planned, so the central planners dictate where you go and what you do. The fact that the workers were centrally planned is proof that the economy was “rationally regulated” - a central tenet of socialism. ( “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
[“The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932]
He lied as he abolished the private property rights, which enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
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.
(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.)
3
-
3
-
@Kernverstand Nope, the end goal of Nazism was the formation of the folk community that serves the interests of the individual, which is able to satisfy popular demands in long run by “supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so doing create the conviction that, through the productive collaboration of its members” (Mein Kampf)
Is it totally BS for sure, but it also shows that Nazism ideology is about the creation of an equal society with just the Aryan race. Again, there is no hierarchy if you have only one level. Similarly, Marxism is about the creation of an equal society with just the proletariat, while all other classes will be eliminated from the society.
Regarding democracy, Marxism is not built around democracy. Democracy is just merely a tool of the dictatorship of the proletarian.
"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")
Besides, socialism can coexist with race superior mentality and still be considered as leftist. Labor Zionism still believes that the Jews are the chosen people and Israel is the God-given land while being regarded as Left Wing Socialist ideology.
Furthermore, Nationalism very often coexisted with Communism. Milovan Đilas popularized the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), where he wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national." A few years earlier, ex-communist Manabendra Roy said: "Communism in Asia is essentially nationalism painted Red."
3
-
3
-
@Kernverstand
[wow, you are coping so hard i literaly explained why nazis were still hierarchal and you have once again come to ask me the same question, just check above comment for how the end goal doesnt matter, would have been authoritharian, state capitalist and still hierarchal (not to mention the previous example on how a murderer who cant kill anyone because everyone is dead is still a murderer or the antrophocentrist earth government)]
Your argument was just contradictory.
How can you conclude that Communism [was built around equality and democracy], while you said that [the end goal doesnt matter] and admitted that [ no, one of the first things that lenin ever did was establish a secret police to spy on the populace and there weren't even any proper elections nevermind the worker class having any power over the country]?
If we are using the logic you used on Communism. As Nazi Germany didn't run as the impossible Utopia Hitler envisioned, therefore Nazi Germany was not practising Nazism,[ this is like the united kingdom being a democracy (not even really a constitutional monarchy anymore) but being called a kingdom, is there an all powerfull monarchy?]
In reality, both ideologies are all blank-check and end up with an authoritative state capitalist regime.
Again, if you can separate Communist ideology from their practice, why can’t you separate Nazi ideology from their practices?
How can you point out Nazism is right and Marxism is left?
You are comparing the practices of Nazism with the theory of Communism. That is just double standards.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[and the "supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so doing create the conviction that through the productive collaboration of its members" isnt about equality but is about socialism, there is nothing about equality of people only about "certain supplies" which then you can count europe as communist]
The example of the Volks Community is to show you that Nazism ideology was not about building any hierarchy systems within the society.
Regarding equality in Nazism, remember the first quote:
“To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights.” (Mein Kampf)
___________________________________________________________________________________
[and oh my god you are ignorant and biased, the communist confession of faith is literaly talking about modern democracies not the idea of democracy, literaly look at wikipedia bro https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism]
Regarding Democracy in Marxism:
In theory, Karl Marx never described what is a proper democracy. It is good when it can achieve the proletarian revolution.
In reality, most of the cases were just heavily rigged, with a 90 % approval rate in North Korean-style democracy. By the Communist's own standard, Hitler's election results and the duration between Nazi elections (12 years until the end of the Reich) were very justifiable, given that the second election of the USSR was hosted in 1937, about 19 years after its formation.
____________________
[and for corruption we need to define what it is, its when people with high power abuse it for their own gain and satisfaction, stalin killing millions in ukraine simply for a bit more industrial growth is corruption, an ss officer killing jews simply because he thinks that they are inferior is also corruption, and i do not know when you came up with the idea that it isnt corruption]
Regarding the “corruption” in Communist Genocides.
Marxism also has that superiority mentality. Historically, they put the proletarian as the superior class and purged the bourgeois, even after their property had been stripped. Many Communist Genocides were ideologically driven. Mao purged the landlord during the land reform campaign, “Five Black Categories” during the Four Cleanups Movement, Lenin purging the kulak, and Pol Pot purging everyone all have their own ideological reasoning.
If this superiority mentality in Communism can be just dismissed into corruption as you suggested, you can also dismiss the race superiority mentality within Nazi Germany as corruption, it has nothing to do with Nazism, just like what you said about communist states and Communism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508 Yet, democracy is just one of the means to achieve dictatorship of proletarian. In countries in which workers can not "attain their goal by peaceful means" the "lever of our revolution must be force", stating that the working people had the right to revolt if they were denied political expression.
"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries – such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland – where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognise the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal to erect the rule of labour." La Liberté Speech delivered by Karl Marx on 8 September 1872, in Amsterdam
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
1. [Marxism is the belief that everyone should be one class, the proletariat, they are advocating for universal suffrage.]
That is just wrong. What kind of Marxism are you studying? There are two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
"By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. "(Manifesto of the Communist Party (1888))
2. [ Yes, in countries where democracy is restricted or outright banned a revolution may be necessary to stop authoritarianism. Just look at France as they threw off the chains of their authoritarian royal oppressors. Or did you think the French revolution was a bit too violent and they should have just let the monarchy there continue to rule over the people without any democracy at all? This is also in reference to the pre-socialist state. Once socialism has been given the opportunity to be considered for election there is no need for a revolution.]
You are just repeating my point. Democracy was just one of the means to achieve the Communist Revolution. Violent revolution has always been a permitted option. Even if the communists choose to do it democratically, they are still permitted to do it with North Korean-style ragged election because
a. Karl Marx never specified what is a proper election and;
b. He said :
"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").
By no means I would say your 2nd point was wrong because it is your interpretation of Marxism, but just by the Karl Marx literature we quote in this thread, you also cannot claim that the Marxist Leninist theory contradicted the theory of Karl Marx.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3