Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
1. Again, according to Karl Marx, the abolishment of private property would not complete until the Communist Society has been archived, it won't happen in pre or post-Socialist state , as according to Karl Marx: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, the very building of such a (communist) society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other.” (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
2. Please kindly provided your definition of democratic election and rigging. Otherwise, we are unable to continue the discussion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WhiteWolf126
The abolish of private ownership right in 1933.
"The decree of February 28, 1933, nullified article 153 of the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed private property and restricted interference with private property in accordance with certain legally defined conditions ... The conception of property has experienced a fundamental change. The individualistic conception of the State - a result of the liberal spirit - must give way to the concept that communal welfare precedes individual welfare. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz).”
(Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechtes der Gegenward, ed. by Otto Koellreuther (1935), p. 267. - Quoted from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy".)
_____________________________________________________________________
Privitisation did exist, but resources only sold to Nazi member and their affiliates under the Nazi control.
“It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.” (Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany," Universitat de Barcelona, PDF p3.)
“Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates(Pollock (1938, p. 43-68) provides an extensive revision of the organizational characteristics of the Nazi Party holding of organizations.) or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose (Nathan, 1944a, p. 321). In this way, delivery of these services was privatized.”
(Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany," Universitat de Barcelona, PDF p9.)
[The Party of the Government is not private sector](TIK remark)
3
-
@WhiteWolf126
Then why did the contemperory record and historical research said otherwise?
“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 decree of February 28, 1933, nullified article 153 of the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed private property and restricted interference with private property in accordance with certain legally defined conditions ... The conception of property has experienced a fundamental change. The individualistic conception of the State - a result of the liberal spirit - must give way to the concept that communal welfare precedes individual welfare. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz).”
(Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechtes der Gegenward, ed. by Otto Koellreuther (1935), p. 267. - Quoted from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy".)
"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.)
"Both governments [Nazi and Soviet] reorganised industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity. The Nazis reorganised industry into 13 administrative groups with a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. The state therefore could direct the firms’ activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. The pre-existing tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilise prices.”
(Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p582-583.)
"...in practice the Reichsbank and the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs had no intention of allowing the radical activists of the SA, the shopfloor militants of the Nazi party or Gauleiter commissioners to dictate the course of events. Under the slogan of the 'strong state', the ministerial bureaucracy fashioned a new national structure of economic regulation."
(Tooze, “Wages of Destruction," p112.)
“We worked and governed with incredible elan. We really ruled. For the bureaucrats of the Ministry the contrast to the Weimar Republic was stark. Party chatter in the Reichstag was no longer heard. The language of the bureaucracy was rid of the paralysing formula: technically right but politically impossible.”
(Schacht, speaking of the situation after 1933, quoted from Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p112-113.)
“Manufacturers in Germany were panic-stricken when they heard of the experiences of some industrialists who were more or less expropriated by the State. These industrialists were visited by State auditors who had strict orders to “examine” the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company (or individual businessman) for the preceding two, three, or more years until some error or false entry was found. The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error. Obviously, the examination of the books was simply a pretext for partial expropriation of the private capitalist with a view to complete expropriation and seizure of the desired property later. The owner of the property was helpless, since under [National Socialism] there is no longer an independent judiciary that protects the property rights of private citizens against the state. The authoritarian State has made it a principle that private property is no longer sacred.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WhiteWolf126 [They were socialists because a jewish revolutionary communist didn't like their economics because it was NOT Socialism according to him]
[So you lied when you claimed he wasn't a jew? Ok, good to know. His book is about his experience doing business as a JEW under FASCISM, more specificially the NSDAP. It's not about his experience doing business under Socialism or bolshevism.]
He was a Jew didn't mean the accounts in the book were from Jewish businessmen. Are you claiming that because the author was a Jew, the example the author used must also be Jews? If true, this argument has a huge logical leap that needs evidence to prove otherwise.
His book described the objective fact that NAZI Government expropriated and collectivized private property and set up plan economies. No matter how the author claimed, Fascism was behind all those actions. Those accounts of collectivization of private property were still objective facts. What the author thinks those actions represent is irrelevant because I am referencing the account no the view of Vampire Economics to prove Nazis centralized and collectivized the German Economic and means of production. If centralizing and collectivizing the mean of production means Socialism, then that is just a happy little accident.
[Collectivization and privatization are terms that applied to economics. And what kind of figure heads of culture and academia was replaced do you think? Hint: they were leftists and liberals pushing the same kind of cultural leftism we see today.]
Lenin and Stalin also purge the Mensheviks, the anarchist, the syndicalists, the Trotskyists, and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists Stalin disagreed with were purged during the great purge if killing/purging different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist. So as every Lenin Stalin and Mao.
[I did, you mongoloid.
"Then you list two outspoken Nazi critics being jailed as if this is evidence of Socialism. Absolutely ridiculous and low IQ. Here's a tip for you though; not only socialists jail their political opponents. Imagine being this delusional."]
Junkers was not an outspoken Nazi critic and was never sent to jail. He was just being expropriated.
Besides, your counter-argument has nothing to contradict to my point. Similar to the account from the vampire economy, the expropriation of Fritz Thyssen wasn't evidence of Socialism. It is evidence the expropriation and the abolishment of private property rights by Nazi was not only applied to Jews but to everyone.
I only mentioned Fritz Thyssen, who is the second outspoken Nazi critic you were referring to?
[They were socialists because they had regulations just like every other state in history]
Regulation, including fixed wages and employment of workers (17:15, 17:31) by the DAF, and the centralized distribution of raw material and goods with price control even before the war started (11:27). What other capitalist states in history have that kind of regulation?
[They were socialists because they allowed private property and conducted privatizations on a massive scale.]
The state property was only privatized to the party members, which is the extension, and acted on behalf of the state. Your narrative of Nazi members being just individuals that can do whatever they want is disproved by the jailing and the expropriation of Fritz Thyssen and Hjalmar Schacht. The ownership of the firms was always in the hand of the state, not the party member.
Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he couldn't legally strip private property from anyone. He didn't do it to everyone because he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit.
Besides, if the demand and supply were regulated, the employment and wage were also regulated, and the only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. The mean of production was still in the hand of the state. The surplus product was still under the appropriation of the Nazi Regime. The Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist States' economic systems. If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as one of them.
[They were socialists because you want them to be at all costs]
Nazis were socialist because they abolished the private property right of everyone, centralized the German economy to the ruling party and its regime, appropriated the surplus product of the mean of production throughout the nation, and tried to implement a planned economy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This argument would be valid before the Ukrainian war. But from the practical result you can actually see the difference. In Russia, the oligarchy is the one who scammed the Government military expenditure. In Nazi German, it is the Government who scammed the industrialist with MEFO bill that never pay off. Furthermore, with the ability of stripping all the private property, everything de facto nationalised.
Btw why Americans always think Nazi work like republicans, a political party in a democratic country. You should think Nazi party like communist party.
If that republican/democrat work like communist or Nazi party, you will have a republican/democrat commissioner in every company, army, and church to make sure everything is work according to the republican/democrat standard/interests . It is the republican/democrat state, republican/democrat school, republican/democrat army and republican/democrat church. republican/democrat first everything after.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@willnash7907
1.Surely, the Nazi’s Central planning is just one of the necessary reasons why Nazi German was in fact running a Socialist State. Again as point 6 in my previous comment stated. 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")
By the fact that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the definition of Socialism.
2. 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."
3. 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)
4. Nazism did not rejected the category of class, Hitler wanted to end class inequality. He claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" in Mein Kampf.
5. The very big part you have neglected was how Marxist Leninism worked in practice. All of them fused Communism with Nationalism (National Communism), making the Ruling Communists as the New Class, and ruled the countries in (mostly) central plan economy with hierarchy and castle stronger than the Nazi, Fascist and even the Liberal Socialist.
Nazis Germany was neither running a Totalitarian Communist Economy nor a Democracy Socialist Economy. Nazi Germany was running a Totalitarian Socialist Economy where the property administrator(the owner who had no legal property right anymore) had more control than the administrator of the Communist state. Still, they were much more regulated by the state when compared with the property owner in a social democratic state, which made the Nazi economic system set right in the middle of the Socialist economic Spectrum.
6. Regarding anti-socialist
Lenin also eliminated the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists Stalin and Mao disagreed with were also eliminated in the respective political movement. If eliminating different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their respective Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, should also not be socialistic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Marxism was not about democracy.
"Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat." ("Communist Confession of Faith")
“Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
Just a "socialized man," not a "democratically elected man."
Marxism may start from protecting the basic workers’ right , but in reality, it ended in totalitarianism and lost of civil right, while USSRs’ workers have worsen/equal (dependent on the source of Fred Copeman account) working conditions than their Capitalist Counterpart even in Stalin era.
Marxism in reality is just about socialising the working class under the slogan of “social democracy and protecting the basic workers right”. Just like Nazism is just about socialising the Aryan race under the slogans of “Social Darwinism”. If Hitler is truly believed in Social Darwinism, Himmiler and Goebbels would never able to become Nazi Party leaders because of their disabilities.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@shte_ken3978
[it's not because both ideologies controle society through the state that it is the same. They have completely opposing use of the state.]
So yes, thank you, you finally agreed, both Marxism and Nazism are ideologies dedicated for social ownership of mean of production.
Although, they are both Socialism, surely, they had their differences. Marxism is class Socialism, while Nazism is race Socialism. One is about class, another is about race.
Despite the different socilaised entities, they have similar end goal. Like Karl Marx, Hitler also wanted to collectivise the race and create a “People’s State” or “People’s Community” - a Volksgemeinschaft. The idea was to abolish distinctions between classes, genders and so on, and equalise all Germans in the community. (Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," P30. Bessel, “Life in the Third Reich,” p25. Browning and Siegelbaum, “Beyond Totalitarianism,” Kindle Chapter 6. Hitler, “Mein Kampf,” p307, p410.)
[The socialist state is meant to be completely democratic, the state in a socialist society is not meant to controle its people but to be controlled by them, this is the exact opposite when talking about fascism.]
First, again fascism (in theory at least) is about equalised the profit of capitalism amount all class. However, similar to Communism, fascism was failed to put in practice.
Secondly, you are arguing against the definition of Communism against the words of Marx and Engels and the action of Lenin and Mao.
I am not opposed to your thinking that socialism should be about stateless or democracy( not the North Korean or Soviet one, The Western one aka bourgeoisie democracy which Marxist despise ) .
But, if Marxism and Communist State were able to be classified as Socialism and Socialist State, with such ultra-low standard that the leftist themselves defined, then Nazism and fascism should also be able to classified as socialism under that same low standard.
3
-
@shte_ken3978
[It's the idea that [social classes would continue to exist, but there would be no class conflict between them.]
that I reject. This is impossible from a socialist point of view, not a Marxist point of view but a socialist one.]
The private property right has been abolished in 1933, without owning private property, they were all in the same class with different position. How could bourgeoisie exist, how could class difference exist?
[Under Nazism, the means of production, distribution, and exchange are not owned or regulated by the community as a whole but by the "the capitalists that have worked their way to the top through their capacity".]
Again, the whole demand and supply of the Nazi German was regulated by the state and the party. The only buyer and seller was the state/party. If they isolate the competition between the industrialist (nor capitalist as all of those factors were state owned), and the cost of competition would never transfer to the workers (Fix wage and employment), where is the class oppression, where is the class conflict?
["the capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and as the basis of this selection, which again only proves their higher race, they have a right to lead."]
The full quote should be:
"the capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity,and on the basis of this selection, which again only proves their higher race, they have a right to lead. Now you want an incapable Government Council or Works Council, which has no notion of anything, to have a say: no leader in economic life would tolerate it"
He said that to ensure those capitalists can maintain there administrative position if they got the power in 1930.Hitler abolished those capitalists private property right, putting them to work for the State, and outlaw the capitalist to transfer their cost/problem to the workers (Fix wage and employment), instead of erasing them from the economic system and replacing them with the inexperienced like the Soviet did in the first few years and PRC in the Cultural Revolution. Maintaining the productivity, preventing total economic collapse while preventing exploitation, what is the problem with that again.
Beside, Soviet Union also did that, if not by managing/working capacity, how can they select the factory manager and commissar, randomly picked one. Letting people worked their way to the top through their capacity is just basic management, not a define prove of oppression and exploitation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3