Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "The National Socialist Welfare State" video.
-
1. USSR also had their welfare systems and instituted central planning. Just because most capitalist nations in the world implemented similar policies in the same period, it doesn’t make [created their welfare systems and instituted central planning] counter-prove anyone was running a Capitalist system.
2. What 2/3 are you talking about?
The Conservative voting base was quite consistent in the German federal election from 1930 to March 1933. The total seats of the Centre Party, DNVP and DVP in each election were 139, 134, 141 and 144, respectively.
3. What Hitler's electoral coalition are you talking about?
Hitler was appointed as Reichskanzler by Hindenburg not through any election.
4. Industrialists profiting in Nazi German?
Are you just making data up here? It seems very unlikely for industrialists and major business owners to make billions off from anything in Nazi Germany because "Through 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)
5. Regarding purging leftist opposition:
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 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executed in the Gulag during the great purge.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
While in Nazi German:
“Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources that can be 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 into 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 per cent 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.
8
-
7
-
6
-
Regarding arresting leftist opposition:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939).
According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
While in Nazi German:
“Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000.
In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
“[Hitler] rejected from the outset the idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden” [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. )
“By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. )
The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
6
-
@willnash7907 1. Cheap points and carefully hand-picked scholarship doesn't mean fraudulent. You still need to prove them wrong in order to dismiss them.
2. Rather welfare systems and instituted central planning was the General Tendency or not, it won’t change the fact that those
3. Again, I started with 1930 federal election, the total seats of the Centre Party, DNVP and DVP in each election were 139.
4. Hitler lied about the Enable Act :
”The Centre Party, whose vote was going to be decisive, was split on the issue of the Enabling Act. Chairman Kaas advocated supporting the bill in parliament in return for government guarantees. These mainly included respecting the President's Office retaining veto power, religious liberty, its involvement in culture, schools and education, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party. Via Papen, Hitler responded positively and personally addressed the issues in his Reichstag speech but he repeatedly put off signing a written letter of agreement.”
5. How much and what scholarship? Even tons of money flooded into Germany by 1940, how do you know that it flooded to the pocket of the industrialist, instead of the state? I on the other hand able to prove that at least 80% of that billions would be channeled to the state via Tax. Would all those money go to social programs. I think unlikely, I presume they would mostly go to rearmament. But that Militarism was still not able to refute Nazi German from being Socialist. As USSR was also constantly preparing for war, with more than 15% of its national expenditures in the Military (a similar amount of national expenditures Nazi Germany used in 1938) for most of the time in the Cold War.
6. Great narrative, however even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
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 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)
Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@andyknowles772 Here are some socialist policies implemented by Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
4
-
4
-
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
-
@xtoll123 1/x
Fascism is pretty left ideologically. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies.
The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelianism, while the economic aspect of Fascism originated from from Émile Janvion’s revolutionary syndicalist.
Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors:
1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price.
2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism.
3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency).
4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away)
5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes."
6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts.
(Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions.
The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
"class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52)
The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147)
"In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
To archive this final goal, a Fascist Revolution will be required.
(Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.)
"The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52)
3
-
@xtoll123 2/x
The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics.
The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society.
To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole.
In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation.
Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order.
As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production.
One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests.
Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process.
The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems.
Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
3
-
@purrdiggle1470 Historical fact indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. The "capitalists" were also people 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)
3
-
@bananabourbonaenima He lied to in his speech to ease the social tension caused by his Socialist policies.
Here are some more examples where he 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.)
__________
[“If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?”
H: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”] (Hitler 1932)
He lied as he had intervened strongly even before people did not act in the interest of the nation. 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.)
The industries and businesses were nationalised. (Mierzejewski, “The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich,”. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577.)
The people running the industries were replaced with or forced to joined the Nazi. (Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 9. Lindner,)
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.)
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.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Associate racism, nationalism and anti other Socialism as characteristic only for the right is historically wrong.
Regarding Nationalism and Racism
Socialism can often cooperate 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."
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 and other atrocities you mentioned would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their respective Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, should also not be socialistic.
2
-
@xtoll123 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")
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
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 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)
Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalists. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
The economic policy of Nazi Germany did able to make its economic system ascend from capitalist mode of production under Marxist theory.
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state.
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews.
They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
2
-
2
-
@xtoll123 Is it about Holocaust or any Nazi Atrocities?
If yes.
Throughout communist history, communist regimes tried to eradicate the counterrevolutionary and old establishment and other undesirable elements ranging from property owners and ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), other socialists (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), religion (every Communist State) intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge) by by imprisonation and elimination. Despite the greater bloodshed, Maoism, Marxist Leninism, and Stalinism are still regarded as some of the most influential Socialist ideologies.
With such low standards set up by Communist States, just by the kind and amount of Nazi’s atrocities, I don’t think you can refute Nazi Germany and Nazism from Socialist State and Socialism without also refuting any Communist States and their Communism from from Socialist State and Socialism respectively.
2
-
@bananabourbonaenima A very detailed narrative you got from the Washington Post. However, this narrative neglected two major pieces of information the ideology of Nazism and the practice of Communist States.
1. It claimed that [Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy. They promised solidarity for members of the Volksgemeinschaft (“racial community”) even as they denied rights to those outside the charmed circle.]
The members of the Volksgemeinschaft is the Aryan and Volksgemeinschaft is the utopian society of all Aryan.
According to Mein Kampf, Volksgemeinschaft 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”
On the other hand, Nazism did also about ending class inequality. In Mein Kampf Hitler claimed that ending class inequality is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" in Mein Kampf:
"(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of our people who are now in the international camp we do not thereby mean to renounce the principle that the interests of the various trades and professions must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in the various branches of labour and in the trades and professions are not the same as a division between the various classes, but rather a feature inherent in the economic situation. Vocational grouping does not clash in the least with the idea of a national community, for this means national unity in regard to all those problems that affect the life of the nation as such.
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. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.
.....
A worker certainly does something which is contrary to the spirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on his own initiative and puts forward exaggerated demands without taking the common good into consideration or the maintenance of the national economic structure. But an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the folkcommunity if he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces of the nation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of the workers. He has no right to call himself 'national' and no right to talk of a folk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds of social discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or later must be injurious to the interests of the country."(Mein Kamp 1939 English version)
Furthermore, socialism always denied rights to those outside the charmed circle. Even Marxism, in Marx's own words, is about the equality of proletarians; the bourgeoisie would not be treated equally.
________________________________
2.[While Communists abetted the destruction of German democracy, seeing it as a way to eventually produce the revolution they wanted, the only German political party that consistently Nazi arguments, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), offered another sign of the discontinuity between socialism and Nazism.]
Socialists often fought against other Socialists in human history.
Lenin were resisted therefore eliminated the Kronstadt rebellion and revolutionary Socialist, and Stalin for the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, and the Trotskyists.
So If acting against different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and their respective Leninism and Stalinism should also not be socialistic.
________________________________
3.About racial hierarchy,, it is not a reason to refute Nazism from Socialism, because Socialism often collaborate with nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land.
Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
___________________________
4.[National Socialism preserved private property]
No, Nazi did not preserved private property, 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 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 in the Enabling Act, 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.
Even if you argued that Nazi preserved private property by didn’t fully enforce the Fire Decree of 1933 and remove all private property within Nazi Germany. That is true, yet it is still not enough to refute Nazism from Socialism.
As this situation should also applied to Soviet Union, PRC, Cuba and any other communist states.
Cuba actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies.
PRC didn’t nationalise private firms not until“Public-Private Partnership"(公私合营) campaign in 1956, 7 years after they took the power.
Vietnam abandoned Agriculture Collectivisation since 1988.
Soviet permitted household plots since its foundation and officially permitted the selling of the products produced from the household in private garden markets since 1971. (Soviet Promoting Private Farm Markets,Theodore Shabad, The New York Times, March 16, 1972)
All those communist states also infringed all those arguments you used to refute Nazi Germany, yet they and their ideologies can still be classified as Socialism.
Not to mention all those modern liberal socialist that co-existed with the Free Market.
[,while also putting the entire resources of society at the service of an expansionist and racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples.]
This is also not a reason to refute Nazism from Socialism, Communist States also often putting the entire resources of society at the service of an expansionist and racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples.
USSR was constantly preparing for war, with more than 15% of its national expenditures in the Military (a similar amount of national expenditures Nazi Germany used in 1938) for most of the time in the Cold War.
USSR was also very expansionary, they annexed the Baltic States, Winter War, the invading Poland twice.
USSR also often implemented their racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation against their people , the most notable examples would be the National operations of the NKVD, Holodomor, and mass deportation of Tatars and Cossacks of Soviet Union.
Not to even mention the Cambodian genocide that against ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and other minorities within Cambodia.
2
-
Regarding the Fredda accusations
TIK could be right as long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist" under the socialists' narratives. Amazon indeed is the Share/Public/Worker ownership of means of production, but it is not Socialist.
The social/public entity of "social/public of means of production" under the Marxist or Marxist Leninism narrative usually refers to the nation, state or government. However, the same social/public entity can mean cooperation, syndicate, or commune, depending on whether you ask Market Socialists, Syndicalists or Anarchists. As long as Amazon is owned by its shareholders, which includes its workers, it is a Share/Public(of the shareholder) and workers ownership. At the same time, Amazon can centrally distribute all means of production within the cooperation, making it control its own means of production.
Yes, Amazon workers don't have much power to change or alter the direction of Amazon, compared to the workers cooperative under the Market Socialism narrative. However, according to Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels, how that entity works or who controls or regulates that entity is not correlated with how socialised (owning the means of production) that particular entity is.
According to [1], joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production. While [2] and [3] indicated that the Social/Public (State in that particular quote) ownership of means of production doesn't necessarily guarantee the abolishment of exploitation or the end of the Capitalist Mode of Production, it is the Proletarian Revolution bring forth the Socialist Mode of Production and the abolishment of exploitation and Capitalist Mode of Production.
[1] “This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognised, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the SOCIALISATION of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation. At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient: the official representative of capitalist society – the state – will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication – the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.175 )
[2] “But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers – proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”(Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.176 )
[3] "Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already SOCIALISED, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour)." (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.177 )
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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")
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
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 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)
Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Claiming everyone support to be an equal part of the state under Communism is factually untrue.
Throughout communist history, communist regimes eradicated people of counterrevolutionary, old establishment and other undesirable elements ranging from property owners and ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), other socialists (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), religion (every Communist State), intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge) by impersonation and executions.
Furthermore, using nationalism and racism as the refuting criteria of Socialism would also refute Arab Socialism and Labor Zionism from the spectrum of Socialism . They are both ethos-centric, and and considered as leftist Socialism, while both wanted to cleanse the other side from the same holy land.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Oh you are just talking about Bismarck? Then He actually can be classified as Socialist according to Karl Marx.
As Karl Marx did put any state run by a Bourgeois, building roads and having social healthcare, and Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, as Karl Marx said in the manifesto that:
“
…
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
…
A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK could be right as long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist" under the socialists' narratives. Amazon indeed is the Share/Public/Worker ownership of means of production, but it is not Socialist.
The social/public entity of "social/public of means of production" under the Marxist or Marxist Leninism narrative usually refers to the nation, state or government. However, the same social/public entity can mean cooperation, syndicate, or commune, depending on whether you ask Market Socialists, Syndicalists or Anarchists. As long as Amazon is owned by its shareholders, which includes its workers, it is a Share/Public(of the shareholder) and workers ownership. At the same time, Amazon can centrally distribute all means of production within the cooperation, making it control its own means of production.
Yes, Amazon workers don't have much power to change or alter the direction of Amazon, compared to the workers cooperative under the Market Socialism narrative. However, according to Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels, how that entity works or who controls or regulates that entity is not correlated with how socialised (owning the means of production) that particular entity is.
According to [1], joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production. While [2] and [3] indicated that the Social/Public (State in that particular quote) ownership of means of production doesn't necessarily guarantee the abolishment of exploitation or the end of the Capitalist Mode of Production, it is the Proletarian Revolution bring forth the Socialist Mode of Production and the abolishment of exploitation and Capitalist Mode of Production.
[1] “This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognised, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the SOCIALISATION of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation. At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient: the official representative of capitalist society – the state – will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication – the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.175 )
[2] “But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers – proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”(Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.176 )
[3] "Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already SOCIALISED, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour)." (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.177 )
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1