Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming" video.

  1. Lenin also sent socialist to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did. If you can determine Hitler and his ideology is far right or left just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would be far right too. Sent socialist to death camps: During the Red Terror First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Nationalised trade unions: “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)
    11
  2. Regarding burning socialist book: Socialists often burned other socialist’s book. Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were also banned and burn in USSR in Stalin Era. Others than those Communists Books, Anarchist Book by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during Cultural Revolutions in PRC, once being discovered in the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or recycling as waste paper.
 Other examples of socialist burning socialist book included Political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz was burned by SPD Weimar Germany. Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of the USSR and PRC than in Nazi Germany in peacetime (1933 to 1939). USSR: 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. PRC: Just in the Sufan movement of 1955-1957, which targeted the counter-revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal deaths. 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 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 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.
    9
  3. They are both genocidal monopolising warmongering regime that tried very hard (but fail) to totally control and regulate the economy actively of every individual in its country. What is the problem to point it out, while the real life definition of socialist state was coined as “a regime that tried very hard (but fail) to totally control and regulate the economy actively of every individual in its country” by the Soviet Union?
    9
  4.  @viethoangtruong54 ​​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ Then other than the race, class classification different what’s the practice difference between Nazism and Communism in Yugoslavia? If both Nazism and Communism demands uneducated people who only know how to follow orders, what would be their difference between their mode of production?
    9
  5. USSR also shut down workers striking, yet still being categorised as Socialist State. In the meantime, Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit. Wasn’t that enough to proof that Nazi German was a Socialist State?
    8
  6. First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Then Lenin came for kulak( peasants who owned over 8 acres of land) in 8/1918. Then Lenin came for the striking and rioting industrial workers in 3/1919. For the Priests, monks and nuns? 3,000 of them were put to death in 1918 alone. So much socialists’ blood in his hands, yet he is still regarded as one of the influential socialist in the world. Isn’t that double standard to use “First they come for the Socialists ” to proof Hitler is not a Socialist? Beside, TIK stated Nazism is a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally.  2. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 3. And yes they called themselves socialists.
    8
  7. The greatest Socialist murderers were Asian, Mao and Pol Pot. You are sickening to assume mass genocide is just a white privilege.
    8
  8. [ Both were horrific, but the Nazis were interested especially in using them as a tool not merely of political control and intimidation against political opponents (or likely political opponents), but of social engineering to eliminate Jews and homosexuals and gypsies and "mental defectives" and other undesirables.] Are you trying to whitewash the Atrocities committed by the Communist States, or are you just ignorant regarding the "Communism atrocities" you are trying to defend? Communists were also interested [especially in using them as a tool not merely of political control and intimidation against political opponents (or likely political opponents), but of social engineering to eliminate] the "Four Old Thing", "Five Black Categories", "Stinking Old Ninth" and other undesirables. Would you kindly enlighten everyone here on what kind of [political opponents (or likely political opponents)] would be constituted by the people wearing glass and required to be eliminated in the Cambodian genocide? [ In particular, I gave up on this one when you starting quoting another author who effectively accuses other historians, presumably ones who are well-thought of and regularly published and who get jobs] in universities, of being a bunch of dishonest left-wing anti-business no-goodniks who don't understand business and thus hate it, and that explains why their analysis is different from yours. That's a bogus way to justify your own disagreement with them. You can do better, so do better.] Which [author who effectively accuses other historians? Without specifying it, you are, at best, Ad hominem, at worst, slandering. [The Nazis were really about something else entirely, and the economic measures themselves were largely in service to tighten their own grip on society and on total power to pursue ends other than "socialism" or "capitalism" or any other particular economic organization. And it's these other objectives and aspects of their regime, especially their racism, as well as things like rabid jingoistic nationalism and militarism, that sort of brand the Nazis as right-wingers.] Hitler wanted to create a nation of Aryan with all means of production centralised at the hand of the state, with great global influence. They are just the Soviet Union but racist instead of classist, current PRC with much stricter state control on economy, and the socialist Isreal from 1948 to 1977 with greater ambition.
    8
  9. Lenin also sent socialist to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did. First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Then Lenin came for kulak( peasants who owned over 8 acres of land) in 8/1918. Then Lenin came for the striking and rioting industrial workers in 3/1919. For the Priests, monks and nuns? 3,000 of them were put to death in 1918 alone. If you can refuted Hitler and his ideology from socialism just by killing different people, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism should also be refuted from Socialism.
    8
  10. “Workers decide where profits go” was already long gone with Lenin’s Vanguardism.
    8
  11.  @MochoStudiosYT  socialists would not be keen on burning marxist books as the nazis did---Stalin did burn the books from Trotsky Socialists arent racist ---Holodomor against Ukrainian, Arab Socialism against Jews nor do they have an idea of "racial superiority"--- Labor Zionism----The god chosen people. Socialists don't consider one another as family---- Anarchism and Marxism also don't consider one another as family Nazis also had a class system, and social class system, which socialism aims to abolish---so as Nazism. In Mein Kampf Hitler claimed end 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 Kampf) Hitler did everything in his power to keep workers from unionizing, which socialism encurages.--- Not until the Communist raised to power. “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) All Communist Countries nationalised their union, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU. 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) Those "socialists" were Lenin's enemies, and rivals. Lenin didnt jail them because they were socialists like the nazis did.-------They were, the whole revolutionary socialist, Syndicatist, and Anarchist factions were purged in USSR
    8
  12. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    8
  13. TIK used 108 references in this video, regardless TIK‘s personal opinion in this video. The credibility of this video and the facts TIK’s argument based on were very concreted.
    7
  14. 1. and 4.So as Stalin and Lenin and Mao. All are just removing competitors, like Muslim and Crusader killing each other didn’t make them both became atheists. 2. They controlled those large businesses first by filled the executive brench of firms with Nazi ( 3:53 ). Expropriation if against the Nation or party orders. (4:20, 20:55) Implemented regulations 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). 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, rent, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (10:15) 3. Nazi scammed the buyer who brought the “privatised assets” 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) 5. So did the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party of Germany calling each other “Social Fascist” and “Red Fascist”, aka late stage capitalist under Communist definition. Does it make both parties not an socialist party?
    7
  15.  @PrisonerNumber9653  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 Moa.
    7
  16.  @KyonXyclone Nazi Germany also provided free education for German people.
    7
  17. 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.)
    7
  18. TIK is so lasy that he wrote a 24 pages essay with 108 references to support his claim.
    7
  19. That was the neo-Nazi conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism. Are you suggesting that I would be a neo-Nazi just by repeating its narrative? What a classic attempt to poison the well. Can you answer how TIK's statement fits the description that "posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values."
    7
  20. TIK never claimed that Nation Socialist is Socialist just because [they name themselfs that way.] TIK stated Nazism is a socialist ideology because: Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47).
    7
  21. The definition of Socialism, TIK used was from Das Kapital V3. Where is yours come from?
    7
  22.  @michaelmoran9020  Yes it does, under Marxism, the way to transform a capitalist state into a stateless Communist Society is by total state ownership of mean of production. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) In “Part III: Socialism of Anti-Dühring”, Engels suggested

“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. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels) He didn’t monopolise the definition didn’t mean his definition is wrong or have any contradiction to the idea of Socialism.
    7
  23. I can ensure you those who live in late Communist State (which ran mix economy) and know how a late Communist state works will know how relevant this video is. The only difference between Nazi regime and Communist regime used to be the rhetoric and mental gymnastics they used to justify their action. Now if we know that the Nazi was using the same rhetoric and mental gymnastics to justify why some people need to treat differently and why people need to love their country and their actions. There is basically no different between Nazi and Communist. If Cuba, North Korea Vietnam, China, and Lao since 1980s can be classified as Socialist and practicing Socialism with their mixed economic system. The mixed economic system or State Capitalism system of Nazi Germany should also not be the reason to refute Nazi Germany and Nazism from Socialist State and Socialism respectively.
    7
  24. Did Ireland's governing party also infiltrate the executive boards of firms, 3:54 13:24 have its nationalized union that controlled the firing and hiring of employees, 17:24 make a Bank Act, which 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) If yes, Ireland indeed was a socialist state.
    6
  25. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @RightfulArchon186 Does maintaining private enterprise ( neglect the fact that most executive of most enterprises were replaced by Nazi member) and capitalist structures also refuted Fabianism, Orthodox Communist and other Liberal Socialist from being Socialist? Regarding State Capitalism, guest what it is a Leninist approach to move a state towards to communist society. Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of 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). Claiming a state practising State Capitalism, doesn’t mean that state was not practising Socialism, as they were not mutually exclusive.
    6
  26. The examples you are listed both have legal free market, and right of owning private property which Nazi didn’t have.
    6
  27. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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.
    6
  28. Look as USSR during Lenin and Stalin era, PRC during Mao era and Pol Pot.
    6
  29. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, with is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory
    6
  30. Here is the Hitler’s collectivism 38:07
    6
  31. TIK actually said Hitler wasn’t a Marxist. 28:51
    6
  32. Hitler himself said he is a socialist in his book. Why would the NAZI facepalming and questioning what he is talking about?
    6
  33. Even if all the facts you stated here is all true, you still cannot refute Nazism from the spectrum of Socialism. Thanks to the vast difference between Authoritarian Socialism and Liberal Socialism, Nazism and fascism can comfortably fit within the spectrum of Socialism with their Authoritarian Syndicalism System. You first used the Social Democrats and the revision Communism’s standard to accuse Nazi stole business from uncooperative and undesired people (not just Jews ) with the Social Democrats and the revision Communism standard, while neglecting that it was a norm for every Marxist Leninist Country. Then you used the Marxist Leninism standard to refuted Nazism from the spectrum of socialism by accusing them allowing the existance of private sector (which is heavily influencedand regulated by the State and Party). You totally neglect the existence of Social Democrats and the revision Communism, which permit the existance of private sector After that, you used the Social Democrats and the revision Communism Standard to refute Nazism from the spectrum of socialism by accusing them of impersonating other Socialists, while neglecting that it was just an another norm for every Marxist Leninist Country.
    6
  34. Lenin also sent socialist to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did. If you can determine Hitler and his ideology is far right or left just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would be far right too. Sent socialist to death camps: During the Red Terror First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Nationalised trade unions: “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) 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.
    6
  35. So as Stalin filled the Gulag with Trotskyist. Btw The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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.
    6
  36.  @KenCunkle  [Now, if you want to go on a rant about how much you hate the Chinese commies and Khmer Rouge, knock yourself out. But please don't be so narcissistic as to think that everybody else has to share your obsessions on a discussino about something else.] Seems you missed the point. If both left and right-wingers would commit atrocities out of intimidating opposition and eliminating undesirable, how can you identify Nazism as a right-wing instead of left-wing ideology from the [motive/goal] behind the atrocities they committed? [ Seriously, now. Don't make such childish and dishonest accusations about "ad hominem" or "slander" without looking into it. Because by doing so you verge on engaging in slanderous ad-hominem yourself. Or maybe you're just hopelessly lazy.] You are then just criticising the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument. By definition, you are still just responding to the tone of Henry Ashby Turner. Would you mind telling everyone that your argument against Turner criticising historians was biased (not dishonest, you are just putting words into Turner's mouth as people can ingenuously believe in their bias.) in this subject matter because "they tend to view big business with a combination of condescension and mistrust." [I'm not sure what your final rant is supposed to be about or prove. The fact that the Nazis were statist, like the Chinese and Russians, says nothing about whether they are "right-wing" or "left-wing" or "capitalist" or "socialist." (I'm not sure how Israel exactly gets into that mix, and for what reason? ] I listed those examples to illustrate that Nazis were not [about something else entirely]. The essence of their mentality can be easily found in other Socialist States. Labour Zionism is social democracy(MAPAI)/militant socialism(MAPAM) for the Jewish Race and their Jewish State. Labour Zionist parties had a plurality of seats in Israel from 1948 to 1977. As Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion were prime ministers before 1977, yes, they were Labour Zionists who embraced both Isreal Nationalism and Marxist Socialism. [Do you think that the Israelis, and Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion, fall into the same category with Mao and Pol Pot?] Did I correlate Israel with Mao and Pol Pot, or are you just playing straw man? I am pretty sure that I just typed [current PRC (which is not ruled by Mao) with stricter state control], [Isreal from 1948 to 1977 with greater ambition], and [Soviet Union but race orientated instead of class orientated]. [Like the aforementioned Spain under Franco, Japan was pretty statist from the rise of militarism until the end of WW2--and both of these were also strong allies of the Nazis as well as being recognized as pretty right-wing--but for some reason nobody seems interested in putting the Nazis in the same category with them. Why not? The answer is simple: Because doing so doesn't advance their patently silly desire to try to "prove" that the Nazis were actually left-wing.] Maybe you should consider correcting your narrative when it starts to distort the historical facts. Spain was a strong ally of the Nazis, despite the fact that they stayed neutral in WWII?? Anyway, using your narrative, the UK and the USA were liberal democrats and pretty capitalistic and strong allies with the USSR in WWII. Under your logic and narrative, the USSR should be put into the category of Liberal Democratic Capitalist States with UK and USA.
    6
  37. Karl Marx wrote the “On the Jewish Question” and has offended at least one Jew (“Hyam Maccoby”) while also being suggested by multiple scholars it is anti-Semitic. Lenin also sent socialists to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did. Sent socialists to death camps: During the Red Terror First, Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were banned and burned in the USSR during the Stalin Era. Other than Communist Books, Anarchist Books by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during the Cultural Revolutions in the PRC. Once discovered by the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or recycling as waste paper.
 Other examples of socialist burning socialist books included Political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz burned by SPD Weimar Germany. Besides, the Nazis didn’t burn all Socialist books. They mostly burned the Marxist Books. The books from other socialists like Robert Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin were not on any list I could find. Stalin proposed Socialism in one country and purged a lot of people because of their foreign identity during the Great Purge. If you can determine whether Hitler and his ideology are far right or left just by all those criteria you mentioned, Lenin, Stalin, and Karl Marx, with their Marxism, would be far right too.
    6
  38.  @KyonXyclone  No one is asking here, I am just pointing out a logical loophole behind a personal insult. Beside are you implying there is no re-education camp within communist Yugoslavia?
    6
  39. If the bar of Socialist state are set to there, even USSR and PRC were not socialist states since they were found. As the household plot of their farmers were/are never eliminated.
    6
  40.  @eoinmcginley2823  Yeah other YouTube historians should do more video essays with this level of research.
    6
  41. Which part of this video is apologising? What historical fact, not narrative, did he deliberately distort or miss out on to make the Nazis look good. Besides, classifying Hitler as a Socialist didn’t make him look better or Socialists look worse, as Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were all universally classified as Socialists.
    6
  42.  @hobbso8508  Apologising can mean “to act as an apologist”, depending on the context. Are you accusing TIK to use Hitler's own words to distort what Hitler actually believe? Don’t you think this accusation is too far fetched?
    6
  43. 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.
    6
  44.  @lt4109  So as Soviet Union or PRC and their proletarian.
    6
  45. It just just showing that “busting union” is not a solid argument to support the statement that Nazi is not socialist. So as USSR, is not a whataboutism. This is a logic gate that work like this, if Nazi did something horrible and a communist country did the same horrible thing and still being considered as a socialist state, then you cannot really used that horrible thing to prove Nazi German was not practicing Socialism.
    6
  46. It is the Vanguardism, NEP of Marxist Leninism and Liberal Communism like Orthodox Communism make Nazism and Fascism have a foothold in the middle of the Socialist Spectrum as a authoritarian socialism with a heavily regulated “semi -free market”. Stalinism’s Plan Economy is actually one of the Socialism furthest away from Nazism economically. Regarding the purging, Soviet purging was not started in Stalin era. Red Terror was initiated by Lenin and Gulag was first used by Trosky during Lenin era.
    6
  47. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. And Soviet Union, also failed to eliminated class and the bourgeoisie, banned all the trade union and collective bargaining and still being regarded as Socialist State. The boundary of Socialist state is not really about how a nation’s policies faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state.
    6
  48. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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.
    6
  49. No they don't as they have no such concept to centralise the means of production within the monarchs' land into the hands of monarch's state/nation. Which monarch had ever implemented and enforced fix wage, fix employment regulations to every business within its kingdom?
    6
  50. Seems you missed the following parts and some more addition information. Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Nazi party also infiltrate the executive boards of firms, 3:54 13:24 As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controlled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Nationalized union that controlled the firing and hiring of employees, 17:24 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. 11:24 (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) 
There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy. 11:41 (Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.) 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)
    5
  51.  @RightfulArchon186  ​​⁠​⁠Fredda the guy that cannot even define what Socialism actually is? Even pretending what he said is absolutely true, that every private property he mentioned in that video was actually privately owned and not owned or controlled by mostly literally Nazi members. Free Market and private property can co-exist with Socialism. 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") "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) As long as Fredda not able to disprove every facts and Nazi’s Lied ( because Communists States also constantly lied in their policy/ achievements) in this video. It won’t change the facts that Nazism is indeed as Socialistic as many Authoritarian Socialism and Liberal Socialism, despite all the Capitalistic feature, assume that they are all true, mentioned in Fredda video.
    5
  52.  @WhiteWolf126  Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. 
Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. 
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06.
 The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
    5
  53. 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 Lenin and Stalin.
    5
  54. The communist history of the last century indicated that socialism can co-exist with totalitarianism
    5
  55.  @Schnoz42069 Almost every Communist State leaders beg a differ.
    5
  56.  @Schnoz42069 USSR under Stalin, PRC under Mao
    5
  57.  @123skillax  USSR also use slavery with WWII POW to build the road of bones too. Nazism was not really about discriminating Jews, but eliminating Jews Just like Marxism want to eliminate the bourgeoisie not discriminating them. Every Communist state also had at least one leader with cult of personality. PS: I am not defending Nazism, I am saying Marxism is as bad as Nazism.
    5
  58.  @123skillax  Like abolishing Private Property? Which civilised world used that principle? Hitler use the same reasoning( World controlling Slavery Promoting puppet master) to justify the elimination of the Jews. But in both Germany and USSR not just the rich were killed, most of the victims were just small businesses/property owners.
    5
  59.  @hobbso8508  1. like who actually has any power in real life? 2. DAF had actual control over how every firm run. 3. Nazis changed the law to remove the shareholders' right to vote in board members in 1937. Don't distort what people said. 4. Hitler called Marxism not all socialism, a Jewish invention, again don't distort what people said.
    5
  60. LGBT is not really a good indicator to differentiate political left and right. In the 1930s, along with increased repression of political dissidents and non-Russian nationalities under Stalin, LGBT themes faced official government censorship, and a uniformly harsher policy across the entire Soviet Union. Homosexuality was officially labelled a disease.[135] The official stance could be summarized in the article of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1930 written by medical expert Sereisky: Soviet legislation does not recognize so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest ... while recognizing the incorrectness of homosexual development ... our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures with all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective —Sereisky, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593 In 1934, the Soviet government recriminalised homosexuality in the Soviet Union. Mass arrests occurred in several cities in Russia, including Moscow, and many artists were arrested. On 7 March 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, throughout the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited only male same-sex sexual intercourse with up to five years of hard labor in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding same-sex female sexual intercourse.[7] During the Soviet period, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121.[136]
    5
  61. The re-privatisation from 1933 was a Nazi Scam. Nazi scammed the buyers who brought the share of “privatised assets” 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)
    5
  62. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism or third way.
    5
  63. Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can cooberate with conservative nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
    5
  64. Soviet Union was also capitalist under your definition, as it imported jet engines from the UK and ship engines from Japan. Firstly, fascism is also a socialist ideology. Secondly, associating nazism with fascism doesn't necessarily mean dissociating nazism from socialism.
    5
  65. Seems you missed Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism from the definition of Socialism. There internationalisms are definitely nationalistic.
    5
  66. Big government and regulation (control of means of production ) did equal to socialism according to Karl Marx. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) For the Enslavement, the existence of Gulag and the enslavement history of WWII POW of the USSR has already proven that Socialism can co-exist with enslavement.
    5
  67.  @paulsame1124  Lenin's greatest enemy after he rised to power was Socialist Revolutionaries. How do you come to the conclusion that Lenin was a socialist.
    5
  68. Nazism is not Marxist Communism, TIK admitted that in the video already. 28:50 But it is still a kind of socialism.
    5
  69. owns the mean of production of its society.
    5
  70. The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates 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, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production. The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
    5
  71. 40:57 He literally said he could not deny the Holocaust “because of the evidence that the Holocaust happened.”
    5
  72. What defined racism, nationalism and Lebensraum as Right Wing? Arab Socialism and Labor Zionism are both regarded as Left Wing ideologies and both have racist, nationalist and Lebensraum mentality.
    5
  73.  @andyknowles772  There are plenty socialist policies implemented by Nazi. Here are the relevant quote from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    5
  74. Full or high level class socialism also required totalitarianism. Or else how can proletarians dictate the state economy as Karl Marx intended
    5
  75. Nope it is Karl Marx definition. 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) And according to Karl Marx, democracy is not even an essential component of Socialism. "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.)
    5
  76. 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. 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. “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) Use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). 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. Regarding Anti Semite: Stalin had his own Doctors plot.
    5
  77. Those capitalists throw in money to save their lives and become a part of the administration. Socialism is not when communists kill the capitalists but when the means of production within the nation get into the control of the state.
    5
  78. Because Nazi Germany is an Aryan State not a worker state. The socialised the race, Aryan, not the class, worker.
    5
  79. 1. It can be before the night of long knives 2. Socialism is when there is absolutely no private property whatsoever? People in Soviet and PRC still had it since they found 3. and 4. As 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06. 5. Their theoretical final goal and concept are totally different, fascist is still a class socialism while Nazism is a racial socialism. Their socialist entity are totally different. Fascist is not an racial ideology, There were 10000 Jews fascist party member in Italy in 1938. 6. So as USSR, this is not a whataboutism, this is a logic gate that work like this, if Nazi did something horrible and a communist country did the same horrible thing and still being considered as a socialist state, then you cannot really used that horrible thing to prove Nazi German was not practicing Socialism. 7. Krupp is still under the state control, if Krupp didn’t privately own the mean of production of his property (the control of production), how capitalist can he be. 8. USSR and PRC did the exact same thing, Limiting the freedom of employment is the first step of plan economy. You may look at the Hukou System for PRC and the internal Passport system of Soviet Union. 9. Yes “rationally regulated” is the characteristic of initial state of socialism it also stated in “The Communist Manifesto”. And so as PRC in 1950 also did that. 10. Economically motivated doesn’t mean they are Capitalist. USSR and PRC also trade with capitalist country with economic incentives, still didn’t make them capitalist. 11. Anti-Marxist doesn’t mean anti socialism, socialism predate Marxism. 12. The objective fact of socialist country IRL actually quite mirror what Hitler did to the world and Germany. If you say he is lying because he cannot deliver what he said, he is as lying as other socialist leaders in the world. 13. That is communism,as you said communism≠ socialism. This not a valid point to prove Hitler is not a socialist. 14. Lenin, Stalin, Mao they all purged their comrade and other Socialists, it cannot prove they were not socialist.
    5
  80. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 17:15 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    5
  81. "I am a socialist." - Hitler, from his "Zweites Buch" (Second Book) Page 50.
    5
  82. “Socialism includes democratic control of the mean of production”? right. Like Soviet Russia and PRC?
    5
  83. The Soviet Union also bust unions, harass striking workers, and arrest leftists.
    5
  84. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    5
  85. ⁠ @hobbso8508  Yes it can (“Apologize.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster)
    5
  86.  @hobbso8508  It all depends on the context, which it seems you are unable to comprehend.
    5
  87.  @hobbso8508 Don’t be mad when you fail to be a grammar nazi.
    5
  88. Dictatorship also didn't contradicted with socialism. Hitler can be a dictator and a socialist at the same time.
    5
  89.  @opanike87  The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism.
    5
  90. Then under your definition what make socialism?
    5
  91.  @zauberlichneo  What make nazi not socialist under your definition? Nazi Fctories were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the factory or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Nazi property was in collective control. What make that capitalist? Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory.
    5
  92. Similar to the power worker got from Soviet Union
    5
  93. Would you kindly show us the evidence that those “super rich industrialists” actually privately made billions ( in Reich Marks or US dollars) from the Nazi Regime. As their private ownership right of those firms that collaborated the Nazi Regime was not guaranteed or instated by Nazi Government but West Germany Government. Furthermore, most of those benefited “minions” were all Nazi members, which were the extension of the party and state of an one party totalitarian state. Finally their actions were still under the control of the state/party order/direction, otherwise they would face repercussions like expropriation or send to concentration camp.
    5
  94.  @hobbso8508  1. It is right in the original post, Fracism did use class theory. "As a French Marxist who supported Lenin, Bolshevism and Mussolini concurrently in the early 1920s,[8][9] Sorel promoted the cause of the proletariat in class struggle, and the “catastrophic polarization” that would arise through social myth-making of general strikes.[10] The intention of syndicalism was to organize strikes to abolish capitalism; not to supplant it with state socialism, but rather to build a society of worker-class producers. This Sorel regarded as “truly true” Marxism.[11]" (from wiki of Fascist syndicalism) 2. I am not the only one classify USSR PRC and Cuba as socialist states. And those countries surely without the “non Western Democracy” that has the same criteria of Western Democracy within your funky Socialism definition. 3./4./5. Only under your funky definition of Socialism, Socialism would require the “non Western Democracy” that has the same criteria of Western Democracy. We have been this all day, Marxist permit applying Revolution Measure to a state via either democratic proletarian revolution or violent Revolution forcefully without collective consensus. The end result of Revolution would not guarantee any democracy. Your funky Western Democrac socialism definition excluded Marxism. "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) "If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. " ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
    5
  95. Could you provide the evidences for your accusation?
    5
  96. Isn't workers/proletariat also just a group of people?
    5
  97.  @jamesmarlow5517  the price controls and social welfare is in the definition of social ownership. As Social ownership is the appropriation of the surplus product. Those surplus product were appropriated to someone by the society (or the representative of it) I cannot see the appropriating of means of production features in Feudalism.
    5
  98. If socialism can be as opposed, warmongering and authoritarian as Soviet Union, why NAZI cannot be socialist?
    5
  99.  @reybot5125  1. Where is the "public ownership" and "collectivism" came from. TIK never used those terms. Maybe you should elaborate more. 2. The final conclusion of the claim of those two sections were hitler was just a pawn controlled by capitalist. Don't blame TIK, that is the logic those claims used. 3. So you are arguing Party control was different to State control? The party here is not the US Republican Party. The party and the State were inseparable and the only entity monopolized the power of enforcement with violence and extortion legally. Regarding "democracy", "the will of the people" is the original meaning of democracy, there are still billions of people live under those "democracatic" control. The problem is not TIK don't understand the different between "democracy" and democracy, which is "Libreal Democracy" that westerner usually referring to. The problem is most of the viewer usually from countries with western democratic unable to distinguish "democracy" from democracy and fell for that trap of dictatorship again.
    5
  100.  @CamaradaRivera  In their ideology, class struggle would be coped by the compromise of the bourgeoisie, and not able to lead to the communist revolution. The final equilibrium of class struggle and bourgeoisie compromise would lead to the equilibrium state of equal distribution of resources. They didn’t against the existence of class struggle, but the end result of the class struggle communism suggested.
    5
  101. Karl Marx written the “On the Jewish Question” and has offended at least one Jews (“Hyam Maccoby”), while also being suggest by multiple scholars it is anti-Semitic. ______________________ Lenin also sent socialist to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did. If you can determine Hitler and his ideology is far right or left just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would be far right too. Sent socialist to death camps: During the Red Terror First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Nationalised trade unions: “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) 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. Burning Books Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were also banned and burn in USSR in Stalin Era. Others than those Communists Books, Anarchist Book by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during Cultural Revolutions in PRC, once being discovered in the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or recycling as waste paper.
 Other examples of socialist burning socialist book included Political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz was burned by SPD Weimar Germany. Besides, Nazi didn’t burned all Socialist books, they mostly burned the Marxist Books. The books from other Socialist like Robert Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin was not in any list I can find. ____________________ Hitler did take cooperation from owners, Junker was seized from Professor Junker 4:20. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 There is no deal with Cooperation only Nazis. As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06. ________________________ Nazi did care about the workers
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) 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.) Average Worker real wage has been gradually increase from 88.5 at 1933 to 107.5 at 1938 (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). With the price control imposed them on the German people since 1936, 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(Table 1 ”Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”,). Historical fact also 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) ____________________ Bank Credit Nazi forces the Deutsche Bank to give the state credit with Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
    5
  102.  @gladys2563  [And second, everything you just described can be used to any authoritarian leader. Using purge, removing opposition, burning books. Authoritarian leaders wanted to establish lone and strong power of their in the state. Anti-semitism in fact is something many people believed in. It was not just Hitler's thing, but also left, centrist, right thing.] That is why your following points cannot refute Hitler as a Socialist without also refuting Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their ideologies from Socialist and Socialism respectively. [as he crushed communists,... As soon as Hitler was appointed he removed all socialist agitation and killed their agitators, disbanded all unions and replaced them with German Labour Front... Hitler burned socialist literature.]
    5
  103. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @gladys2563  Socialism is not when communists kill the capitalists but when the means of production within the nation get into the control of the state. You can appeal to both classes while being a socialist.
    5
  104.  @insectmuncher97  Everyone? Including bourgeoisie? Nope Nazi were (tried to) fully controlling the live of everyone and every industry from 2:36 of the video
    5
  105. That is Marxist class Socialism. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    5
  106. No he didn't, TIK restated the definition of socialism he used in this video here 25:28
    5
  107. As per the information from the video, German National Socialisation started at 1933, 6 years before the war.
    5
  108.  @rickglorie  Maybe you can proof TIK was wrong with references and arguments, rather than just try to changing around the definitions of socialism.
    4
  109. Here is your centrally planned from Karl Marx. "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
    4
  110. Again 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. 1) The DAF controlled all. Any group of workers, managers or ex-company owners who tried to wrest control of a company away from the Nazi influence would be punished. The exportation of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of even Aryan Capitalists was not de facto guaranteed.  You also recognised Nazi was running State Capitalism which was just the vocabulary people used to criticise how Eastern Bloc ran their economy during Cold War. By saying Nazi Germany was running State Capitalism, you are saying Nazi German was running their economy as the Communists State during Cold War. This argument seems to prove Nazism Germany was as socialised as the Communist State during Cold War, not to mention that Western Social Democratic governments are running more liberal economies and still being recognised as Socialists. 2) Noted that you recognised both the Modern Social Democratic regime (Mexico) and Communist Totalitarian regime (USSR) as Socialists despite the vast difference between their economic policies. The boundary of socialism is defined by the most extreme cases, the worst and the best. When comparing the performance of DAF with the worst cases scenario, the National Union of Communist States. The Nazi National Union, will fit right within the spectrum. USSR would be a great example of the inequality between the party members and the workers. Proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case: Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to the USSR in 1938. On his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. 3) According to the account of Hjalmar Schacht, Nazi Germany failed to accumulate wealth. Other than his account, The fact that Nazi Germany failed to accumulate wealth can be proven by the fact that they experienced an economic crisis in 1935-1936 and failed to pay the MEFO bill in 1938. Nazi Germany needed to pay back the MEFO by starting the war and with the wealth of citizens via party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," Chapter 2.), national investment policy like Geräuschlose Kriegsfinanzierung (forcing banks to "invest" war bonds with the customer saving) and Eisernes Sparen ( Provident fund but for the war effort, involuntary if you were Civil servants, state employees, employees of the NSDAP and their organisations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car). If you tried to use the economic data to prove Nazi Germany did accumulate wealth, I could also use the USSR data to prove that the overall capital of the USSR had been accumulating since its foundation and its dissolution was totally not due to its economic collapse. 4) With the existence of the Social Democrats Government since 1920. You don’t need the total subjugation of any means of production to be a Socialist. I can just use the Mexico example from your 2) point to show that the Nazi Economy was more socialised than the modern Socialist State; therefore it proves that Nazism is indeed a kind of Socialism.
    4
  111.  @brandonmorel2658  ["Name one country that didn't hoard all of the capital in their own benefit. . ." I would answer to that Cuba, Vietnam, Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist PRC, Nicaragua, Grenada, every communist country ever. . . Since you seem to know nothing of political economy, let me break it down real easy for you. Hoarding capital is inefficient. Hoarding is a primitive form of accumulation that kills any potential for future further investment. All nominally ideological communist countries in history have instead of hoarding the capital, invested it in the welfare of the people and the expansion of production so as to receive greater profit, that could be invested for more welfare and so on. . . This is the calibre of comments we have in the threads, beautiful people! We have feeble minded individuals that don't know terms and how to use them! ] ​​⁠During Maoist China, Maotai white wine was a "special supply item" only available for the Communist Party and government officials within the PRC. A ton of Maotai white wine requires about 5 tons of grain to brew. During the years of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Chinese Famine, to ensure meeting the official "Launching satellites" production target of "produce ten thousand tons annually" set by Chairman Mao in 1958, the local Communist Government ordered to allocate all resources to ensure the annual production rate of Maotai "growth like launching satellite". In the years 1959(820), 1960(912) and 1961(312), the state brewery produced a total of 2,079 tons of Maotai and exported 139.86 tons. The annual production rate of 1957, the year before Chairman Mao gave the production target of "produce ten thousand tons annually", was just 283 tons. During those three years, nearly 40 million people starved to death nationwide. Instead of feeding the people, the CCP used those grains to expand the Maitai normal year's output by a factor of 3. According to the statistics of the Maotai distillery's annual use of raw materials, these 2,079 tons of Maotai actually used 22.6 million catties of grain, equivalent to a total of 11,300 tons. In Maotai's production area, Renhuai County, Guizhou, the average annual grain consumption per person in 1959 and 1960 was 350 catties and 334 catties, respectively (including 30 catties of seeds and feed). In other words, the actual grain consumption was only about 300 catties per person. 11,300 tons of grain is equivalent to the annual grain consumption of 75,000 people. In 1960, Maotai liquor faced a shortage of raw materials. The Guizhou government gathered 1.17 million catties of raw grain from various counties in the province to support the production. It was still not enough, so an additional 700,000 catties of raw grain were brought in from Jiangjin County, Sichuan, to ensure the production of 912 tons of Maotai liquor for that year. This single-year production record was not surpassed until 1978. In that year, Tongzi County, which contributed 100,000 catties of grain, saw 41,734 non-normal deaths in one year. Xishui County, which also contributed 100,000 catties of grain, had 42,624 deaths over three years, with 499 households wiped out. Bijie County, contributing 290,000 catties of grain, had 53,990 deaths over three years. Jinsha County saw 55,000 deaths, and the most tragic was Meitan County, which had already recorded 122,000 deaths by April 1960, accounting for about 20% of the total rural population in the county. There were 2,938 wiped-out households, 4,737 people fleeing their homes, and 4,735 orphans. Other example of communist country that hoarding capital in their own benefit would be the account of Fred Copeman. According his biography, he was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. Again if you can claimed that every nominally ideological communist countries in history have instead of hoarding the capital, invested it in the welfare of the people and the expansion of production so as to receive greater profit, that could be invested for more welfare and so on, under the same standard I can also claimed that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy also have instead of hoarding the capital, invested it in the welfare of the people and the expansion of production so as to receive greater profit, that could be invested for more welfare and so on.
    4
  112. In one reply you claimed "USSR was socialist, Lenin, stalin and Bolshevils exropriated factories and industries, but then never sold those factories to party members." Hitler did "tried to improve the life of the society, the people." by killing other people like Lenin, stalin and Bolshevils did. What make Lenin, stalin and Bolshevils socialists while Hitler wasn't?
    4
  113. Regarding Hitler not/hate/kill Communist/Socialist. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. Regarding Hitler is Right Wing From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy, he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    4
  114. When did ethnic Ideologies defined the left and right of the political spectrum? If Nazi was right because of its ethnic Ideologies, does it make the Austrian school theorists also racist? Beside, USSR also committed Genocide against Ukrainian, force relocated millions of minority, why were they in the right side of the spectrum? Or Critical Race Theory, it is the ethnic Ideologies, why is it on the left side of the spectrum?
    4
  115. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @RevJamesCostello  You missed the words “quota” and “central planning board” from the video. 11:24 11:41 12:40 Here is how central planning works. The state central planning boards would first plan out the quota of different goods for different demanders( could be factories or local markets) Then, they would order the total quoting amount of goods from the producer and distribute them to the demanders accordingly. The Nazi government did precisely these things after they raised to power in 1933. _______________________ For your example, if the current state of affairs is really “centrally planned” by the LGBTQ+ and the BLM in the USA. At least the LGBTQ+ and the BLM need to do the following things or something similar. First, they need to take over every Apple store in the US and set a 1000 iPhone quota for each Apple Store each month. The LGBTQ+ and the BLM will then buy the total amount of iPhones in front of the factory and distribute the iPhones to each Apple store according to the set quota. The LGBTQ+ and the BLM will sell those iPhones in the Apple Stores and collect all the selling revenues. At the end of each month, the LGBTQ+ and the BLM would buy the total quoting amount of iPhones in front of the factory again, and the whole process repeats itself.
    4
  116.  @RightfulArchon186  Have you really what that Coco Cola video? The German Coca Cola was going to be nationalised in 1944, it was stopped by the corresponding Officer being killed by a bomb raid.
    4
  117. So as Lenin and Stalin did. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are on the left side by definition.
    4
  118.  @azerty8866  ever heard about the Doctor Plot which against Jews, Holodomor which against Ukrainian
    4
  119.  @WhiteWolf126  1. Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00 2. Stalin and Lenin also did that after they took the power from Mensheviks to Trotskyist. 3. The definition of Socialism TIK used to prove Hitler was a socialist was reference from The Capital V3 25:40.
    4
  120.  @PointNemo9  Objectively saying Hitler is a Socialist is a good thing then, it can deter the extreme left to go radical and extreme right to have existential crisis. The normal people would not be affected by this narrative because it should be a common sense that you don’t want to live in either a Communist State or Nazi State.
    4
  121.  @charleymount582  [Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor.] The German Empire has been practising State Socialism since 1883. Even the conservatives, nationalists and even the monarchists were on the economic left in the political spectrum. [That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.] Lenin and Stalin also purged the Mensheviks, the Anarchists, the Syndicalists, the Trotskyists, and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists that Stalin disagreed with were purged during the great purge if killing/purging different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist. So as even Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
    4
  122. [you can’t argue how many private companies was so huge important for Hitler.] Because those "private" companies were owned by the state 3:00, directed by Nazi party members 13:32, and regulated by Daf 9:13.
    4
  123.  @redblaze8700  How does "obsessed with eliminating the Jews" prove someone prefers "private ownership of the means of production" over "social ownership of the means of production"?
    4
  124.  @shte_ken3978  Marxism introduced a way to achieve that Utopia Socialist state with class struggle and State Control. It doesn’t mean that he monopolised Socialism, if he can use class struggle so as Hitler can use Race struggle, and that is exactly what Nazism is, with no extra steps.
    4
  125.  @Rundstedt1  Yet Prussian Socialism is a traditional conservative concept in Germany. The conservative here didn’t mean the small government capitalist right in economic sense. Socialism seems to be an essence of Political Complex of interwar Germany . As both the old and new establishment was operated in Socialist Systems. Prussian Socialism created by Bismarck and Marxist Socialism.
    4
  126.  @Rundstedt1  Communist did that too. “4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) Socialist often confiscate property from their socialist entity enemies. The Jews the bourgeoisie. Happened all the time. Btw did US backed South American Fascist confiscate Jews Property ?
    4
  127.  @Rundstedt1  Only Marxist Communism required the abolish of Private property. Did social democratic or Utopian Socialist require the abolished of private property. Even the definition of Socialism you made earlier didn’t include the abolished of Private Property.
    4
  128.  @Rundstedt1  Maybe it should be more organised, but it seems so far all your objections seems to be countered.
    4
  129.  @Rundstedt1  I don’t know it seems you are playing nirvana fallacy. Even USSR cannot meet those historian’s criteria you listed here. Every argument you are listing here is not addressing, what the three arrow trying to address. Three arrow was countering the point that NAZI is a classes socialist that alter right like Ben Shapiro suggested by saying that all those public buildings projects were just serving the interests of those industrialist. TIK just countered those points already, NAZI has heavy tax, partirised/Nationalised the economy and put out slot of program to reduce the class differences between class within Aryans. Yet what you are focusing is firm under NAZI control have freedom of making decisions that benefit the interests of the state, therefore NAZI is not socialist. Even Soviet did that to keep their weapon design quality. Or claiming farmer can sold their farm land in practice despite the law didn’t allow them to do without any reference. Even USSR cannot fully prohibit the private transaction in practice.
    4
  130. ​ @Rundstedt1  Furthermore, I wish to know under your definition of Socialism, is partial socialism like social democracy or other socialism (Utopia Socialism, Reactionary Socialism, and Bourgeois Socialism) that Karl Marx criticised in the Comunist Manifesto as socialism? Even the socialist state which transforming from capitalist state to communist state mentioned in the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith "(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc. " - Manifesto of the Communist Party p.49 , and USSR had household since it founded.(wiki-household plot) If you defined socialism as "economic political economy that rejects private ownership of the means of production." No Socialist State ever exist IRL, and only the theoretical Communist State in Marxism would fit though your definition of Socialism.
    4
  131. ⁠ @nukethepentagon  Socialists often fought against other Socialists in human history. Lenin were resisted therefore eliminated the Kronstadt rebellion and revolutionary Socialist, and Stalin for the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, and the Trotskyists. So If acting against different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and their respective Leninism and Stalinism should also not be socialism. ___________________________ Permitting/Supporting class collaboration is not enough to refute an ideology from being Socialism, as Karl Marx said socialism that advocated class collaboration, together with Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism as Karl Marx said in the Manifesto: “ … We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form. The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. … A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
    4
  132. How about USSR? They were Undemocratic and totalitarian rule over the working class, opted for Systematic enslavement and genocide of oppressed people, yet they were still regarded as a socialist state.
    4
  133.  @criticalcandor  Even using your reasoning, why can’t the Nazi be regarded as Socialist then? They also called themselves Nation Socialists.
    4
  134. That is Marxist class Socialism. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    4
  135.  @hobbso8508  Nazi Germany was not capitalistic in any sence. The industries and businesses were nationalised. (Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p3 + p9. Mierzejewski, “The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich,” p4. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.) The people who ran the industries were NS. (Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p3 + p9. Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 9. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p124.) And heavy social regulations were imposed on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc. (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p71-74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.) If the “leaders” refused to cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Professor Junker of the Junkers aeroplane factory was the first to be thrown out of his own business as a result, but he wasn’t the only one. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
    4
  136. 1. Nazism is not Fascism "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    4
  137. 2. Private Industry didn’t exist after 1933 Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 3. Industry didn't get free labour. 17:07 of the video show that workers were getting paid.If you are talking about the Jes they were no part of the society, just like USSR used the pensioner in Gulag as slave labour.
    4
  138. Hitler lied in the speeches. What Hitler actually did often contradicted to what he said in his speeches.
    4
  139. TIK did state [the fact that Marx rejected it explicitly. He even called it "materialism" to highlight the opposite approach] in his other video on Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism. "And I know Marxists will screech and say that Marx said this isn’t what he did; he claimed he demystified the dialectic from Hegel. But it doesn’t matter what Marx said; it matters what he did. He didn’t kick out the priest; all he did was draw the curtain so you can’t see the priest behind it. And it’s literally in the name: “Dialectical Materialism”. Dialectic - Mind. And Materialism = Reality. Mind Reality. Reality of the Mind. It’s literally in the name." 19:06 ("The cult many are in but don’t realize" - TIKhistory)
    4
  140. The boundary of Socialist state is not really about how a nation’s policies faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state. What the ideal socialism should look like is not very relevant to the statement TIK made.
    4
  141. The economic ideology of Hitler started from here 32:40
    4
  142. The socialism definition TIK used in this video is Social(State) ownership of the mean of production. (25:42) And even according to Karl Marx, the control of means of production is only on the hand of some people (associated producers), not everyone as: “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) ___________________ The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriate the surplus product, produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics") Socialism is not just about working classes. The Spectrum of Socialism is beyond the Marxist Class Socialism and its variant. Proudhon’s Anarchism, Bourgeois Socialism and Owen's Utopian Socialism didn't have the ideology of working class solidarity, yet still classified as Socialism by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. ___________________________ Ideologically Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) _____________________________ Economically, Nazi Germany was practising a Socialist Economy because: By the fact that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. This make Nazi economic system met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) a.Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112) ________________________________ ​​⁠b.Nazi Germany did reach the lower stage of Socialist Mode of Production. As the economic policy of Nazi Germany did able to make its economic system ascend from capitalist mode of production under Marxist theory. Under the capitalist mode of production: 1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market. Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it. Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”) 2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value. No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry) Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state. 3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) 4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life. There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
    4
  143.  @oakypoky The purge of 111,091 Polish in National Operation during the Great Purge is definitely nationalistic.
    4
  144. 25:30 The definition of socialism use in this video is here, one of the references is Das Kapital V3 from Karl Marx. Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. 
Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. 
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06.
 The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
    4
  145.  @Schnoz42069  And the state is society, this idea is not from Lenin nor Hitler but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    4
  146.  @tcironbear21  In practice, both ideologies can contain the elements of egalitarianism (within its designated people) and Nationalism. While Hitler claimed ending class inequality is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Minecraft (the real name is censored in YouTube). On the other hand, Stalin initiated the National Operations of NKVD during the Great Purge. From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD. It is estimated that this would make up 34% of the total victims of the Great Purge.[4] Polish Operation of the NKVD ~111,091 killed[5] NKVD Order No. 00485 German Operation of the NKVD ~41,898 killed[6] Greek Operation of the NKVD ~20,000[7]—50,000[8] Latvian Operation of the NKVD 16,573 killed[9] Korean Operation of the NKVD ~40,000 killed[10] Chinese Operation of the NKVD Estonian Operation of the NKVD 4,672 killed[11] Finnish Operation of the NKVD 8,000–25,000 killed or disappeared[12] Harbin Operation of the NKVD ~30,992 Harbin Russians were killed[13]
    4
  147.  @Schnoz42069 ​​⁠Here is the original quote regarding the "obligations on our shoulders" from Minecraft. "(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."(Minecraft 1939 English version)
    4
  148. Marxism is collectivism and universally “left”. Austrian school of economics is individualism and universally “right”.
    4
  149. The main foreign policy goal of Hitler was way more than just the destruction of communism. 32:40 Btw In your logic, Christians would be atheists as they destroyed many other religions during the dark ages.
    4
  150.  @brandonmorel2658  The material conditions were not a factor to be blamed, all those genocide happened in peacetime, and after the communist parties controlled all means of production, all those genocide was just the mean to conduct social engineering. Even if their meterial condition were miserable, it can not legitimised any atrocities, one of the main reason Nazi Germany start the war and execute the Holocaust was because of the degrading material conditions, the lacking of oil, the upcoming economic crisis, and the losing of the war. If you believe “the material condition” can legitimise atrocities. The Nazi’s atrocities were well justified. Are you implying that a regime can still strive for social justice and egalitarianism to eliminate property/ex-property owners and their families (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), different ideologies(every Communist State), religion (every Communist State) intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge). If your answer is yes, then what makes purging people because of their race suddenly more evil and unacceptable? Can’t you see the hypocrisy here, the only difference between authoritarian Marxism and Nazism is just in their political fiction and the reasons behind the execution, people are still going to be killed and exploited by the state under the façade of “ the greater good”?
    4
  151.  @israelcontreras5332  If you need to use a definition of Socialism, that requires equivocating socialism with communism and refuting all other socialism from Socialism in order to refute Nazism from Socialism. You argument doesn’t seems hold much water. Now your new definition of Socialism is [the economic requirements of the government owning the means of production and private property] and [was very clear about common control] 
For the first requirement :
[ the government owning the means of production]

Nazi together with Liberal Socialist and Authoritarian Socialist did able to meet this definition in practice. As the concept of social(state) ownership of means of production is not equal to social(state) ownership of property. A society(state) is not required to own one property to control its means of production. A society(state) can control its (like a factory) means of production by appropriating its surplus product among the producers and/or to the whole society.

The second requirement:
[the economic requirements of the government owning the means of production and private property]
 Even in Marxist theory, the total abolishment of all private property would only happen after the establishment of communist Society. As according to Karl Marx.

"Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) This definition also refuted all liberal socialism from socialism as they still guarantee private property rights. IRL, together with Nazi Germany, not a single communist state can be classified as socialist state under such definition, because of the constant existence of household plot, and their different economic reforms in different era that allow the existence of private market. However, legally together with Communist States, Nazi Germany can still be classified socialist state under this requirement as private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. -Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution. 
The third requirement: [(Socialism) was very clear about common control] Karl Marx indeed had a big part Common ownership in his mind, but for Communist Society, not Socialist State. “Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning. What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society“ (Critique of the Gotha Programme I) This requirement also fundamentally refuted Vanguardism, a core theory of Marxist Leninism from Socialism.

“….a vanguard capable of countering the inevitable petty bourgeois waverings of this mass, of countering the traditions of, and inevitable backsliding to, a narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all aspects of the proletarian movement or, in other words, all the labouring masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is unthinkable.”(On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party, Lenin)
    4
  152.  @coldpizzaslut  He just said the fire decree was to fight the Communists, but it doesn't make TIK's claim, the fire decree abolished private property rights, wrong. Those two narratives are not mutually exclusive. Both narratives can be right at the same time.
    4
  153.  @Schnoz42069  And the state is society, this idea is not from Lenin nor Hitler but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    4
  154. Those overlapping value met the minimum requirement of socialism. That make Nazism and Fascism socialism by definition.
    4
  155.  @rickglorie  Does the Western Democracy being dictated by proletariat? If not it is not the definition of Socialism that Karl Marx defined. In that case, what is the definition of your Socialism?
    4
  156. 1. When did current social values become an indicator of Left or Right for a country nearly hundred years ago? In that sense every country hundred years ago is Right Wing Conservative Socially. Furthermore Communist States also treated ex-capitalist as non-human, Oppressed LGBT, Have baby factories 50-80s year ago were they also Right Wing Conservative Socially? 3. Can you provide any sources to support what you claim, like proving that woman citizen of Nazi-Germany were traded, abused, or exploited as slaves? And LGBT were executed on spot? Seems little bit hard to identify is someone homosexual or not just by spotting.
    4
  157.  @KenCunkle  [One of those, maybe, due to local/special circumstances, but looking at the whole set of them, it's quite clear the Nazis were violent right-wingers. Or perhaps you could explain why a supposed "left-wing" regime would have book-burning events where an awful lot of the books to be burned were works by Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, and others of the same ilk. Sorry, Junior, but there are just too many facts you have to ignore in order to try to stuff the Nazis into a "left-wing" box that it is a total fool's errand. You would be better off not double-down on being a total fool.]

For the records, your original argument was Nazis were right-wingers because only right-wingers would commit genocide out of Social Engineering. Now you said Nazis were right-wingers because only right-wingers would burn Leftist books. I think you are too clueless and have too high expectations to socialist history. Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were banned and burned in the USSR during the Stalin Era. Other than Communist Books, Anarchist Books by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during the Cultural Revolutions in the PRC. Once discovered in the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or remaking into new paper.
 Other examples of socialist burning socialist book included SPD Weimar Germany burning political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz. Besides, the Nazis didn’t burn all Socialist books. They mostly burned the Marxist Books. The books from other Socialists like Robert Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin were not in any list I can find.

 [The point is that if the only way of refuting the positions of those who disagree with you is by attacking what you IMAGINE their motives to be, rather than by taking up facts to show that they're wrong, you're not really being honest, and you're not a serious historian, which TIK seems to be trying to represent himself as being. As I say. once I hit that section, that was the end of it for me.]

 Henry Ashby Turner was suggesting a reason, not a motive. Stating, “Historian dishonestly dismissed the presented evidence despite knowing the fact that Nazism was Socialism because of some Culture Marxism.” is an accusation of a dishonest act because of an imaginary motive. Stating, "they tend to view big business with a combination of condescension and mistrust." is a suggested reason and the previous limitation that academic literature would usually included. If people cannot challenge any pre-existing point of view, it is a religion instead of academia. So here I asked you again, other than the tone of Henry Ashby Turner, what is your argument to support your stance against Turner criticising the common bias of historians and refute the historical evidence presented in this video and the cited source?
 

[It would be fun to hear you describe how the essential mentality of the Israelis is just like that of the Nazis, not to mention the Russians and the Communist Chinese. What is this "essential mentality"? Specifically, I mean. Knock yourself out.] Strong state control of mean of production (Socialism in one state) for one nation, and one leader with great urge of land expansion.
Israel until 1966, had strong state control of the mean of production for one race and one nation with a little urge for land expansion.
USSR was a multi-national state with strong state control of means of production for one nation great urge for land expansion (despite they committed so many cultural and ordinary genocides).
Current PRC had weak state control of mean of production for one race, one nation with great urge of land expansion.

[Well, you put Israel in the same bucket with China and Russia and other left-wing/socialist states, so presumably their leaders would also share goals or behaviors or attitudes with that of those other states, right? Seems pretty clear. So again: please tell us how the Israelis are like the Soviets, the communist Chinese, and the Nazis. Heck, if you're ambitious or smart, you could even manage to point out their similarity to the Khmer Rouge!]

All those Marxist Socialist even include revisionist like Karl Kautsky has the share ultimate goal of achieving the stateless classless Communist Society. You seem little bit clueless regarding the Marxist Ideology.

 [This is silly, because obviously you're just trying to play "gotcha" with me, which is a sign that you would rather not face the substance of my remarks. Now, it's true that Spain was neutral in WW2, but only a historical know-nothing would suggest that Spain was not affiliated/associated with the Nazis. To prove it, I offer you one word, which you may possibly have heard of: "Guernica." Check the history of what happened there. The Nazis totally backed Franco, not only in word, but with material support.
…
Quite the opposite, in fact. The list goes on and on. Nazi supporters were effectdively on the right, almost exclusively, largely becausd they shared the outlook of the Nazis.] How about Finland and Sweden ( which is as neutral and cooperative to Nazi Germany as Spain, assistance included sending volunteers and help transport German troops from Norway to Finland) for Axis, they are both democratic regime. Social Democratic Party even got majority seats in Finnish parliamentary election in 1939 and 1945.

On the other hands, how about ROC, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina for Allies? They were all considered as Fascist. Your narrative just was filled with historical inaccuracy, there is really no gotcha as I am just pointing at one of the many plot holes.
 
[(And seriously, if the Nazis were "left-wing," why did they hate communist countries so much?)] 
So as Soviet Union hated Czechoslovak Communist, Chinese Communist hate Vietnam Communist , Vietnam Communist hate Khmer Rouge, Weimar Republic’s SPD hates Bavarian Soviet Republic. The former Communist had invaded the latter in every example I listed. 
[ If so, then while you're at it, feel free to explain why guys like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were fans of the Nazis, when they were by no means left-wing or even liberal.]

Lenin also supported by the Imperial Germany monarchy and capitalists like Armand Hammer and Alexander Parvus. If you can determine someone and their ideology is right or left just by their Supporter, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would be far right too. [The Pope --and anybody who knows anything would recognize that at this point in history the Catholic Church was definitely a "conservative" institution--supported the Nazis partly because he feared and hated teh communists more and thought that the Germans represented a good bulwark against such left-wing stuff.]
It seems you treat a fail comprised as a sign of collaboration. 
In 1941 the Nazi authorities decreed the dissolution of all monasteries and abbeys in the German Reich, many of them effectively being occupied and secularized by the Allgemeine SS under Himmler. However, on 30 July 1941 the Aktion Klostersturm (Operation Monastery Storm) was put to an end by a decree from Hitler, who feared that the increasing protests by the Catholic segment of the German population might result in passive rebellions and thereby harm the Nazi war effort on the eastern front.
(Mertens, Annette, Himmlers Klostersturm: der Angriff auf katholische Einrichtungen im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Wiedergutmachung nach 1945, Paderborn; München; Wien; Zürich : Schöningh, 2006, pp. 33, 120, 126.)
    4
  158. It may little bit mislead people to think it is the Social Welfare causing the bankruptcy, but allocating a lot of national expenses to rearming is a part of economic policies
    4
  159.  @evanrayswenson Hitler’s Nazism also didn’t end with [the state just do things]. Hitler’s ultimate goal of establishing a racially pure “national community” (Volksgemeinschaft) which 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) Hitler also want to solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48)
    4
  160.  @HottieDudeish  Other than the voting right on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors, the shareholders' rights of ownership entitled by the stock were also stripped by the Nazi. Can you see the last sentence, Nazi can dissolve any firm without compensating the stock holders. In other word the stock itself didn’t entitled any right of ownership to the firm anymore.
    4
  161. Sadly those refutative critiques you stated can also be commonly found in Communist States in real life. If you can refute Hitler and his ideology from socialism just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would also not be socialism. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. Ideologically, Lenin said “Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919) In real life, use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) ______________________ Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). USSR: According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. PRC: Just in Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death. Nazi German: “Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000. In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 “[Hitler] rejected from the outset the  idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden”  [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them  integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. ) “By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. ) The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
    4
  162. 1/ TIK call them Socialist because The actual Nazi policy was called “Gleichschaltung”. This stands for “coordination” or “synchronisation” - as in, synchronisation of the economy and society into the State. Everything was to be merged together as one, into the social state - the exact opposite of so-called “privatisation”. “Business and professional associations, sports clubs, choral societies, shooting clubs, patriotic associations, and most other forms of organised activity were taken under - or more frequently hastened to place themselves under - National Socialist control in the first months of the Third Reich. ‘There was no more social life; you couldn’t even have a bowling club’ that was not ‘coordinated’, was how one inhabitant of Northeim in Lower Saxony remembered it.” (Kershaw, “Hitler: Hubris,” p479.) “The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a person who’s sleeping.” (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107.) “Between 30 January and 14 July 1933... [the Nazis] had coordinated all social institutions, apart from the Churches and the army, into a vast and still inchoate structure run by themselves. They had purged huge swathes of culture and the arts, the universities and the education system, and almost every other area of German society, of everyone who was opposed to them.” (Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle: Chapter 6 “A ‘Revolution of Destruction?’”.) Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. "The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalised.” (Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576.)
    4
  163. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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.
    4
  164.  @westbethkid  Jews (as a race) is also not the marginalised group in Capitalist Society, or even in any Fascist Society. ( Nazism and Fascism are two different ideologies) Similar to Soviet made ex-capitalist a marginalised group in communist society and scapegoated them, Nazi made Jews a marginalised group in communist society and scapegoated them. What made the Soviet the socialist, while the Nazi not?
    4
  165.  @westbethkid  The definition of socialism TIK used in this video is here 25:28 One of the sources of that definition of Socialism was Das Kapital V3 by Karl Marx. What kind of obfuscation of the definition of Socialism do you find in this video?
    4
  166.  @mitch775  Thank you for your detailed perspective, yet the purging of socialist elements doesn't prove Hitler was not a Socialist, just like neither the purging of the Trotskyists nor the banning of Anarchism made Stalin and Lenin not Socialists.
    4
  167.  @mitch775  Besides, although Hitler didn't want to eliminate all capitalist, he still didn't allow the surplus product of the society to accumulate among the capitalists. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wanted to end class inequality, he claimed that 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 Kampf)
    4
  168.  @mitch775  TIK pointed out the different between Marxism and Nazism right here 28:53 and even earlier here 26:42
    4
  169. 1. Even Fascism( national syndicalism) is an Class base Socialist ideology, deviated from Marxism, a class socialism. 2. The ideology of Nazism is not class based, but race based, therefore cannot really classify as Fascism( national syndicalism) which is a variation of class socialism .
    4
  170.  @torengallagher8368  Class Socialism is Socialisms that use classes as socialised entities, an examples would be Marxist which used proletarian, a class, as the socialised entity. Other than Nazism, another example of Race socialism is Arabic Socialism that use Arabs, an ethnicity(race), as socialised entities for its socialism. Maybe you should give your definition of Fascism then. As Fascism itself doesn’t necessarily just mean evil/bad/racist/dictatorship/killing there own people/starting or any other evil adjective.
    4
  171. Even after Hitler remove those SA, he still centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, why can’t he being considered as a socialist? Lenin killed all Kronstadt rebellions made socialist policy and theory and can still be considered as a Socialist.
    4
  172.  @hobbso8508  How was your censoring and modifying of the Communist Manifesto for your own aganda going. Your definition of Socialism cannot include any communist states and even Carl Marx ideology.
    4
  173.  @Squeaky_Ben  The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriate the surplus product, produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics") 1.Even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production. The surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112) ________________________________ 2.Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. Ideologically, Lenin said “Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919) In real life, use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) ______________________ 3.Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). USSR: According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. PRC: Just in Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death. Nazi German: “Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000. In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 “[Hitler] rejected from the outset the  idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden”  [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them  integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. ) “By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. ) The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps. _______________________ 4.Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can cooberate with conservative nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
    4
  174. Which socialist principles? Can you list it out? If the countless purges, atrocities and wars started by the PRC and USSR cannot convince you that socialism can be about ["us "against "them" with ruthless brutality and without humanity], here is a quote from Karl Marx in "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna" "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
    4
  175.  @hobbso8508  Apologising is also rooted from apologia, which is also the root of apologist. Those are not enough to refute that Hitler was as socialistic as Stalin and Lenin. Both Stalin and Lenin also purged socialism and banned democracy. Even though what you said about Hitler is undoubtedly true, it doesn’t change the fact that Hitler was as Socialist as Stalin and Lenin in terms of purging other socialists.
    4
  176.  @hobbso8508  Try again, and read through the website next time numb nut. “The earliest uses of apologize more often meant “to offer an excuse or defense” than “to acknowledge a fault.” The verb came into our language from the noun apology, which similarly had an initial meaning (beginning in the early 16th century) that did not necessarily acknowledge fault (“something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong or of what may be liable to disapprobation”).”(“Apologize.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster) And also （"Apologise." Vocabulary com Dictionary, Vocabulary com）
    4
  177.  @wojtek9675  To save your time, under his definition of Socialism, Marxist Leninism in real life is a right wing Capitalism practice that tolarate zero socialist elements.
    4
  178. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism.  The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism.
    4
  179. As TIK said in 28:51. Hitler is a race socialist, not a class socialist. What that quote said pretty much sums up how Hitler’s socialism bound to the concept of race. It doesn’t contradict to the socialist definition of “social ownership of the means of production”. For Socialism that were very little about classes, here are two more examples Arab Socialism and Afrosocialism.
    4
  180.  @opanike87  Firstly Nazism is not fascism. Even if it is. Fascism is still as Socialism as Social democracy. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell ,despite scattered, illustrated the the Socialist origin of Fascist economical and political ideology. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) The economical aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    4
  181. Those capitalists throw in money to save their lives and become a part of the administration. The survived industrialists will expand rapidly under a more restricted and less competitive state-control environment. Socialism is not when communists kill the capitalists but when the means of production within the nation get into the control of the state.
    4
  182. Sino-Vietnamese War lol
    4
  183.  @Schnoz42069 ​​⁠ 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.) The “private profit” of those “private companies” were forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates. "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
  184.  @EmeraldVindicator7  Socialism often collaborate with nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism (Ba'athism) 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. The former one didn't see non-Islamic people, especially their counterpart in Palestine, as equal, and the latter one is a Socialism for the God's choice people in Israel. So yes, racial hierarchy can co-exist with Socialism.
    4
  185. 1. Fascism is still a class theory base ideology, a variation of Class Socialism from Karl Marx, which should not be adaptable to Race Socialism. If you really what to brigde NS into syndicalism, you might need to put more time to investigate the class theory within NS (not the racism within Fascism). "As a French Marxist who supported Lenin, Bolshevism and Mussolini concurrently in the early 1920s,[8][9] Sorel promoted the cause of the proletariat in class struggle, and the “catastrophic polarization” that would arise through social myth-making of general strikes.[10] The intention of syndicalism was to organize strikes to abolish capitalism; not to supplant it with state socialism, but rather to build a society of worker-class producers. This Sorel regarded as “truly true” Marxism.[11]" (from wiki of Fascist syndicalism) 2. If the state can just control and remove the socall "crony" just because they refused to cooperate, it is not crony capitalism, as the "crony" has no leverage on/ restraint to the state and is under state control. Not even mention NS just scam those industrialists with MEFO that never payoff. "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.)" About State Capitalism, Communist State IRL during and after Cold War was just State Capitalism with political fiction of socialising proletariat into Communist State. With the political fiction in 32:44, the Socialist practice of NAZI Germany was still within the range of Communist States (Yugoslavia, USSR post 1960, Czechoslovakia and Cuba). There should not be double standards, if those Communist State was still considered as Socialist State, so as NAZI Germany IRL. 3. There is no Orthodox Socialism, there is just Orthodox Marxism. Even Carl Marx not dare to monopolised th ideology of Socialism. If Nazism and Fascism are too stigmatise to prove that Marxism didn’t monopolise the ideology of Socialism. Just read the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx criticised Bourgeoisie Socialism and Utopia Socialism did not advocate class struggle and cannot achieve the goal of Communism world. He admitted there are other socialism other than Marxism and its variations. 4. TIK point is more about the nationalisation of trade Union which is a trade of Socialist Country (NS, Fascist, and Communist States) more than just prohibited by law from going on strike. 5. It is the problem of set and subset, Communism and NS are two small circles within the big circle of Socialism, there is no incessant conflating between NS and Communism. 6./7. Again, there is no Orthodox Socialism, there is just Orthodox Marxism. Even Carl Marx not dare to monopolised th ideology of Socialism. The ideology between NS and Orthodox Marxism/Communism can be totally different and irrelevant to discussiion as long as the felt under the set of Socialism.
    4
  186.  @hobbso8508  "No, they just use nationalism. The justification is irrelevant." 1.The foundation of nationalism within fascism is built on Class theory, while the Foundation of NS is built on racial theory. Two ideology was build on two different theory, how can the one be a variant of the other? "You are confusing your own ideology with facts." 2. It seems like a fact for me that , "I am not the only one classify USSR PRC and Cuba as socialist states. And those countries surely without the “non Western Democracy” that has the same criteria of Western Democracy within your funky Socialism definition." " "3. And what is the criteria of "western democracy"?" "a. Sovereignty of the people b. Multi party system c. Separation of powers d. Respect for individual human rights" So...democracy. Yes, any socialism that works through a state requires that." 3.No historian put Sovereignty of the people, Multi party system, Separation of powers and Respect for individual human rights into the definition of Socialism. "Marx and Engels literally said outright that the very first thing to do in a socialist state would be to establish democracy. Again, you post quotes you do not understand. They are referencing a pre-socialist state, not one that has established socialism." 4. They are not referencing a pre-socialist state, they are referencing the socialist state that moving toward to Communism state. You see the " as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. " within the "If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. " ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)? The elimination of classes indicate that a Socialist State transform into a Communist State.
    4
  187.  @hobbso8508  1. That is not how variant work if A is not come from B, A is not a variant of B. 2.Classic Rome and Greece democracy and even US democracy before civil war didn't meet all four of those criteria, yet they were still regard as democracy. 3. Again not with Sovereignty of the people, Multi party system, Separation of powers and Respect for individual human rights 4. Proof me wrong then.
    4
  188. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    4
  189.  @joeldiemoz9027  Nazism is egalitarian toward their own race (at least in theory) [10:03 35:47], but not the other especially to the Jews. Similar to Communism is egalitarian toward to proletariat but not the other class especially the bourgeoisie.
    4
  190. If someone can pedantic cherry picked 107 sources to push his point, there should be some merit to his point until proving not.
    4
  191. Marxism even in theory is not about equality of all the people, just the equality of Proletarian, as their final goal is to abolish classes other than Proletarian.
    4
  192. You also cherry-picked his point to accuse TIK of cherry-picking. You left out the part TIK quoted in 6:18 [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.] Also, Nazis expropriated all the private property rights entitled by company shares in 1937. " Correspondingly, when the Nazis turned their attention to corporate law, culminating in the enactment of a new corporate law in 1937, managerial authority was expanded at shareholders’ expense (Levy, 1950: 215). While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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", Carsten Burhop). Regarding Röhm, TIK did mention the second revolution in 39:30. Even after Röhm's death, Hitler still implemented many leftist welfare policies, including fixed employment, price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralized distribution of goods listed in 15:30. ["völkische Staat", were eveything is done to the benefit of "the people".] That is just basically Socialism when you mix this idea with totalitarianism, which Hitler rule Germany with. [And this all meant to Hitler to drag the world into another war that would kill tens of millions. With most of the killing done through plunder, resulting famine and mass murder in Eastern Europe mostly.] Communists also love to start wars (Winter War, the Invasion of Poland twice, the Invasion of BalticCountrie,s and the invasion of Afghanistan). They also killed their people through plunder, resulting in famine and the mass murder of tens of millions. That is not even an argument to disprove Hitler as a Socialist. Regarding the definition of Socialism used in this video, it was "Social ownership of the mean of production" in 25:40.
    4
  193. TIK deliberately said Socialism is Social ownership of means of production not "Socialism is when the government dors stuff". He also socialism is not worker do stuff which seems aligned to your [socialism isn't [when the government dors stuff]. 26:10 TIK did also provide arguments other than [Hitler called himself a Socialist] to prove Hitler was a Socialist. What are you arguing about? For your last point where did TIK said Hitler = Socialism & Hitler = Bad —> Socialism = Bad?
    4
  194.  @stef65856  Ha yes, logic is a good thing. "Since socialist state is meant to be working for the workers, you can't have strikes". This statement never used [the fact they banned strikes to say they were socialist.] Since A, you can't have B. Doesn’t necessarily mean Since B, you can't have A.
    4
  195. Because it is Nazi Germany was running National Socialism, and that statement was about state seizing private property instead of corporatism. If Fascists is about “there is no longer an independent judiciary that protects the property rights of private citizens against the state" instead of the merging of “the state and corporate power”, even Marxist Socialism is Fascism.
    4
  196. Because the real privatisation done after the war by the occupation government.
    4
  197.  @charleymount582  [sold off all of the shares, but put the company under heavy government regulation. The profits still went to the private sector, not the government] First off, how would the private sector get any profit directly from buying things? Isn't the real profit come from selling stocks which the Nazi state actually did? Secondly, privatisation was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalised all the control of 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.
    4
  198. Fascism is not the reverse of Communism, which would actually killed the land and the factory owner. They believed the class struggle would not able to determinately overthrew the Capitalist society (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) , and advocated 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) They will not kill any Jews or bourgeoisie because of their own ideology, they will only kill the liberals and the communists. Fascism actually is a more egalitarian ideology than Communism at least in theory.
    4
  199.  @CamaradaRivera  So as the Communist States IRL. They both claim they solve the exploitation problem . But IRL there were class struggle against and being oppressed by the ruling party in both USSR and Fascist Italy. There is always discrepancy between theory and reality for every practiced socialist theory.
    4
  200.  @lucca3113  You are right they didn't, but still being called as Socialist States. Under this low standard, Nazi Germany should also valid to be classified as Socialist State.
    4
  201. It is not really a game of definitions, this video just using the common definition of Socialism that included all the Cold War/ Contemporary Communist State. (You may exclude modern PRC)
    4
  202.  @gladys2563 [Being anti-liberal (anti- free market) doesn't automatically mean you're a socialist.] Nazism is a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2. Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4. Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products
    4
  203.  @gladys2563  [That's called planned economy. There's no socialist type of economy, because there's only 3 types and they're: Free Market, Mixed and Planned. And so far not every socialist is targeting planned economy. For example more libertarian socialists root anti-state and for economy run like a market economy, but done by workers democraticly.] The boundary of socialism is defined by the most extreme cases, the most authoritarian and the most liberal. 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.
    4
  204. Lenin's greatest enemy after he rised to power was Socialist Revolutionaries. How do you come to the conclusion that Lenin was a socialist.
    4
  205. Their policy aims to control people life , business and industry. Your argument has been replied in 1:19 of the video.
    4
  206. As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity,the race, 32:44 instead of maximising profit, they are more than just “the government does stuff”. They are “the government does stuff” to achieve socialist state for Aryan just like communist want to achieve a socialist state for proletarian.
    4
  207.  @rickglorie  Carl Marx was racist and anti-semantic.
    4
  208.  @nukethepentagon  The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates 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, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production. The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
    4
  209. ⁠ @benmorton8945  With that definition, you are effectively refuting every Communist State and their Communism from being Socialist State and Socialism, respectively. They were all run by the party members, not the workers. Suppose you need a definition of Socialism that requires to refute all Communist States and their Communism from Socialist and Socialism in order to refute Nazism from Socialism. Your argument doesn’t seem to hold much water.
    4
  210.  @benmorton8945  When the communist putting their own mates into positions of power, ideologically it called Vanguardism, practically it called one party system. That is one of the principles doctrine of Marxist Leninism and a distinctive characteristic of Communist States. You not being a Stalinist is not a legit reason to refute Stalinism from the spectrum of Socialism. Thus again, with that definition, you are effectively refuting every Communist State and their Communism from being Socialist State and Socialism, respectively.
    4
  211. That is how classic Marxism defined Socialism. In "The Principles of Communism," Engels used "The so-called socialists" to refer to all the non-communist socialists when being asked, "How do communists differ from socialists?" Which included Reactionary Socialists(Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism), Bourgeois Socialists (including Proudhon's Syndicalism and Anarchism, being used as an example of Bourgeois Socialism in the Manifesto (2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party) ), and Democratic Socialists. The only good Socialism is just Marxist.
    4
  212.  @hobbso8508  And nationalised the whole state? Your statement didn't really hold much water.
    4
  213.  @hobbso8508  How private is that if all the properties and coopetition is contain within the running party?
    4
  214. The section that countered your argument is here 38:46
    4
  215. This argument seems unable to passed the Soviet Union/ PRC tests. They also banned other socialist party and executing a lot of “socialist” and previous comrade. If those countries were still considered as practicing socialism, then you cannot say that country is not socialist just by that country banning other socialist party and killing other socialists.
    4
  216. Actually they first re-educated the socialist with labour camp like Soviet did to opposition with Gulags, but with much lower death rate. 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
    4
  217.  @hoztravels2024 It is just evidence, logic and comparative historical analysis. I would like to see your argument and reasoning behind your conclusion that Nazis were a far-right party.
    4
  218.  @romulusmars3766  If you think socialism system only qualified as socialism when it success, disqualified as socialism when it fails. No wonder you believe socialism hasn’t failed.
    4
  219. ⁠​⁠ @Afterthefallout55660 ​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ Those Socialist States surely did not fail to collapse like the USSR. They saved themselves by abandoning their practices of Socialism and embracing the practices of Capitalism by open up (limited) free market, and trading with the Capitalist States, two of many things their ideology vowed to abolish. Regarding, we need socialism because people cannot afford their flats. This mindset is very dangerous because it can also use to justify Nazism or Fascism as a better option of the current democratic capitalistic system, with the fact that people there could afford a flat or a house, and neglect all the short coming and casualty of those Nazi, Fascist and the Socialist States you provided as examples. Capitalism sucks, doesn’t mean Communist Socialism is the right answer. As Socialist State moved back to practice Capitalism after trying to practice Socialism and ruining their own economy.
    3
  220.  @arcioko2142  According to “Anti-Dühring, the "Stateless Society" just means a ruling entity without "repression and class conflicts" but with the same function of state. The people are still under the governing of “administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production” which has the same function of government. 
“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. 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. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    3
  221. What you are stating here was fabricated history. Black Reichswehr was led by Bruno Ernst Buchrucker; it was dissolved in 1923 after they failed the Küstrin Putsch in Küstrin (since 1945 Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Poland) on 1 October 1923. Bruno Ernst Buchrucker was then sent to prison after the failed coup attempt and released on October 1927 on the 80th birthday of President Paul von Hindenburg. Buchrucker joined the NSDAP on October 1, 1929 (membership number 153,720), but was expelled on July 1, 1930. (Bundesarchiv R 9361-VIII KARTEI/4360611) How would [all these "combat leagues" were merged into a single organization, at the head of which was put Adolf Hitler.]?
    3
  222.  @nicknolte8671  Who was the leader in Küstrin Putsch in Küstrin on 1 October 1923, Bruno Ernst Buchrucker or Hitler?
    3
  223.  @nicknolte8671  If they were merged into one single organisation and felt they had to march upon Berlin and seize power, or their followers would turn to the Communists on 26 September 1923 Why would the leader of Black Reichswehr, Bruno Ernst Buchrucker, the leader of Black Reichswehr, not yet a Nazi member, attempt a minimally planned coup in Küstrin (since 1945 Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Poland), not Bayern, just to halt the order to disband the units under his command and to have an arrest warrant against him lifted on 1 October 1923.
    3
  224. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671 Yet Hitler was stopped in Munich next months in another coup. If they were under the leadership of Hitler, why would they coup in different place and different time? Not to even mention the background of Buchrucker’s coup, “Buchrucker learned about the arrest warrant issued against him on 30 September in Berlin and drove to Küstrin (since 1945 Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Poland), about 320 km to the southeast. There he ordered the leader of the city's labor commandos, Major Fritz Hertzer, to have his men move inside the fortifications of the Old Town the following morning. He gave as his reason the arrest warrant against him and said that he was seeking the labor commandos' help and protection. The next morning he planned to contact the local commander of the Reichswehr to have him inform the Reichswehr minister of the threatening situation in Küstrin. Buchrucker hoped that would get the arrest warrant lifted.”("Die Schwarze Reichswehr und der geplante Marsch auf Berlin", Sauer, Bernhard) Not the fact that “Baltikum” was disbanded in 1919.
    3
  225.  @nicknolte8671  ​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠You can’t even show how those groups conspired with Hitler, not to mention proving [all these "combat leagues" were merged into a single organization, at the head of which was put Adolf Hitler.]. “Baltikum” korps dissolved in 1919. Schwarze Reichswehr was in Küstrin, while Hitler was in Nuremberg from 26/9/1923 to 1/10/1923. Without proving all these "combat leagues"-----“Baltikum” Korps and Schwarze Reichswehr were merged into Kampfbund, how can you show that Kampfbund was an organisation that encompassed various paramilitary groups which were funded by capitalists? Thus proving Hitler was the political leader of an organisation that encompassed various paramilitary groups which were funded by capitalists. Finally proving that Hitler and the Nazis were funded by capitalists ten years before he assumed power.
    3
  226.  @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
  227. ​ @nicknolte8671  [... Hitler's career was jumpstarted by one of the richest men in Germany, who advertised his movement among his capitalist buddies.] It seems you didn't quote the whole article. In November 1932, Ernst von Borsig was one of the 339 signatories of the election manifesto “With Hindenburg for the People and the Reich”. The call supported the Papen cabinet and turned against the NSDAP. (Henry Ashby Turner : The big entrepreneurs and the rise of Hitler) This still didn't make TIKs wrong, as he just said: "Prior to Hitler’s seizure of power, the only major industrialist who was actually a committed supporter of Hitler was Fritz Thyssen" (20:42) "None of these industrialists could be considered committed Nazis prior to 1933"(21:59) And this still cannot refute Hitler from being Socialist, as Lenin was also supported by the Imperial German monarchy and capitalists like Armand Hammer and Alexander Parvus. Under the same standard, if Hitler was refuted from being a Socialist as he was supported by capitalists, Lenin would also be refuted from being a Socialist for the same reason.
    3
  228. 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
  229. 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
  230. 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
  231.  @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
  232.  @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
  233.  @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
  234.  @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
  235.  @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
  236.  @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
  237.  @brandonmorel2658  Chinese Constitution still guarantees private iwnership. Jack Ma still owned Alibaba btw, what are you taking about? 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 and reduce the income taxes surely the tax from income would reduce regardless the increase of real wage. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    3
  238.  @brandonmorel2658  Other than listing out Marxist economic gibberish, do you really know what are you talking about. For a very simple question how can a country devalued the worth of workers by buying product that the country itself cannot produce. How can the wage increase frozen when I just showed you evidence that they actually didn’t. If capital law of motion is not permitted in socialist states, how can that Mexico socialist regime be classified as Socialist under your definition?
    3
  239.  @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
  240. ​ @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
  241.  @brandonmorel2658  Fall from grace doesn’t mean his private property being stripped. He still own Alibaba. The example you provided didn’t support your statement that the private ownership is de facto gone. I know there were many examples of Chinese billionaires being expropriated by Xi regime, but none of them were without legal causes. Beside, even with your description of State Capitalism, it didn’t really prove Xi China is capitalistic. The state controlling the businessmen doesn’t necessarily mean that they allow the exploitation the workers. State capitalism can also be non-exploitative like the one Lenin used 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). The what “State Capitalism” agenda propaganda are you referring to?
    3
  242.  @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
  243.  @brandonmorel2658  The shrinking of Jack Ma wealth was due to the decrease of stock market value of Alibaba and estamated value of Ant Group's . Other than the 1 billion fines for the illegal activity of Ant Group, Chinese government didn't stripped any private property from Jack Ma. The goal of that capitalist state can be reduce the income difference between different classes, eliminate unemployment, increase the social welfare for the poor. What make you conclude that the end goal of State Capitalism must be more exploitation of workers?
    3
  244.  @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
  245.  @brandonmorel2658  The state surely directly caused the shrinking of Jack Ma's wealth, however, the property rights of Jack Ma were still endorsed by the government. The state didn’t take anything from Jack Ma, they dimmed down the development prospects of Jack Ma’s companies and the invisible hand of the market adjusted Jack Ma’s companies’ market value accordingly.
    3
  246.  @night6724 I don’t think the “refutators” there would be as engaged in meaningful discussions as in here where they come to pick a fight and try to “debunk” TIK’s narrative in the comments section.
    3
  247. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @restrictionmars4288  The definition of Socialism TIK used in this video is quite clear, it is “Social Ownership of means of production”. 25:41 Where did you get the vibe of anything we don't like is socialism?
    3
  248.  @hobbso8508  I doubt there is such distinction, nothing is pure consumption goods. You cannot buy machinery, you cannot buy tool, as they are mean of production. Even toilet paper, weed and fruit can become mean of producing alcohol. What cannot become private property? What can be sold to the one with money? Furthermore, who sell them those surplus goods, if the amount of production is under “Society” Control and there is no free market?
    3
  249.  @mikemcmike6427  Sorry my bad misread your comment. The answer should be more relevant now. Grammar is not a problem, but next time would you kindly consider to put something in between those term you mean to differentiate. It is quite hard to read, especially for those terms you can combine together.
    3
  250. 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
  251. USSR also did the same thing
    3
  252.  @RightfulArchon186  1. It is from his Video and here is his source: M. Pendergrast, "For God, Country and Coca-Cola" （2013） p.211 2. Coca Cola is referring to the name of that Germany Coca Cola company, not the drinks.
    3
  253. That why this video is important even for people believing in socialism. People will get killed if you go too extreme.
    3
  254.  @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
  255. Guess what? Nazism ultimate goal was indeed want to establishing a racially pure “national community” (Volksgemeinschaft) with common ownership of means of production. “Popular demands (These) can be satisfied only 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, the Volksgemeinschaft (folk community) serves the interests of the individual” (Minecraft, 1939 English translation p.368)
    3
  256.  @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
  257.  @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
  258.  @WhiteWolf126  1. Those were not Jewish businessmen, not from the quote at least. where you get that information from? 2. It showed you collectivisation really happened not only in the business, but also happened in other areas. Regardless what book were burn, the academia is collectivised by the NAZI
    3
  259.  @WhiteWolf126  If the "privatization" "privatize" the private property into the state/ruling party sector and/or state/ruling party control , or "privatize" state property into ruling party sector. While, the state/ruling party purging the culture and academia of all leftwing thought that the state/ruling party disagreed. Yes it is evidence that someone is as socialist as Stalin, Lenin and Mao.
    3
  260.  @WhiteWolf126  Most of your counter argument was discrediting Günter Reimann Race (Jew) and Political Alignment (Communist) . You also never use any evidence or sources to support you claim and counter argument. By ignoring : The abolish of decree 115 and 153 that abolish the right of private ownership. The Nazi material quota system The jurisdictions of DAF within each firms Only the party members were involved in privatisation. The expropriation of firms The price control The wage control Employment fixation The similar between Communist and Nazi Economic System. The Planned Economy The introduction of “leader” follower system. and all other evidences, you can surely blindly believed that the all the socialist economy policy of Nazi Germany was implemented during WWII and ran like USA war time economy. With your intentional ignorance blindfolded perspective Nazi Germany was surely the pinnacle of Capitalistic economic under your imagination.
    3
  261.  @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
  262.  @nicknolte8671  TIK said, "Prior to Hitler’s seizure of power, the only major industrialist who was actually a committed supporter of Hitler was Fritz Thyssen"(20:48). He never said [only one capitalist funded Hitler prior to the seizure of power], you are putting words into TIK's mouth and arguing with the argument you made up for TIK.
    3
  263. Companies in Nazi Germany were owned by the state 3:00, directed by Nazi party members 13:32, and regulated by Daf 9:13. Their only seller and buyer was the state 11:24, they cannot fire anyone 17:21, and rise or reduce the wage of the workers 16:37 without Daf permission. De facto or de jure the property was no longer privately owned or controlled by the ex-owner anymore. What aspect of Nazi Economy was oversight from this video?
    3
  264. It seems you are making a golden mean fallacy argument here. As the standard is actually quite objective when you are making a comparison with other Socialist States and Socialist Ideologies.
    3
  265.  @PointNemo9  They do usually self-associate themselves with Nazi. Self-associate themselves with Nazi basically defined what Extreme right is.
    3
  266. In this video, out of 108 references, TIK just referred Mises’ works 4 times. It seems you need to discredit more historian to discredit this video.
    3
  267. Privatisation was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalised all the control of 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.
    3
  268.  @funnyyellowdog8833  AFAIK, a completely free market has not yet existed due to involuntary transactions (raping, stealing and robbing) and information inequality between individuals. Based on what historical evidence you can conclude that [a completely free market will always lead to monopolies, which in turn stop any competition]?
    3
  269. How is National Socialism is foundamentally different from Socialism when Nazism and Communism were the only two real/full socialism system IRL. One purge different classes, one purge different race based on their ideology.
    3
  270. Should be no under the definition in this video. The definition of socialism this video is the social ownership of the mean of production. This is a kind of Socialism that tried and has been always failed to remove free market and abolish private property from their economic system. As Scandinavia didn’t try to remove the free market and private property, therefore, Scandinavia would not be socialist under the definition of socialism in this video or the under the definition of worker ownership of mean of production, the definition that Marxist usually used.
    3
  271. 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
  272. The details explanation is in 4:38
    3
  273.  @AdanALW  The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    3
  274.  @hobbso8508  We have been that three times before. If your definition of Socialism included Marxism, and Society ownership in Marxism means state/government ownership. State/government ownership should be a kind of Society ownership by your definition of Socialism.
    3
  275.  @MatthewWhite-z5l  [where did I attempt to justify communism? I merely explained it's stated objective.] Thank you for the clarification. Are you saying that Marxism is not Socialism? [but these arguments have been soundly rejected by mainstream historians who rely on objective academic reasoning and empirical evidence to reach their conclusions.] Every piece of evidence used in this video was from publications of mainstream historians. Furthermore, Mainstream historians didn't really rely on objective academic reasoning and empirical evidence to reach their conclusions regarding these topics, as per the quote of Tuners at 23:55 of this video. [If you genuinely believe that the Nazi's were proponents of "equality" then I'd suggest you look up the dictionary definition is of the word.] I didn't because of what they actually did, so as communism, but you still believe communism was a proponent of "equality" just because of what communists said in its theory.
    3
  276. The explaination is right here. 33:21 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. Another real live historical example we can compare is Christian and Muslim, they hate each other despite they have the same god.
    3
  277. ​ @adrijan6510  TIK and I said it is a race socialism already. What do you mean why not call them ethnic socialism? The racist nature of National Socialism ideology is in 27:38 to 30:50 of this video. What is the problem?
    3
  278. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory?
    3
  279. Socialism is ownership of mean of production (in a way that can include all ever existing communist states). Nazism is at least whatever Hitler publicly said or published, similar to Marxism which is whatever Karl Marx publicly said or published. I believe that is the definition, if you think they are wrong, please kindly enlighten me and point it out.
    3
  280.  @shte_ken3978  put the means of production between the hands of the workers is never on the table, no single one Communist State actually put the means of production between the hands of the workers and they never abolish private properties either, Household plot for USSR and PRC and tourist industry(especially the taxi driver) for Cuba. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialism ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organise the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.) But as the lowest boundary of Socialist state is set by how unfaithful those Cold War/ Contemporary Communist State economic policies to socialism. It is very likely that Nazi Germany is still valid to be classified as Socialist State.
    3
  281.  @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
  282.  @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
  283. Under what etymology of socialism, socialism is required to threaten or even eliminate the existance of a capitalist class? As it seems the Socialism you are saying is just Marxist Class Socialism (Marxist Communism). Not Socialism as a general concept.
    3
  284.  @andreylyubavin1211  Communist Party of the Soviet Union that is the big and only capital entity of Soviet Union. I can list out the chief executive and directors of Gosplan and Gosbank here. The so-called industry or bank “owner” of Nazi Germany you might going to list out later would have no more executive power to their subject than this of the chief executive and directors to the Gosplan and Gosbank.
    3
  285.  @andreylyubavin1211  If everything is under party and state central control and distribution. Holodomor is artificially made regardless of the intentions. It is either poor management or genocide, either of which prove how separate the party/state and the people were.
    3
  286. SPD, USPD and KPD all three leftist communist originated parties won more than 30% seats in every parliament elections before the 1933 election in combined. Communists were actually quite popular after WWI.
    3
  287.  @Supernautiloid  because the German Communist party started a revolution against the Social Democrats, and the Social Democrats suppressed the revolution with violence and killed the founder of the Communist party with the FrieKorps (a anti-communist paramilitary group) The hidden logic here is Left on Left conflict doesn’t existed. Nazi must be a right wing party because they opposed by the communist. If a Party opposed or against by a communist/socialist party, it must be right, conservatives or counter revolution. Using this logic, at least either German Communists Party or Social Democrats would also be right.
    3
  288. 1. He didn’t say that they are the same in 29:41 2. To make your metaphor reflect reality more accurately, both Nazism and Communism are homicidal maniac. NAZI German, USSR and PRC all killed tons of peoples out of their ideology.
    3
  289. The definition of socialism in yours multiple quotes are the Marxist Class Socialism, but not Socialism generally, which the definition is the social ownership of mean of production. Yes Hitler is not a Marxist Class Socialist, even TIK said that in 29:25. However, the socialise entity of Socialism can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. It seems non of the sources you quoted really countered the point that Hitler was a racial socialist.
    3
  290.  @Rundstedt1  1/ Hitler did do that. Here is a section of TIK video regarding this issue. Hope it can let you know his reasoning. TIK call them Socialist because The actual Nazi policy was called “Gleichschaltung”. This stands for “coordination” or “synchronisation” - as in, synchronisation of the economy and society into the State. Everything was to be merged together as one, into the social state - the exact opposite of so-called “privatisation”. “Business and professional associations, sports clubs, choral societies, shooting clubs, patriotic associations, and most other forms of organised activity were taken under - or more frequently hastened to place themselves under - National Socialist control in the first months of the Third Reich. ‘There was no more social life; you couldn’t even have a bowling club’ that was not ‘coordinated’, was how one inhabitant of Northeim in Lower Saxony remembered it.” (Kershaw, “Hitler: Hubris,” p479.)
    3
  291. 2/ “The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a person who’s sleeping.” (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107.) “Between 30 January and 14 July 1933... [the Nazis] had coordinated all social institutions, apart from the Churches and the army, into a vast and still inchoate structure run by themselves. They had purged huge swathes of culture and the arts, the universities and the education system, and almost every other area of German society, of everyone who was opposed to them.” (Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle: Chapter 6 “A ‘Revolution of Destruction?’”.) Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. "The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalised.” (Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576.)
    3
  292. 4/ 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
  293. 5/ Those industries that had their former owners removed (expropriated) were then sold to individuals in the Nazi Party, who then ran them for the benefit of the Nazi Party. In other words: they were nationalised. This fact is pointed out by Bel’s “Against the Mainstream” - a text that is often used by Marxists to “prove” that it was ‘privatisation’. Except it doesn’t, it accidentally proves the exact opposite. If only they had actually bothered to read it. “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) "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
  294. I cannot really post the part of IG Farben YouTube will auto delete it but it is on 3:56 If you want to argue this is State Capitalism as they are just maximising state or Cartel profits whatsoever. As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism. If you want to argue that there is still limited private ownership of mean of production within the state. The Socialist practice of NAZI Germany was still within the range of ex-Communist States in Cold War and current Communist State. If you want to learn more you can search household plot or NEP for USSR, 自留地 for PRC and travel industry (taxi drivers) for Cuba.
    3
  295. 3/ And heavy social regulations were imposed on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc. (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p71-74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
    3
  296.  @Rundstedt1  I believe the Staatssozialismus is just a kind of partial Socialism at the degree of Social Democracy. Similar to the politics of SPD, they are no match to the pure socialist practices of Communist and Nationalist Socialist. The main point was the conservative even the monarchist in Interwar Germany was economically left-leaning. Claiming that National Socialists converged with the conservative did not really indicate they were ideologically favour free market Capitalism, the opposite of Socialism.
    3
  297.  @Rundstedt1  As shown in my previous reference in 5/. They were all sold to Nazi Party Members, the extension of the state, when the party is the state, which NS German was. Also fail to complied to Nazi Order would lead to serious fines and the removal from the position. The “privatisation” actually strengthened the state ownership of mean of production.
    3
  298. ​ @Rundstedt1  7/ Regarding None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. With private property rights abolished, 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.) However, by the same token, some “leaders” and “followers” also embraced the new order, as it reminded them of the previous war. (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p83.) “As “plant leader”... [Ludwig Hermann from Hoechst] perceived himself as an officer and his “followers” as his soldiers. Hermann recognised the community spirit of the trenches of the First World War again in the “national community” (Volksgemeinschaft) of the Nazi regime - as did other industrialists and managers.” (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p83.) Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community - which it was. (Feder, G. “The Program of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions.” RJG Enterprises LTD, p32.) 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) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    3
  299.  @Rundstedt1  NSDAP act more like CCP than Republican. It has strict hierarchy structure. When the party control both the state and industry, both the state and the industry will work according to the order of the same entity. The consequences part in 5/ keep the property owner from controlling the mean of production of their own properties. Still PS: from public officer to “private individuals with ties to party or who were seen as loyal “ or what listed in the sources. The state ownership of mean of production became stronger with “privatisation” in 1933-1934.
    3
  300.  @Rundstedt1  First this is TIK point. Secondly, in the video. TIK use other sources show that the market was under heavy control and being regulated. As a great example of regulation, in January 1938, the Nazis decided that if even one Jew worked for a business, then that business was defined as a ‘Jewish firm’. So by July of that year, the remaining Jews were removed from the businesses, and in some cases, taken straight to the camps. The businesses had to do this in order to apply for an official certificate that declared that they were a “German firm”. If they didn’t get this certificate, they would be in violation of the Reich’s Race Laws. In other words, the firms were being socialised - the German people (the social majority) were running the show. (Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 9.) 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.) There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy. (Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.) “Millions of questionnaires are sent out in order to get a true picture of demands, stocks, etc. Questionnaires and statistical reports of thousands of firms are collected and catalogued. A vast number of office workers labours over them in order to calculate normal requirements, the volume of demand, and other figures necessary for getting a picture of the market situation.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p56.) They even had Reich’s Kommissars, like the Reichs Kommissar for prices - Joseph Wagner - who tried (and failed) to set all prices in the Reich. He failed because Socialism always fails, but the point is, he tried. (Neumann, “Behemoth,” p309. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p71-75.) “The kommissar in charge of the supply of iron and steel sent many circulars to industrialists blaming them for and warning them against the use of non-quota iron and steel, as well as against exceeding their quotas.” (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p57.)
    3
  301.  @Rundstedt1  Furthermore, the point of Evan part you’re quoting seems contradicted to other reference TIK used. "Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people's net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor. Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had.”- Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500 Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community - which it was. (Feder, G. “The Program of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions.” RJG Enterprises LTD, p32.) 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) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “In the end, the aristocracy's power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany's future political elite.” - Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500 Class struggle/removal is a Communist ideology, other socialism like Utopia Socialism and Bourgeoisie Socialism and Reactionary Socialism mentioned in the Communist Manifesto did not require Class struggle/removal “Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual CAPITALIST profit motive." - Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500 German farmers had all their private debt collectivised, and a national bank was set up to oversee this process. Yes, there was no more private debt for farmers. But even better, farms could no longer be repossessed or sold, effectively forcing farmers to be farmers, all of which are forms of farm collectivisation. This was done through an inheritary system, and, due to various reasons, it was limited to certain farms - so it wasn’t done for every farm - but nonetheless it shows they were trying to move in that direction. (Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p182-185.) Is the part you quoted from Ewan’s conclusion?
    3
  302.  @Rundstedt1  Regarding "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere formal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment patterns. Even regarding war related projects freedom of contract was generally respected and, instead of using power, the state offered firms a bundle of contract options to choose from." - "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry" Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Schemer" USSR also have similar practise in their military industry. You may search the R&D history of MiG-9/Yak-15 and La-168/MiG-15 for " bundle of contract options to choose from". And MiG-17 and T-72 for "the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment patterns."
    3
  303.  @Rundstedt1  "private ownership of the means of production is not equal to ownership of the property itself." As stated in 5/ The property is under your name, but the ownership is under state and party control. If the order is not follow, you will be heavily fined and the property can move under other people name. What kind of means of production you have? The level of private owners of mean of production the owner have on German firm was just like the level of Artem Mikoyan's and Mikhail Gurevic's owners of mean of production on Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau of USSR.
    3
  304.  @Rundstedt1  Evans contradicted (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy"), (Neumann, “Behemoth") , (Feder, G. “The Program of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions.”) ("RJG Enterprises LTD") and (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries") Again that is not my research, if you want to credit (no matter good or bad) any reference source here, please credit TIK.
    3
  305.  @Rundstedt1  Regarding "Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. " Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500 NS Germany tried but fail to collectivise the agriculture sector. 8/ German farmers had all their private debt collectivised, and a national bank was set up to oversee this process. Yes, there was no more private debt for farmers. But even better, farms could no longer be repossessed or sold, effectively forcing farmers to be farmers, all of which are forms of farm collectivisation. This was done through an inheritary system, and, due to various reasons, it was limited to certain farms - so it wasn’t done for every farm - but nonetheless it shows they were trying to move in that direction. (Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p182-185.) And again, prices for agricultural produce were fixed, (Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p186.) and subsidies were given to the farmers. (Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p55.) Farmers were encouraged by state regulations to stop producing meat and eggs, and to concentrate on grain production, because the guys in charge decided that this would be a more productive use of the land - showing that the farmers were not in a free market. (Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," p170.)
    3
  306.  @Rundstedt1  Again the origin statement is NS Germany tried but fail to collectivise the agriculture sector. In TIK word "This was done through an inheritary system, and, due to various reasons, it was limited to certain farms - so it wasn’t done for every farm - but nonetheless it shows they were trying to move in that direction. " Your statement seems contradictory to the law itself, farmers cannot sell the distributed land. If true please provide first hand accounts. It is too easy to fabricate this claim. " Any farm of at least one Ackernahrung, an area of land large enough to support a family and evaluated from 7.5 to 125 hectares (19–309 acres), was declared an Hereditary farm (Erbhof), to pass from father to son, without the possibility to be mortgaged or alienated. Only those peasants were entitled to call themselves "farmers" (Bauern), a term the Nazis attempted to refurbish from a neutral or even pejorative to a positive term.[3][4] A Greater Aryan certificate was required to receive its benefits, similar to the requirements for becoming a member of the Nazi Party. Farms too small could become an Hereditary farm by combination, and larger farms would have to be subdivided.[1][5] " From wiki Further reference 3 Stackelberg, Roderick (2002-01-22). Hitler's Germany: Origins, Interpretations, Legacies. Routledge. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-134-63529-0. 4 Richard Grunberger, The 12-Year Reich, pp 156-7, ISBN 0-03-076435-1 Talk about in practice, USSR also have back market store selling resources made by private own mean of production. Does it make USSR not a socialist state?
    3
  307.  @Rundstedt1  Again that is not my research. I am just Copying TIK transcript. Surely it cannot fit into your statement needly, but it seems good enough to counter your argument good enough. If the War period quote of Aly is not good enough to prove the control economy. Those from “Vampire Economics” I previously quote from TIK should be good enough to prove the economic is regulated.
    3
  308.  @Rundstedt1  Your comment seems lack the professionalism of an “old history teacher”. You didn’t criticise an argument by first reading the thesis, (aka watch the video), and counter the arguments in the thesis, but just throwing out your own arguments regardless are your counter arguments relevant to the origin argument or not. You also prefer name-calling your opponent than elaborate or explain your point. When there is no further option , you will eventually show your the lists of citations with minimal elaboration. Now would you mind to lecture us, what should we do when a statement of one citation contradicted to several others citations, Mr. Rundstedt? PS: In this video/thesis, TIK also indicated that fascism, aka National Syndicalism, is also a Socialist ideology. In another video, it should that socialist the people of the whole nation, and minimise the class different between the rich and poor by heavy tax and social welfare rather than the elimination of class hierarchy like Marxist proposed. Maybe you need to debug that premise first, before you want to excluding National Socialism by classifying them fascism.
    3
  309. ​ @Rundstedt1  It seems you are just playing dump, to not sincerely debunked a false believe and antagonise the victim that brainwashed by this "alt-right" theory, even in your point of view. You are not doing good any good to your own believe. ___________________________________________________________________________ Under the definition of "Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of relationships between the individual and the collectivity WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity - The profit motive or its foundation - private property or its necessary framework - the market economy, this was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market." - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p7 So: "Fascist regimes functioned like an epoxy: an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left, and a shared willingness to stop at nothing to destroy their common enemies." - Robert O. Paxton. "The Anatomy of Fascism", p147 Fascist Italy in 1930 was not a Fascist as it didn't has a common enemies Francoist Spain after 1959 was not a Fascist too as they didn't sought to change the nature of relationships between the individual, intervention the social economy structure of society, and they move toward liberalism in 1959 instead of amalgam with the conservative order and no common enemies. (wiki-Francoist Spain#Economic policy) Nasser Egypt can be a Fracist State with their compromised partial socialist reform WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity, supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market. an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left. Embrace Nasserism not liberalism of the Wast and Communism on the East. and have a common enemies of Jews. And Oswald Mosley would not be classified as Fascist, as he didn't utilise dynamism, and crossed the floor from the conservative party in 1920(wiki- Oswald Mosley). This is just a check list of not so accurate description describing the general characteristic of Fascist State, whether than the definition of the ideology itself. The neo fascist won't tell you how other people descript fascism, but the ideology of fascism itself. Change the name, Fascism will reborn again. Again, you are not doing good any good to your own believe. Don't you think it would be more relevant to post the origin or the ideological principle of Fascism here.
    3
  310.  @Rundstedt1  ​ "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" is a very good book. It debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. "Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime." - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    3
  311.  @Rundstedt1  Furthermore, despite scattered, it illustrated the the Socialism origin of Fascist economical and political ideology. You should not just select an arbitrary section to generalise the whole ideology that the book aimed to illustrate. Maybe read further before quoting next time. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) _____________________________________________________________ The economical aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    3
  312.  @Rundstedt1  Nope the author didn’t do that, he only use “Fascism” in the start of the sentence. He used “Italian fascism” to refer your “Fascism”. Further quote “In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.8” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    3
  313.  @Rundstedt1  Btw would you also mind to illustrate the conceptual differences between property, ownership of mean of production and capital. As it seems under your narrative all three terms can be used interchangeably. If it is really the case, it seems that only the Marxist Classless Communist Utopia can fit thought the definition of Socialism of your Narrative.
    3
  314.  @Rundstedt1  He literally said Nazism cannot combine with fascism, which is in lower case “f”. “For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    3
  315.  @nicknolte8671  TIK said "None of these industrialists could be considered committed Nazis prior to 1933"(21:59). He never said [before the March 1933 elections], you are putting words into TIK's mouth and arguing with the argument you made up for TIK. Besides, Hitler was the chancellor, and his cabinet was formed on 30/1/1933, and since 11/1932 Nazi Party was still the largest party in Reichstag. How can Nazis be funded by capitalists way before he was projected to win? Furthermore, Hitler failed to complete his objective in the March 1933 elections.
    3
  316. Ironically, it seems that Nazi is a more civilised than Communist when they oppressing their people. At least your grandfather still alive and own the property.
    3
  317.  @SchwarzeTulpe  Sorry for the previous reply, I thought it was the another user. At least your grandfather still “owned” the farm in name and can stay there. My Grandfather brother was banished from the family farm land and killed by Communists because of his previous class, which should be changed to proletarian once his property was stripped from him.
    3
  318.  @SchwarzeTulpe  That is why I am saying that they were much more civil than Communists. But I am not condoning Nazism in any mean. Compare their mean to strip people right is just like comparing which one is worse, putting your hands into fire or putting your hands into strong Sulphate acid.
    3
  319. Stalin and Lenin also didn’t get along with other socialists.
    3
  320. TIK hasn’t even mentioned Cultural Marxism once in his videos.
    3
  321. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671 Again TIK never claimed anything to be a Cultural Marxist Conspiracy, not to mention claiming Adam Tooze is a part of the culture Marxist Conspiracy.
    3
  322. Soviet Union also tried expand thought many wars, they annexed the Baltic States, Winter War, the invading Poland twice. If you are really taking about profit from war in terms of US military industrial complex profiting from war. I think that would be quite irrelevant, because the opposite side of the military industrial complex is actually the US government. The state entity itself was actually losing money to the MIC paid by the tax payer.
    3
  323.  @jamescareyyatesIII  [The NAZIS wanted to appeal to labor, who they ultimately never supported.] 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) Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) [You can't give me one instance where the NAZIS or Hitler ever overuled big business.] How about, the natioanalisation of the private cooperations owned by Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen ?
    3
  324.  @Schnoz42069  Just because you claim he claimed he was not a socialist, doesn't mean he wasn't actually a socialist. 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. This make Nazi economic system met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) 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)
    3
  325.  @hobbso8508  So are you saying State capitalism is not capitalism? Anyway, as Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism.
    3
  326. ​ @hobbso8508  Then why did you claim NAZI Germany was capitalist "Socialism is a different economic system to capitalism, and therefore is always opposed to it." You just again contradicted yourself. Even under Marxism, no the public cannot decide how the money is spent, only the proletariat can. With Karl Marx own words in the Communist Manifasto "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another." There will be no politics anymore, chance no need for democracy anymore, everyone would be from each according to his ability to each according to his need and live forever happy ever after. Before the state transform from Socialist state to Communist State, "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. " And in Lenin in State and Revolution: " In capitalist society, under the conditions most favorable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners... ...break the resistance of the capitalist exploiters.” So in either Marxist's Socialist State or Communist State, there should be no Democracy. If it is nessary for Socialism to include modern wastern democracy, you excluded Marxism from your definition of socialism.
    3
  327.  @hobbso8508  If fail, Violent Revolutions would be an acceptable substitute. "If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. "
    3
  328. The idea of ,the state is society, is not from Stalin nor Mao but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    3
  329.  @nathandts3401  Then you will be the leader of your previously owned factory that was nationalised into state property
    3
  330. Because South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and France during Les Trente Glorieuses didn't implement price control or natioanlise the private sectors when the economy were recovering. It is National Socialism, they will surely exploit everything outside of its race and nation, like communist exploit ex-bourgeoisie and their property. ["But the idea of Socialism does not say that the State cannot make a profit when it controls the economy" ] TIK never said that in the video. As shown in other quote from the same book and othersources provided in the video. The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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) 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.) So, under the definition of socialism TIK used: the social ownership of the means of production (hence the word “social-ism”). The idea is that society will be centrally organised, that private property will be abolished and transferred to ‘social’ control, 80 and that “socialised man [will] rationally regulate their interchange with Nature” (in other words - they will plan the economy rather than leave it to the free market). Despite Hitler failed to implement “full socialism” in the Third Reich like Stalin in USSR, just by showing Hitler attempted to centrally organise the economy, attempted to abolish private property, attempted to transfer all property into ‘social’ control, and attempted to regulate the economy is already enough to prove that Hitler was a Socialist, and the National Socialism he created was Socialism.
    3
  331.  @arnodobler1096  it can be State own and/or party run, not limited to just state run. Nazi was not dumb enough to eliminate completion between firms like the soviet did when the rises to power. The only parts having competition in Nazi Economic system were between the firms. The firms can't cut cost from the workers by firing them or reducing their salary. Even when the firm went bankrupt , or being forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the workers would still have their jobs and wage.
    3
  332. No, he didn't. TIK restated the definition of socialism he used in this video here 25:28
    3
  333. As Hitler’s action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism.
    3
  334. ​ @Azazin187  1. Can you prove TIK's 'facts' are just collections of out-of-context quotes? All the historical facts TIK used to prove the point in this video are not from any AnCap/Mises (biased) literature. Dismissing TIK's argument based on his political beliefs is just ad hominem (personal attack). 2. Nazis also suppressed the Catholics, landlords, capitalists even their own members. If the Nazis were so conservative, Hitler wouldn't get assassinated at least 30 times by the Wehrmacht. Germany has been practicing socialism since the rule of Bismarck, from Prussian socialism (Bourgeois socialism according to Karl Marx) to Democratic Socialism (social fascism according to the Communist Party of Germany). The whole range of the pre-war political spectrum of Germany, from the monarchists to the communist, was within the general definition of Socialism. 3 & 4. I don't need to understand all socialisms to determine if Nazism is a kind of Socialism or not. I just need to know the lowest boundary of Socialism. The lowest boundary of Socialism in my previous comment was from the quotes of no other but Marx and Engels.
    3
  335.  @Azazin187  Nazism is just as egalitarian as Communism. Nazism treat their own race equally and discriminate against the unworthy and other races. While Marxism treat proletariat equally and discriminate against other classes.
    3
  336.  @Azazin187  I am not the one who suggesting conservative Socialism/Bourgeois Socialism is Socialism, again it was from Communist Manifesto. As in 40:28 suggest, “Robert Gellately has recently published a book called “Hitler’s True Believers” which strongly argues that historians have completely ignored the socialism inherent with National Socialism. Beside, saying academic accepted view is just Argumentum ad populum. If this view is so wrong, why don’t you just debunked it easily just like debunking Holocaust Denier.” Arab socialism is another socialism that use ethno-nationality as the socialised entity. I totally accepted your counter-argument, Nazi German did indeed have loosen control over the industry when compared to Soviet Union in 1930s, but Communist States since 1970 also start adopting loosen control (capitalism characteristic, allowing competition) over production unit to increase their initiative. Meanwhile, Buchheim didn’t dismiss the Nazi abolishment of private ownership right with the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, and 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” with 1937 Corporate Law. (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938) He also didn’t disprove the function of DAF in Nazi Germany. Social darwinism is just the justification for the superiority of the Aryan, they are promoting equality within their race and no mercy agains other races. Just like communist would promote equality within politician, while no mercy against the bourgeoisie and other classes. If Nazism is really about Social Darwinism why "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi' Twenty-Five Points', declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community.”; and why, workers had fixed wages, firms could not fire their workers and heavily subsidised by the state (17:15, 17:31). In the mean time Nazi Germany had reduced the unemployment rate to less than a 3% since 1934.
    3
  337.  @Azazin187  Bismarck’s State Socialism exactly fit the description of Bourgeoisie Socialism in the Communist Manifesto: “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 economic 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; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.” Bismarck’s State Socialism still fit into the definition of Bourgeoisie Socialism in the Communist Manifesto regardless of how conservative Bismarck himself actually was. I acknowledge that entrepreneur in Nazi Germany had their restricted freedom to make their own business decisions, but so as all Communist Countries after the 1970s. Every currently existing Communist State, including Cuba and North Korea, has abandoned the old direct-controlled economy. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology, with the proof that Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race 32:44 instead of maximizing profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.) If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered as Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State. On the other hand, you are the one who neglected the economic relationship between the workers, the State, and the industrialists. That statement is true; the definition of Socialism is enunciation. Your definition of Socialism was different from Karl Marx’s definition of Socialism. Similar to Communism in practice, equality is not for those with different ideologies. Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. As the Nazis suspended the Articles that guaranteed the property right, Private property didn’t exist de jure. The property seized by Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of Aryan was also not guaranteed.
    3
  338. ⁠​⁠ @Azazin187 Regardless socialists or non-socialists create it, social programs are Social programs. Socialist System is a socialist system once it fits into the definition of socialism (defined by renounced source like Karl Marx) regardless of whether its creator has any intention to achieve social ownership of the means of production or not. I don’t know do you understand what I mean? But this is the most straightforward English I can use for discussing Socialism. In English, when people say Someone’s Something from only that particular thing, not that particular thing and it’s possessor. When I am saying Tom’s car, I am just referring to that Car. When I said Bismarck’s State Socialism, I am just referring to that State Socialism. Therefore, I never claimed Bismarck (the person) is a Socialist, when I said his State Socialism objectively fell within the definition of Bourgeoisie Socialism (a kind of Socialism) under the description of Bourgeoisie Socialism in Communist Manifesto. I also never claimed Bismarck, Keynes or Hayek socialists, they were just things you made up in your mind.
    3
  339. Firstly, socialism (at least in Nazi Germany) was never pragmatic, as 18:23 and the correlated citations mentioned, the National Socialism policy ruined Nazi Germany's economy. The Hitler’s Economic Philosophy is from 32:43 to 39:00 of this video.
    3
  340.  @funnyyellowdog8833  [the NSDAP was not fighting any class war] The general definition of Socialism is just social ownership of the mean of production, which includes the ideology like Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Anaro-Syndicalism. The socialized entity can be race (Arab Socialism, Labor Zionism), class (Marxism, Social Democrat), or even Religion (Islamic Socialism, Clerical Socialism). While Socialist Ideologies like Arab Socialism and Social Democrat don't aim to abolish private ownership of the means of production, they are still regarded as Socialism. Even if your definition of is not based on any reference it is quite impossible to ideologically exclude fascism or Nazism from Socialism without excluding either authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism), libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) or non pure class based Socialism (Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism) from the definition of Socialism, as fascism or Nazism are just authoritarian, free market tolerating (liberal socialism) , and non pure class based Socialism. ——————————— Beside, Hitler ruined Nazi Germany's economy and failed to achieve autarky with his planned economy that allocated more portion of national resources to the workers. Hitler still went for eliminating a significant amount of valuable human resources because of their race during a losing war. Even using your narrative, under what definition of pragmatism can you describe a person whose most significant decisions worked against his own goal for most of the time as a pragmatist?
    3
  341.  @Lilly-bo1mi Did abolishing abortion refute Stalin as a Socialist?
    3
  342.  @raymond6302  Differences such as the political fiction and justification behind two ideologies？ That part is irrelevant to the fact that both ideologies advocate the implementation of the same kinds of socio-economic system ( Socialism, social (State) ownership of the mean of production), to the nation they ruled.
    3
  343. TIK doesn’t even need to use that kind of argument to illustrate the socialism property of Nazism in this video.
    3
  344. Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) ________________________ 5.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) ______________________ 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. _______________________ 7.Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can cooberate with conservative nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
    3
  345.  @Bengully  “Hitler wanted to end inequality” is from Mein Kampf, his own words. That is not a conspiracy theory at all. Marxism also wants to end inequality, but in practice, it just makes itself into a new ruling class. Sincere or not is not the question as long as its ideology claims to want to do it. Otherwise, every Marxist Leninism would also be refuted by its actual practice. ____________________________ At least I provide sources to support my "conspiracy theory", Regarding your Hitler 1923 narrative, can you quote the Hitler interview from the Chicago Tribune that claimed he would like to send shock troops to Chicago to assist in the campaign? _______________________ Regarding Ford According to “The Ford Motor Company and The Third Reich”, Fordwerke was under the direct control of the Nazi government: “Who was in charge of Fordwerke when it used slave labor (it is now generally accepted that this occurred between 1941 and 1945)? By the time that slave labor was introduced, Fordwerke was clearly under the direct control of the Nazi government, though administered through the company headquarters in Cologne (albeit by Robert Schmidt).”

Regarding General Motors GM was just the Mother Company and financier of Adam Opel (acquired in 1929, and its supervisory board chairman Wilhelm von Opel was an SS). GM's only collusion with Nazi Germany was just to help ease their foreign currency crisis. They had no direct control over any production of anything in Nazi Germany. (Nazi Economy and U.S. Big Businesses (2)—The Case of General Motors Corporation) Regarding other banks and firms. They didn’t “collaborate” with Hitler unconditionally. They profited from it, just like Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers profited from having business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively. Secondly, not only did Foreign Capitalist “collaborate” with Nazis, Soviet Union also “collaborate” with Nazi Germany with 1,600,000 tons of grains, 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum though German-Soviet Credit Agreement (1939). At the same time, Nazis entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods. Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer Tashkent. If Hilter can be classified as a Capitalist just because American capitalism “collaborated” with him, would it also make Hitler a Communist because the USSR also “collaborated” with him? How about those Soviet communists? They also “collaborated” with Nazi German, and Fascist Italy, not to mention the support of lend-lease from the Capitalist USA during WWII. The other case would be Cuba. It is currently actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies. Does it make them not practising Socialism?
    3
  346. Are you suggesting the meaning of “ideobable” is equal to idealism?
    3
  347. Even Karl Marx admitted that the Spectrum of Socialism is beyond the Marxist Class Socialism and its variant. Bourgeois Socialism, Clerical Socialism, and Owen's Utopian Socialism didn't necessarily have the concept of class, yet still classified as Socialism by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.
    3
  348. Can you elaborate on what FPÖ did to make them far right? As I cannot found any from wiki "The first FPÖ party leader was Anton Reinthaller, a former Nazi Minister of Agriculture and SS officer.[30] He had been asked by ÖVP Chancellor Julius Raab to take over the movement rather than let it be led by a more socialist-leaning group.[15] While the majority of former Nazis had probably joined the two main parties in absolute numbers, they formed a greater percentage of FPÖ members due to the party's small size.[15] Nevertheless, none of them were real revolutionaries and they pursued pragmatic, non-ideological policies, and the FPÖ presented itself as a moderate party.[15] The FPÖ served as a vehicle for them to integrate in the Second Republic; the party was a welcome partner with both the SPÖ and ÖVP in regional and local politics, although it was excluded at the national level.[15][31] The ÖVP and the FPÖ ran a joint candidate for the 1957 presidential election, who lost.[15] Reinthaller was replaced as leader in 1958 by Friedrich Peter (also a former SS officer), who led the party through the 1960s and 1970s and moved it towards the political centre.[4] In 1966 the ÖVP-SPÖ Grand Coalition which had governed Austria since the war was broken, was put to an end, when the ÖVP gained enough votes to govern alone. SPÖ leader Bruno Kreisky (himself a Jew) defended Peter's past and initiated a political relationship—and a personal friendship—with Peter; in 1970 the FPÖ was, for the first time, able to tolerate an SPÖ minority government.[15][32] In 1967 the more extreme faction in the FPÖ broke away and established the National Democratic Party, seen by some observers as a final shedding of the party's Nazi legacy.[33]" National Democratic Party , the "broke away far-right faction", just advocated the Anschluss of Austria into Germany (the SPD also want to do that during Weimar Republic) and the re-introduction of the death penalty. It also agitated against "superalienation" and "infiltration" by foreign workers (Gastarbeiter). Those policies were not liberalistic at all.
    3
  349.  @walterbailey2950  What you are saying is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever heard about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t have economic class warfare and internationalism? Sorel was a Marxist, he created Sorelianism based on Marxist ideology. All three ideologies aimed to archived social equality. Fascist wants to achieve it among all classes by equally sharing the profit, while Communism and Nazism wanted to purify the society via race (Aryan) or class (Prolitarian) to archive social equality. (Logic Leap here, but this was what they actually did and said) Nonetheless, all of them IRL failed their promises, corrupted, and caused so many death.
    3
  350. 26:40 Karl Marx definition of Socialist state only requires control and regulation not own. 3:00 Nazi Germany had the actual de jure ownership of all property in Germany by constitution. For something that TIK didn’t mention in the video, privatisation did exist. Nazi Germany sold out public property to private sector in share since 1933. However, they took back the mean of production of those properties from the private sector by removing the right and power entitled to the shareholder from the share they owned with 1937 corporate law. (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
    3
  351. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy in 26:29. As Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race 32:44 instead of maximizing profit, his ideology was still Socialism instead of State Capitalism. Private Property right was abolished in 1933. 3:00 German Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks. Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controlled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. Nazi also implement regulations, 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). For the real socialism, Soviet permitted household plots since it foundation, Kosygin reform from 1965 to 1970, permission of private garden markets since 1971. In 1972, “The small plots, for example, account for one‐half of all the potatoes and vegetables produced in the Soviet Union, Of the nation's 41 million cows; 16 million are privately owned.” (Soviet Promoting Private Farm Markets, Theodore Shabad) If that ratio can still be consider as “little to no private property”, I believe Nazi Germany can also fit that criteria and be classified as “Real Socialist”State under the same standard.
    3
  352. ​ @Dread_Gladiator_Spartacus  Genocides and wars of extermination have existed since the first day of history, but Holocaust and any Communist purge were internal genocides on a factory scale were never been done before socialism.
    3
  353. Sadly, those refutative critiques you stated can also be commonly found in the Communist States in real life. If you can refute Hitler and his ideology from socialism just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would also not be socialism. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. Ideologically, Lenin said “Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919) In real life, use the CTC of Cuba as an example. 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) __________________ Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of the USSR and PRC than in Nazi Germany in peacetime (1933 to 1939). USSR: 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. PRC: Just in the Sufan movement of 1955-1957, which targeted the counter-revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal deaths. 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. 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.
    3
  354. TIK claim that National Socialism is not Communism right in 29:22. And, if Nazism is too stigmatise to prove that Marxism didn’t monopolise the ideology of Socialism. Just read the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx criticised Bourgeoisie Socialism and Utopia Socialism did not advocate class struggle and cannot achieve the goal of Communism world. He admitted there are other socialism other than Marxism and its variations.
    3
  355. That is the point TIK used to show the (the revoked of the private property owning right) un-capitalistic nature of NAZI Germany. It seems TIK’s point have no contradiction with your statement. What things seemed wrong to you?
    3
  356. Can you point it out with the timestamp?
    3
  357. Regarding Fascism Part 1 It is not the pinochle of Capitalism, it is not a social phenomenon. It is an(theoretically) egalitarian ideology evolved from Marxist Class Socialism. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" also illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) 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
  358. 1/2 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
  359. 2/2 The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    3
  360. Actually, the case was reversed, Hitler claimed to be a capitalist in his speech to ease the social tension caused by his Socialist policies that were listed out in this video.
    3
  361.  @janusprime5693  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 minimiseminimize 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
  362. Little bit misleading claim, yes they didn’t socialise with economic group like Marxism did. However, similar to Marxism, their economic policy and final goal also aimed to eliminate poverty 10:03 and economic class 35:47 differences within its society.
    3
  363. Socialism is not about democratically owned ownership from Robert Owen's New Lanark mill experiment through "Communist Confession of Faith" to "The Capital Vol 3" "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 socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) Just "socialised man", not "democratically elected man"
    3
  364. Then the state appropriated the wealth of the capitalist lead business according. As socialism is not when communists kill the capitalists but when the means of production within the nation get into the control of the state.
    3
  365.  @tcironbear21 Socialists tend to not muddy water and lie? Have you ever read “On Coalition Government” by Mao?
    3
  366. ⁠​⁠ @tcironbear21 Minecraft is within the Nazi ideology. How can you tell which part is pretending and which part is ingenuous? On the other hands, how can you prove all Marxist ideology is ingenuous?
    3
  367.  @Schnoz42069 Are you claiming the Great Purge never happened?
    3
  368.  @Schnoz42069 The real name of that book is censored in youtube, but you get what it means.
    3
  369.  @EmeraldVindicator7  Socialism often collaborate with nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism (Ba'athism) 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. The former one didn't see non-Muslim, especially their counterpart in Palestine, as equal, and the latter one is a Socialism for the God's choice people in Israel. For class hierarchy. In PRC, Commissioners considered themselves upper class, and the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral class of Five Red Categories compared to the lower classes of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories had already been stripped. Under the of legislation 《关于划分农村阶级成分的决定》, members of the Black Classes were systematically discriminated against, as one's classification could affect employment opportunities and career prospects and even marriage opportunities. This could also be passed onto their children. Over time this resulted in a victimized underclass that was treated as if it were still composed of powerful and dominant people. So yes, both class and racial hierarchy can fit into Socialism.
    3
  370. Are you suggesting those bourgeois puppetted Hitler to scam them with MEFO that were not allowed to exchange for Reichsmarks and were never payoff?
    3
  371. Lenin also rised to power though a coup d'état not a democratic election. The mean to rise to power is not a criteria to determine is a regime Socialist or not. Nationalsation of mean of production is a kind of Socialism according to Marx and Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “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. ..." (Part III: Socialism, Anti-Dühring)
    3
  372.  @brandonmorel2658  If you can brand Marxist Leninism regimes as egalitarian and pro-social justice, despite all their socialists (Stalin USSR, Mao PRC), ethnic(Stalin USSR), and ex-property owner cleansing (Stalin USSR, Mao PRC), and persecution of LGBT right (Mao’s PRC), you can also brand Nazism as an egalitarian and pro-social justice ideology under the same standard.
    3
  373.  @brandonmorel2658  Yes they do, 34% of the victims in the Stalin’s great purge were exterminated in the national operations against nationality and ethnicity. From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD. ——————————————————- During the Cambodian genocide, Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and other minorities were also targeted for persecution and genocide. The Khmer Rouge forcibly relocated minority groups and banned their languages. By decree, the Khmer Rouge banned the existence of more than 20 minority groups, which constituted 15% of Cambodia's population. By January 1979, 1.5 to 2 million people had died due to the Khmer Rouge's policies, including 200,000–300,000 Chinese Cambodians, 90,000–500,000 Cambodian Cham (who are mostly Muslim),[20][21][22] and 20,000 Vietnamese Cambodians.[23][24] 20,000 people passed through the Security Prison 21, one of the 196 prisons the Khmer Rouge operated,[3][25] and only seven adults survived.[26] The prisoners were taken to the Killing Fields, where they were executed (often with pickaxes, to save bullets)[27] and buried in mass graves.
    3
  374. ⁠​⁠ @brandonmorel2658  If you are going to exclude Marxist Leninism, Maoism and to the furthest extent Marxism from the definition of Socialism because of the atrocities those ideologies actualised in real life, just like how you exclude Nazism from the definition of Socialism. Surely Nazism would not be a kind of Socialism from which Marxism is excluded its definition. PRC in Mao’s era, the USSR and the Khmer Rouge also had their own class and “old-establishment” genocide, where their kill count exceeding all those communist racial genocides. I still don’t know what your standard is. But it seems you would still consider a regime and its ideology strived for social justice and egalitarianism, when the regime was just imprisoning and eliminating different groups of people ranging from property owners and ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), different ideologies(every Communist State), religion (every Communist State), intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge).
    3
  375. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    3
  376.  @hobbso8508  Workers under Nazi Germany had fixed wages, firms could not fire their workers (17:15, 17:31), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934.  All those relocation of profit were done by the state, DAF and other Nazi subordinate organisations. Those entities were the cooperative collective agencies.
    3
  377. ⁠ @derekturner3692  Regardless of the incentive of the policy, no matter wants to make the populace happy or suffer. It is irrelevant to the definition of “left”——the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes. Furthermore, what is the meaning of making the populace happy? The Jews, the other socialist, the Catholics, and the LGBT were sent to concentration camps. Taxes were levied against the rich and the corporations. ( “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,”) The administrative power was stripped from the Manager by the Nazi Party of Labor Trustees. ("The Vampire Economy") Workers working hours needed to increase from 6 hours to 12 hours. ("The Vampire Economy") Minorities, upper, middle, and working all have suffered from Nazi rule. Who were the happy populace? Besides, 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 expenditures Nazi Germany used in 1938) for most of the Cold War. They also (sort of) made the populace happy that there is a great sum of Russian wanted to return to the Socialist System. Are you suggesting USSR were running a Rightist system because they made the populace happy under the same standards you put on Nazi Germany?
    3
  378.  @hobbso8508  The latest direct quote is “a cooperative collective agency, which can mean a sovereign state (which Nazi Germany was) but also a network of communes” . Yours “collective society” was just a separate term with different meaning.
    3
  379.  @hobbso8508  Yes, and they are wrong in this regard, their reasoning behind their decision was “Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector” However, they failed to mention Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. With the consideration of those facts, Nazi would be on the left side of the compass. However, if you not considered Authoritarian state as a cooperative collective agency, the whole Marxism and most of its variants would not be on the left side of the compass.
    3
  380.  @hobbso8508  Of course, that is called critical think, and not blindly believing in what others said. My new conclusion of Nazism is on the left side of the political compass is based on historical fact. Their conclusions of Hitler was in the Authoritarian Right was based on limited/flawed information, which I previously debunked with historical sources ( those capitalist sectors were actually created by the Western Germany. Due to the 1933 fire Decree, during the Nazi era, they were just administer (mostly just Nazi members) of firms that were managed by DAF.) By considering the new historical facts that Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. Nazi did desire for the economy to be run by a state (cooperative collective agency). Thus, Nazi would be on the left side of the compass. The conclusion I made for your assumption is based on logic and the fact that you believe socialist state cannot be authoritative. If I replaced their definition of cooperative collective agency from including all kinds of sovereign states, to yours which didn’t include states without collectivism (both capital and authoritarian states) then, the whole Marxism and most of its variants would not be on the left side of the compass. If I am wrong, please debunk it with source.
    3
  381.  @hobbso8508  Where is your source, or it is just your another tried to distort the original text. Class differences would only eliminate after the establishment of Communist Society. In your mind there is only two classes the bourgeois and the proletarian (while you believe people will become bourgeois once they run a business, but you don’t think people will become the ruling class once they run the state, perfect logic). While class differences would only eliminate after the establishment of Communist Society. Thus there is still bourgeois in a socialist state a stage prior to the Communist Society, because there is bourgeois, there is private business in Socialist States, under Marxism.
    3
  382.  @hobbso8508  [That's just categorically false. Robert Owen attempted to establish communities with their own self-contained governments.] "The other type of Socialism required both criteria of Social ownership of the mean of production and total control of the economy. Owen Utopia Socialism... are in this group of Socialism. " You distorted other people statement once again. Or were you just incapable to understand that paragraph? In that case, maybe your previous insults against my English level suit you better. [Yes it is. I know English is hard, but your entire argument makes sense once you realise that they are one in the same. [You really are an odd one Oscar. Maybe study up on that English a bit more.] ["Regardless of Democracy or not, populace would have common control over the public property" How?] By the definition of public property. Everyone have the right to use public property and use it as a mean of production, example of it would be placer mining and fishing from the river. ["Democracy would not guarantee the populace would have common control over Socialism" Yes it would. You also keep using an incorrect defintion. I already showed that they don't just get surplus, but have control over it directly.] You again excluded Democratic Socialism, which didn't have the control of their economy. Neither the Democratic Socialist Government or the populace have directly control over thier econmy through democracy. [Again, y... result. ] No matter what you said, it still didn’t change the fact that Karl Marx still recognised Bourgeois Socialism and Feudal Socialism as Socialism in the Manifesto. [By your definition capitalism would be a form of socialism, since the surplus value of the means of production end up in the hands of some of the people. It's totally nonsensical.] Do you know the definition of capitalism is just "private ownership of the means of production" , and pure capitialism state never exist?
    3
  383. Even Soviet Union contained some private mean of production and private businesses under it Regime before 1980. Good luck if anyone bring that up later.
    3
  384. You are right, under the broadest definition of Socialism according to Karl Marx. Any modern 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) However, a socialist regime is not determined by how nationalised or high the taxes the country they rule is, it also determined by their ruling ideology. Liberal Socialist like the SPD which practised Orthodox Communism can be classified as Socialist is not because of their income tax rate which Germany kept their top income tax rate at 40%, while the UK’s was fluctuated in the range of about 50% to 70% in the year of 1920s to 1930s. (Are progressive taxes an artifact of war?- Vox) Using the same narrative to refute Nazism from Socialism, are you also going to refute SPD’s Orthodox Communism of 1920s from the definition of Socialism? Ideologically Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) ________________________________ Regarding privatisation/Stock Market. It is a Nazi Scam. All the state property that was previously privatized through selling stock was renationalized in 1937 by the 1937 corporate law, which 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) The Bank Act 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and nationalised every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation and the concept of stock market. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
    3
  385. Regarding Fascism 1/2 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
  386. 2/2 The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    3
  387. ⁠ @israelcontreras5332  Are you implying Von Mise and Sowell are more authoritative and have more expertise in Socialism than Karl Marx? This seems to be an ignorant belief from a person who studied history in graduate school. Right-wing detractors of Socialism, most notably Austrian School economists, often refer to state socialism simply as socialism. This narrow view of Socialism is reflected in Mises’s Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth: An Exposition of the Ideas of Classical Liberalism, and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Austrian School economist Walter Block even admitted that in "Was Milton Friedman A Socialist? Yes". “In section 2 of this paper we base our analysis on the assumption that socialism is defined in terms of governmental ownership of the means of production.” Stating Socialism is just mean State ownership of means of production ignored the existence of other liberal socialism like Anarchism, Orthodox Marxism and Fabianism, which define Socialism as people, public, commune, common or any other socialised entity other than the state ownership of means of production. Furthermore, this MAGA definition of Socialism, as you stated in previous comment, even contradicted with your previous statement something like “Communism is when the rich voluntarily share their surplus profits” in your previously deleted comment.
    3
  388.  @israelcontreras5332  [If im not wrong the stock markets were privately owned..and germany only retained control over them as as any government would in a time of emergency…and even then that was throughbthe price controls and other moves german made to build their war machine. The government didnt own the stock marketsbor the companies on them.] Nazi Germany literally did that by stripping all the control of means of production entitled by stock to the stockholder with the 1937 corporate law. As the direct quoted from "THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938". "While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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)" [Would you mind sharing where you are getting this stuff from? Are you using ai to generate stuff?] University Library Access and Google. They are pre-written arguments I previously made; you are not the first to use those arguments.
    3
  389.  @israelcontreras5332 I don’t need you to agree with me I am just stating the fact the the definition of socialism you are currently using is refuting other liberal socialism like Anarchism, Orthodox Marxism and Fabianism, which define Socialism as people, public, commune, common or any other socialised entity other than the state ownership of means of production. Furthermore, according to the following quotes, I don’t think any Karl Marx quote can refute Marxist Socialism(Marx's approach to achieving full communism from capitalism) as being about State ownership of means of production. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. …” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    3
  390.  @israelcontreras5332 ​​⁠ [you cannot have socialism without common control of the economy and private property...and you cannot have control without the ownership of the economy as well as private property....or at least the vast majority of it.] You can literally have socialism without common control of the economy and private property, as the concept of social(state) ownership of means of production is not equal to social(state) ownership of property. A society(state) is not required to own one property to control its means of production. A society(state) can control its (like a factory) means of production by appropriating its surplus produce among the producers and/or to the whole society. As again. The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates the surplus product produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it to society at large or the workers themselves. (Lerner, A. P. “Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics.” The Review of Economic Studies 6, no. 1 (1938): 71–75.) "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
  391. ["if nationalisation is a socialism measure then. Then Napoleon must be numbered among the founding fathers of socialism for nationalising the tobacco industry" - Friedrich Engels] You distorted the original quote. It should be: "But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously." (Anti-Dühring) Nationalization is not a socialistic measure only when it only fulfills the ruler's personal interest or goal. However, Hitler's intention was for all Aryan people, according to his book. So, his nationalisation can still be considered as a Socialistic measure. Socialistic measure under Marxism can mean nationalization, according to the following two quotes. "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) "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. more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. …” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels) [the DAF, much like the Chinese ACFTU and soviet ACCTU, was a trade union in only name.] USSR and PRC in the Mao era are still well regarded as Socialist Countries. [you need to learn the difference between corporatism and socialism. social democratic ideas like a minimum wage and price controls does not make the economy socialist. the fact the owning class till exists is the definitive proof that it's not socialism it really isn't that complicated.] Private ownership is still permitted in Proudhon anarchism. Private ownership of businesses was allowed in Tito Yugoslavia. Owning class still exists in your socialism examples. ["a socialist economy is centrally planned" objectively incorrect, see Tito, see Catalonia, see Ukraine during the Russian civil war, see Bakunin, see Krapotkin, see Proudhon.] Their existence didn't exclude USSR and PRC in the Mao era from being Socialist Countries. ["socialist economies banning independent trade union is actually an indicator that is it's socialist because independent trade unions would have to take private initiative to strike" actual brain rot. look up what private property means, look up Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. the more independent the trade unions the more socialist the system is.] Is this the "more socialist" of Catalonia during the Spanish civil war you are referring to? "Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise. Property holders resented the seizure of their land and the prohibition on employing wage labor. However, Seidman notes while there was coercion, many rural Spaniards also joined willingly out of a belief that they would enjoy the good-life that was promised by various forms of socialism and communism.[33] Seidman also observes that peasants were not always as revolutionary or ideological as the anarchists would like; families might join a collective not because they agreed with its principles but rather to receive better rations. More individualistic sharecroppers would abandon collectives. Anarchists expressed frustration that peasants were more interested in what they could gain from the collective than commitment to revolutionary ideals. On a larger scale, Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives. CNT officials lamented the "egotism" of the collectives, finding that the collectives were resistant to control (driven by fears that CNT officials would exploit them, which Seidman argues was not always an unreasonable fear). Due to wartime inflation and economic problems, the Republican government struggled to incentivise the collectives to follow their policies.[34]” [why did you include the war section of your video. its imperialism, the exploitation of other nations. its one of the main things socialists are against. this is just you showing it wasn't socialist. what?] Nearly every communist/socialist party in WWI was pro-war, and don't forget the Soviets invaded Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine right after the end of WWI. [socialism by definition is about class, it's always been about class. hitler making it about race proves he's not a socialist. even Robert Owens utopian proto socialism was about class. he wanted the workers to control the means of production in a market economy (something I wouldn't expect you to understand since you thought socialism = centralised economy). "but he was a rich mill owner". and? Engels was also rich. No one doubts he was a socialist.] Robert Owen's experimental community still has classes difference. He was the ruler who set the rules which those workers followed. "The first period of Owen's management of the New Lanark Cotton Mills was characterised by his efforts to expand the business and make it more efficient. He introduced such initiatives as report books and product books to record daily production as well as new reporting systems and stock control. A much stricter regime than under previous managers meant that employees could be dismissed for theft, fraud, absenteeism and persistent drunkenness. But although he was strict, Owen was also fair and established an unusual form of discipline known as the Silent Monitor- a daily grading system on behaviour and effort. White was excellent, yellow was good, blue just about acceptable and black- well as they say, 'your jacket was on a shoogly peg'!" (New Lanark Visitor Centre) Btw have you ever heard of Arab Socialism, which used the race of Arabs as the socialized entity? ["defunct labour theory of value" hasn't been defunct] Which Hitler also believed.
    3
  392. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. Ideologically, Lenin said “Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919) In real life, use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba)
    3
  393. Would you kindly elaborate on what would that fundamental difference is and how would it relate to Socialism?
    3
  394. Opportunism is just a mean for someone to achieving its goal not an ideology. All successful communists party were opportunism before they won their revolution. CCP was opportunistic before 1949, Bolsheviks was opportunistic before 1918. But it didn’t change the fact that they were also socialists.
    3
  395. ⁠​⁠ @funnyyellowdog8833  For most of the Cold War years, the military spending per National expense of the USSR was similar to that of Nazi Germany in the Prewar era. Does it make the USSR also on the way to war?
    3
  396.  @hobbso8508  Nope not even Karl Marx said that Socialism at its core is about workers owning the products of their own labour. "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
    3
  397.  @Schnoz42069  And the state is society, this idea is not from Lenin nor Hitler but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    3
  398. There are plenty of socialist policies implemented by the Nazis and advocated within Nazism. Here are the relevant quotes from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF." (9:17,17:25) "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community." (10:10) "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    3
  399. 1 19:59 2 4:49 3 7:26 4 32:02 5 Even in The Second Reich, Germany is a (bourgeoisie) socialist state (under Karl Marx definition in the Communist Manifesto), so even the Monarchist (the most conservative spectrum) of interwar Germany can be considered left leaning if not Socialist. (Under Marxist definition) 6 32:02 You are right, there is no true Capitalist state so as true Socialist State. There is only socialist and capitalist that move their own country towards one end or the other. Therefore, TIK here is just Nazism is a socialist ideology which wants to change Germany into a true socialist state. Not Nazi German is a socialist state. But when compared to other defined socialist countries ( Communist States), Nazi German can fit right within the definition.
    3
  400. National socialism did appropriate means of production to the workers. Here are the relevant quote from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) Hitler also didn’t killed all “left fascist”. Hitler only banned but not purged the “Black Front” and Otto Strasser. For the “Red Triangle”. Lenin also did that during the Red Terror First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918.
    3
  401. You can take a look at the spectrum of Islamic socialism and see how fundamental they can go.
    3
  402.  @Rebel-Forces-Earth-007  “Between the 1950s and early 1970s, a powerful ideology in the Muslim world galvanised itself from the minds and fringes of modern Islamic intellectualism and made its way into the mainstream political arena. But this ideology did not have a single originator. Its roots can be found amongst the works of Muslim thinkers and ideologues in South and East Asia, Africa and in various Middle Eastern (Arab) countries. Also, once it began being adopted by mainstream leaders and political outfits, it was expressed through multiple names. But today, each one of these names and terms are slotted under a single definitional umbrella: Islamic Socialism.” As Islam can also be intolerant of homosexuals, gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and those who do not follow the Quran. There maybe some fundamental extremist would mix their ideology and Marxism and create their own Islamic Socialism. From a very shallow observation, there are very few Islamic that tolerate homosexuals, gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and those who do not follow the Quran. I believe you might find out what would be the fusion product of Marxist Socialism and Religious fundamentalism from the history and development of Islamic Socialism.
    3
  403. Command economics is not inherently or necessary for Marxist socialism, neither does democracy. What is inherently and necessary for Marxist socialism is the tendency of abolishment the private ownership of means of production.
    3
  404. 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.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
    3
  405.  @nicknolte8671  Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party. Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224)
    3
  406.  @andyknowles772  Say what you want about the DAF, under DAF wage regulations, average workers' weekly real wage did gradually increased from 88.5 in 1933 to 107.5 in 1938 (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). Socialism doesn’t mean all surplus production must be appropriated to the society. Even the Soviet Union allow their farmers to have household plot to keep some of the surplus production to themselves. Besides those Nazi industrialists members can get “rich” through state allocation of resources like how Mao, Stalin, and Lenin kept themselves and some of their communists well-fed and high living quality when they let their countries into great famine and still were classified as Socialists.
    3
  407. Accent Egypt had unregulated free market, while both the USSR and German tried to control and regulated it 11:24. So under that definition implied by Karl Marx, accent Egypt is not a socialist state.
    3
  408.  @the1beard  "Marxism has evolved into a "struggle" between those who are Privileged and those who are not " So it can also evolve to National Socialism? As they believed the Jews and their product(communism) were who in Privileged and German People were not.
    3
  409. You think modern China which often being ridiculed as Chinazi and meets basically every criteria of Fascism is much closer to actual socialism, but Nazi Germany cannot? Very interesting argument. Would you kindly elaborate?
    3
  410.  @thedualtransition6070  The quote was an article called 数据显示中国最低工资近年来增长停滞，增长率仅10年前的一半 written by 苦海女神龙. What you just said for China also happened in Nazi Germany most bosses were Nazi members and all cooperation have a corresponding DAF to answer to. Any capitalists or senior officials found to be working against the national interest were removed/jailed/executed in Nazi Germany, like Fritz Thyssen. China did have 城管 doing local government bidding. No Racist Policies What happened to the Uyghurs? No state religion? Chinese Communist beliefs what they are practising as “The Truth of the Universe” 《解放军报》发表该报副总编孙临平的评论文章《中国梦的自信在哪里》，文章开篇即表示："中国梦以信仰为魂、自觉为根，面对复杂多变的国际环境，艰巨的国内改革任务、党所面临的严峻考验，我们仍要对中国梦充满自信，那是因为我们笃信‘我们信仰的主义，乃是宇宙的真理’"
    3
  411. ​ @Admiral-General_Aladeen  I don't. I just quote from Marx's literature. Karl Marx was not pro-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."
    3
  412.  @HottieDudeish  Hitler abolished the right of private property in 1933 at 3:00. And as 4:38 suggest. Those properties were sold to party members only as the extension of the state when the party equals the states. As long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06. After, Hitler abolished the right of private property in 1933. 3:00 If the firm leader fails or refuses to comply with the party’s or state's order. They could be seized from their property as Professor Junker 4:20 and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 Therefore, the mean of production is in the hands of the State/Party.
    3
  413.  @HottieDudeish  Which part does my quote indicated what you claimed? Again, firms and industries were under control of the party members' hands which were the extension of the state/party.
    3
  414. So as the USSR did the same thing, hundreds and thousands of Communist, Socialist, Social Democrats and Democrats was sent to Gulags by the Lenin after he got the power. Yet he was still regarded as Socialist. Killing others socialist is not an issue for Lenin being a Socialist, why it should be an issue for Hitler?
    3
  415.  @danielsandwhichpants1391  Nazi did privitised the public assets in 1933. However, Nazi scammed those buyers who brought those “privatised assets” and nationalised back those “privatised assets” assets 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) [Lol no. They were owned by private individuals who profited both during, and after the war. They owned it, end of story.] We've been through this already. @hobbso8508 Industrialists inheriting the Nazi property that they previously administrated only happened in West Germany. Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream) It was not the Nazis who gave the postwar owners private ownership. It was the West German Government.
    3
  416.  @danielsandwhichpants1391  Would you kindly put those litterature here in quote and/or with reference as I did, or else there will be no progression in this kind of discussion.
    3
  417. ​ @danielsandwhichpants1391  (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938) (Against the Main Stream) They were within my previous comment.
    3
  418. 3/ Those industries that had their former owners removed (expropriated) were then sold to individuals in the Nazi Party, who then ran them for the benefit of the Nazi Party. In other words: they were nationalised. This fact is pointed out by Bel’s “Against the Mainstream” - a text that is often used by Marxists to “prove” that it was ‘privatisation’. Except it doesn’t, it accidentally proves the exact opposite. If only they had actually bothered to read it. “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) "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
  419. When both State Capitalism and Socialism can easily fucked up their own economy. The main difference between State Capitalism and Socialism, is really rely on their narrative of their “political fiction” aka, their final goal of centralisation.
    3
  420.  @westbethkid  What is the problem here every ideology have their own narrative, their own belief. Communist also reject National Socialism as Socialism, does it make Communism not a socialism? The point is what both ideologies practising were Socialism.
    3
  421. May you kindly provide any evidence to support your counterargument? Like where is his cherry picking and omission? Regarding your [Scottish and French are the same] allegory, it seems he addressed it here. 28:53
    3
  422.  @jakubsirocky4787  ["Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."" That is basically paying your member to like you, not welfare to create equality. Paying soldiers is not socialism.] Socialism just for the Aryan just for poverty, not for the one who didn't work. That is Nazism. As I remember, the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill." would also get punished by the Cheka in USSR under Lenin. ["The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers" "The law establishing the DAF stated that its aim was not to protect workers but "to create a true social and productive community of all Germans" and "to see that every single individual should be able to perform the maximum of work."" That as I showed wasn't to help worker or share profits with anyone. It was to maximize production and profit by very few approved capital owners. Those capital owner were not state or "society"] 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. 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) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi. 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) ["historians Christoph Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[70] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[71]"] The internal competition didn’t decrease the employment nor wage of workers 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 wages. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms. What Buchheims described here is that the Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly. According to Das Kapital V3, what the Nazis did was the socialist way to run a society. "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.)
    3
  423.  @jakubsirocky4787  ​ I think you should stop reading and clear your fallacy first. As it seems your points are filled with fallacies. Here are my replies to your points supported by undisputed facts. For “Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany” 1.More Government control doesn’t guarantee things must always went better, as proven by North Koera. 2.Seems you missed the context that the existence of the Great Depression. The German economy after 1929 was greatly devastated. It is reasonable that the real wage in 1937 was less than 1927 regardless what economic system Germany was running. Besides, how showing the real wage of average urban blue-collar worker in 1937 was less than 1927 can either disprove the existence of Nazi food price control policy or proven that “ wealth was not redistributed’?
 For “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”
 The sources define conservative and far right as racist, and nationalist. But this definition contradicted with the existence ideologies of Maoism and Marxist Leninism( both practising Socialism in one country), and the events of the Holodomor, National operations of NKVD, Doctor Plot of USSR. For "List of companies involved in the Holocaust (Wikipedia)" As stated, Nazi controlled companies' means of productions by replacing the managers and regulating the labor and force appropriating of surplus with DAF. The companies in that list involved in the Holocaust willing or unwilling because they were control or coecored by the Nazi. __________________________ For your TL;DR 1. average urban blue-collar worker earned less -----irrelevant and quote out of context (compare 1937 with 1927neglect the negative effect of great depression ) 2. Food was cheaper only nominaly (was worse and wages also lower) -----irrelevant and quote out of context (compare 1937 with 1927 neglect the negative effect of great depression ) 3. Nazis far right. Ideology coincided to a great extent with far right groups in Germany. ------Name Calling, Nazi are Racist Socialist, and same racist and nationalist mentality can also be found in Marxist Leninst and Labour Zionist which both considered as left. 4. FORD (in USA) made huge revenues by producing war matériel for the Reich until at least August 1942–eight months after the United States entered the war. -------You made it up no sources you quote mentioned [FORD (in USA) made huge revenues by producing war matériel for the Reich ] 5. Ford in Germany negotiated profitable export markets. Businesses were making profits, eveb foreign ones.------Irralivant, it is never the point of Socialism to make Businesses unprofitable, the point is to appropriat those profit internally. 6. other American firms–including General Motors and Chase Manhattan–worked with the Nazis------Shift of meaning, together with Ford, those company were being accused of help Germany to import war material and/or confiscating Jewish property, not controlling and profiting from the means of production of Geramny, otherwise you can just say that USSR was capitalistic because they made deals with foreign capitalist companies like Toshiba and Kongsberg. 7. Net private wealth was only reduced by taxation and levy on real estate by 3% (1% of top1%).-----You just made it up, {Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018}, Did not state that at all 8. There was sharpe reduction in total private wealth of USA and UK.-----You just made it up, {Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018} also never said that. The article only stated there were: "....sharp drop in the private wealthincome ratio between the eve of World War I and 1950." "sharp decline following World War II, wealth concentration ...." " Other advanced economies also saw sharp reductions in top-wealth shares ....." "... aftermath of the Great Recession, also driven by the sharp decline in interest rates."
    3
  424. The concept differentiate of civic nationalism from ethnic nationalism was first done in 1944 by Hans Kohn. So the nation within Karl Marx's Internationalism in 1848 also mean both country and ethno-nation instead of just mean the ethno-nation that you are referring to. From this quote from Manifesto of the Communist Party, you can see how Karl Marx used the term nation and country interchangeable. "The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. "- Marx, K. & Engels, F. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." PDF 1969, original 1848. p.25
    3
  425.  @Liberty_or_Ded  In 1950s, it is really quite hard but not impossible to define Nazism as Socialism. But, nowadays after all the communist atrocities has been uncovered and various new socialist theories created during the Cold War. It is quite impossible to ideologically exclude fascism or Nazism from Socialism without excluding either authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism), libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) or non pure class based Socialism (Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism) from the definition of Socialism, as fascism or Nazism are just authoritarian, free market tolerating (liberal socialism) , and non pure class based Socialism.
    3
  426.  @DragonMP652  1. It proves your first point didn’t prove anything. 2. Realised Socialism is still Socialism. I surely know that Marx allow personal private property. It is your words against your words, as you are the one said Socialist doesn’t allow private property. 3. and 4. It actually is with extra step, the country still directly controls those industries controlled by party members. 5. Want to take the power the same way didn’t mean they have same ideology. 6. As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Socialist state instead of state Capitalism. 7. Industry even before the war need to produce under resource and production quota. How much control over mean of production they have? 8. Socialism required plan economy, that is the whole thing of Socialist economy. What else do you think socialist economy work? With free market. And yes Germany had plan economy, every heard about 5 year plan of Germany. 9. “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) It is within the 10 measure to revolutionising the mode of production. 10. Lebensraum didn’t include any country in the western and southern front, so it can be both, German started the War with economic reasons and start the Eastern front with ideological reasons. 11. and 12. Marxist Class Socialism believes in equality under the entity of proletariat, they don’t believe in equality for bourgeoisie, hands the term dictatorship of the proletariat. Similar National racist socialism believes in equality under the entity of Aryan. 13. As you said Communism ≠ Socialism 14. I bring it up as you said the killing of Rohm Represents the death of the NSDAP’s “left wing”, or implying anything. In fact, killing anyone on the same political spectrum happened within socialists leadership and those who purge was still considered as socialist. Thus “killing other socialists” cannot really support your narrative, and furthermore, Nazi still puts out a lot of leftist policy after they get the power.
    3
  427.  @Englishmenmaddogs  It would be quite success if it implements well,. However, if the government make long term promises like retirement pensions, or great promise, like the right of using NHS, it would cause many troubles when the Government are unable to deliver their promises especially when facing recession. Under limited resources, Social Democracy would work best with controllable immigration policy, harsh refugee policy to ensure the tax income and expenditure population in control. Otherwise once the quality of social welfare decreased, different social groups would start pointing fingers to each others and cause polarisation within society.
    3
  428. “Dictatorship of the entire Aryan Race and equality for all” Here you go. PS: The all in your statement isn’t mean everyone which also included bourgeoisie and monarch.
    3
  429. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. So he can be racist and a socialist.
    3
  430.  @hobbso8508  "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" The last sentence especially "necessary result" indicated that the voting results were predetermined. (Democracy is valueless if they are not used as a means for putting through measures...The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations.) How does this quote mean communism requiring democracy to be implemented?
    3
  431.  @Karkafs-Desiderium  Not with Marxism and Marxist Leninism. You might be right if you are using any revisioned Communist theories. The Original Marxism was quite tolerate violent and dictatorship. "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." " ....the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848) Why would you think the idea of Lenin was clearly against the action of hitler, stalin and mao? Lenin is the one who started the red terror. First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918. Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918. Then Lenin came for kulak( peasants who owned over 8 acres of land) in 8/1918. Then Lenin came for the striking and rioting industrial workers in 3/1919. For the Priests, monks and nuns? 3,000 of them were put to death in 1918 alone. Lenin was also the one who issued the “Hanging Order” “Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity ... You must make example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram. Do all this so that for miles (versts) around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so ... Yours, Lenin. P.S. Find tougher people.”
    3
  432.  @brandonmorel2658  If all the example, from their personal life to their national policies, I provided can reduce to irrelevant “individual example” instead of the extension of their ideology or theory. Then under the same standard, what relevant example can you provide to determine Hitler and his Nazism were ideologically and economically chauvinistic? And though what”scientific consensus” you can remove Hitler from the category of socialist?
    3
  433. cartel monopoly over enterprise is just industrial collectivisation with extra step and different mean, the end goal of both action are still the state control of mean of production. USSR was no less imperialistic than NAZI Germany since it was found to 1941, from attacking Poland to attacking Finland. Because National Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. National Socialist can just expropriate the resources and property from other race to the Aryan as Communist expropriate the resources and property from other classes to the proletariat.
    3
  434. Actual practice? Soviet Union, PRC and other communist state they did basically all the bad things NAZI did and still able to call socialist states. The only things different were Communist State kill ethnically and other minorities in the name of class, anti-revolutionary and rebel ( Ukrainian Jews, Cossack for USSR) (The black five label in China) (Those who wear glass in Cambodia) If they can fit the standard of Socialism, Nazi Germany basically can also fit the standard of Socialism. Regarding Right Wing/Left Wing From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy, he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    3
  435.  @ElfainDeLeon  Have you heard the 10 years waiting list for buying a car Soviet Joke? Private property were allow in Soviet Russia? Yeah only German can receive those social services, because race is what they socialised on. When did Racism become an factor determining the side of the political compasses, and if racist is on the right what is on the left?
    3
  436. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. As his politically aims to get the state ownership of mean of production( not just part of like every country in the world), he and his party can be defined as socialist.
    3
  437. Workers owning the factory is either just in socialist theory or micro socialist. As if just the factory is just owned by the workers working in it, the factory will be the private property of those worker. In macro socialist, factory is own by public, and in practice the factory is controlled by the state ( Soviet Union, PRC pre-Mao dead) and control by a small group of people (communists party).
    3
  438.  @horatiopelagius8703  No they are not, but that is how communist country work in real world. If they could pull that off, and still being regarded as socialist countries, I cannot see why Nazi Germany can’t.
    3
  439. The concept of Nazism being Socialism would be much easier to understand if you look through the Socioeconomic status of Communist States. Every historical Communist State eventually needed to use nationalism and racism to maintain national unity and put a much higher portion of the national expense in the Military. People in those Communist Countries were usually more conservative and had worsened working conditions and living conditions when compared to their Western counterparts.
    3
  440. Are you suggesting all Leftists believing in Leftism must vow for the destruction of families? I don’t think anyone, including Marx and Adorno because they are married, can be classified as leftist under your definition.
    3
  441. Lenin and Stalin also purge the Mensheviks, the Anarchists, 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 Lenin and Stalin.
    3
  442.  @Truthaholokz  TIK did reference that that is a good book
    3
  443.  @GGNH1234  The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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. They both spent a lot of afford to purge their socialized enemy. The nature of the Holocaust was quite in line with Socialism.
    3
  444. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. At long as his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race instead of maximising profit (making a lot of economic mistakes like killing a large amount of worker force (Jews) during the war) the state can still consider as Sociallist state
    3
  445.  @S0me0ne353  Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) ________________________ 5.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) ______________________ 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. _______________________ 7.Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can cooberate with conservative nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
    3
  446.  @S0me0ne353  You are aware that your statement was committing the Fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam. Besides, no, Robert Gellately did recently publish a book called "Hitler's True Believers" which strongly argues that historians have completely ignored the socialism inherent with National Socialism.
    3
  447. Even according to Marxist theory. Socialism State is still inherently profitable driven. The overall productivity of Communist or Socialist system will eventually be exceeded the Capitalist system according to Marxist theory. Just because every Socialist System eventually fail to be profitable, doesn’t mean the theocratic principles of Socialism is not profit-driven. “We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.”(Manifesto of the Communist Party)
    3
  448. USSR faithfully follow the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifasto (which didn't guarantee any Theocratic or Democratic governments at all), the problem they were facing was the implanmintation of those measures didn't lead to the increase of production, chance cannot reach the final goal of communist state. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to a increase of productive powers and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.) Under Marxism definition, socialist state is a intermediary phase between capitalist state and communist state. USSR were following those revolutionary measures to eliminate capitalism , hence by definition it is a socialist state under Marxism. Therefore, by refuting USSR from Socialism in your definition, your are also refuting Marxist from Socialism.
    3
  449. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, with is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. Even the mean of production of the “early socialist state”(revolutionary state) mentioned in Communist Manifesto is belonged to the state not worker cooperative. “ 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.” (The Communist Manifesto,1848) For the part of State Capitalism, his action had a further goal to socialise the socialsed entity the race 32:44, and maximum the interest of all (Aryan) people within the society, (similar to the end goal political fiction of classless communist state) instead of just maximum the profit of the state or the oligarchy. Therefore, They cannot be classified as State Capitalist
    3
  450. ​ It was not "Nazism was actually good" made Nazism meet the standard of Socialsim, it was ​ @skummelkatt [The workers has always remained power less] So as USSR Inequality is irrelevant to how socialistic a state is as long as they are not exploited by the “capitalists.” USSR would be a great example, proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. [The unions (if there were unions to start with) were overtaken or destroyed by the regime] Again so as USSR “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) [So the very core ideas with socialism is lost.] Socailism in Communist States often lacked those [very core idea]. [The whole nationalism thing is a conservative idea] Again pretty much the norm of Communist States. The facts you stated were totally correct. However those attribution also applied on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, dictators from other Communist States. And those Communist dictators and their ideologies are still being recognised as socialism. That is why under the same ultra low standard, you cannot refuted Hitler and his ideology from Socialism, yeah, we best with the reasons in your statement.
    3
  451.  @opanike87  Stalin was authoritarian and nationalistic, yet still being regarded as left and socialist . The old Marxist Class socialism were not liberal at all. And new socialist like the social democrats don’t believe in total collective ownership and control of mean of production anymore. As it would just basically contradict to individual rights and freedoms. Other than that Fascist and the socialist had the same final goal———a more equitable distribution of wealth and power.
    3
  452.  @opanike87  Thank you for your introduction to your wish to contribute to the betterment of all people with total collective ownership and control of mean of production, I would like to know by how? It seems most of the mean to achieve this goal one way or another would be infringing the right, and freedom of people and the democracy of society. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" also debunked the misconception of Nazism is fascism. (TL;DR racism is never the purpose of an fascism, but it is for Nazism) “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    3
  453.  @opanike87  This is just the way how far-right was defined. Every non/anti communist authoritarian (usually with great government control in economy, which is left wing in political spectrum) ideology is far-right. The definition of far-right have nothing to do with the definition of capitalism or right wing in political spectrum.
    3
  454. As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism
    3
  455.  @amphibiousanimations7721  Both USSR (household plot) and Cuba (tourism industry) had private sector.
    3
  456. 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.).
    3
  457. For socialist who like Hitler in terms of range of atrocities, ever heard Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. In terms of despising other Socialism, you can just read the Reactionary Socialism Chapter from Manifesto of Communism from Karl Marx and see how Karl Marx despised other form of Socialisms.
    3
  458.  @Imbalanxd  Maybe you could elaborate more.
    3
  459. Hitler didn’t just borrow, he voided every “loans” by changing the law to abolishing any right on any stocks , nationalising the lending banks, or starting a war.
    3
  460.  @hobbso8508  1. Yes, they use class theory to justify their nationalism, there is no contradiction between them. Class theory is not equal to class struggle. 2. You are confusing your own political theory with reality. 3. a. Sovereignty of the people b. Multi party system c. Separation of powers d. Respect for individual human rights
    3
  461.  @hobbso8508  1 one use class theory another didn’t, it didn’t fit the definition. 2. It seems democracy come before democracy index. If democracy defines by democracy index, is there no democracy state before democracy index? 3. Good luck with your funky definition. And plz kindly send me the source and reference if you may. 4. Would you kindly show me?
    3
  462.  @hobbso8508  1/2/3/4 Please kindly show me with source and reference. Or else you are just expressing subjective opinions without the support of facts. Especially for 2, claiming that there was no democracy state before 2006. And as their is no “democracy” before 2006, are you admitting that Marxism was not Socialism. As it is an ideology found before the existence of “democracy”. Those two are very bold claims, you might need alot of evidences to support it.
    3
  463.  @hobbso8508  Please kindly displace the source and reference. Or else you are just expressing subjective opinions without the support of facts.
    3
  464.  @hobbso8508  How about the reference that support your narrative?
    3
  465.  @hobbso8508  I cannot the emphasis of common ownership and mass consent of mean of production from those sources. Would you kindly find one and point it out that can support your narrative?
    3
  466.  @hobbso8508  Show me the quote that supports your narrative and cannot interpret as just state and government control.
    3
  467.  @hobbso8508  I post an article here before. Just show me if you are so right, why only you able to read that in such way. Why TIK Lenin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Rosa Luxemburg and all other communist and historian misinterpret it, but only you are right.
    3
  468.  @hobbso8508  I also spooned fed you a lot of Communist Manifesto, did I complain like you do? Show me where I get wrong then. The Marxists in history didn’t really share your view. If I am so wrong, you must able find some reference that further clarify the meaning of social ownership.
    3
  469.  @joeldiemoz9027  Which is? May you please kindly define it?
    3
  470.  @joeldiemoz9027  Nazism also aims to remove class distinction between the bourgeois and proletariat and making the German Society more equal. [10:03 11:27 35:47]At the same time excluding and eliminating nondesire people from the "egalitarian society" is as permittable as what USSR did to the nondesire from 1918 to 1953 and still being generally regarded as left wing. The lowest boundary of Socialist state is not really about how a Communist State’s policy faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state.
    3
  471. Ideologically Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Minecraft (The real name of the book is censored, but Hitler only wrote two books and the second one is called "Second Book”.) 2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) _____________________________ Economically 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. This make Nazi economic system met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) 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)
    3
  472.  @Ahng_Noying9574  In practice, every moderate social democrat is built on class collaboration. Otherwise, you will see property owners getting purged in social democratic states like Denmark right now. Ideologically permitting/supporting class collaboration is not enough to refute an ideology from being Socialism, as Karl Marx said socialism that advocated class collaboration, together with Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism as Karl Marx said in the Manifesto: “ … We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form. The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. … A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party) For class hierarchy. In PRC, Commissioners considered themselves upper class, and the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral class of Five Red Categories compared to the lower classes of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories had already been stripped. Under the of legislation 《关于划分农村阶级成分的决定》, members of the Black Classes were systematically discriminated against, as one's classification could affect employment opportunities and career prospects and even marriage opportunities. This could also be passed onto their children. Over time this resulted in a victimized underclass that was treated as if it were still composed of powerful and dominant people. For eradicating leftist. Socialists often fought against other Socialists in human history. Lenin eliminated the Kronstadt rebellion and revolutionary Socialist, and Stalin for the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, and the Trotskyists. 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
  473. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    3
  474.  @B4CKWARDS_CH4RM  As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race instead of maximising profit (making so many economic mistakes like mass killing Jews during War Time), Germany could still consider as Sociallist state instead of Mix economy or state capitalism.
    3
  475. ⁠ @davideichler5105  Are you sure about that, all the comunist countries start introducing capitalist characteristic to their economy since 1970s. You may search Taxi driver in Cuba to see how people are able to accumulate wealth in a modern communist country. Beside no one claiming that Nazi Germany is a Communist Country at all.
    3
  476. TIK never prove [National Socialism and Socialism are the same thing and that Socialism automatically equals Totalitarianism] in this video. He is just proving National Socialism is Socialism. If you think National Socialism is Socialism equals to [National Socialism and Socialism are the same thing]. I think you need to check your logic, Hitler is a human doesn't mean human and Hitler are the same thing.
    3
  477. Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of 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). Claiming a state practising State Capitalism, doesn’t mean that state was not practising Socialism, as they are not mutually exclusive.
    3
  478. 1.A nation is a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and/or society. 2. If everyone getting under the rule of one “international governing entity” will definitely form a nation. 3. Of course a nation is not nationalism, but regulating the global economic activities under that one world nation, enforcing rule under the name of that "1 world nation", people are united as the members of that "1 world nation", all those and other more things under the name of that "1 world nation" is nationalism.
    3
  479. Isn’t warning people aware dictatorship would rise from democracy though overwhelming welfare promise and strip property from certain well hated people can not just only happened in the form of communism, but all form of socialism a very good purpose? National Socialism is actually quite appealing, and rarely taught on any education system. While everyone aware about communism, no one know anything about National Socialism theory, humankind could actually fall for similar theory of socialism again in future election.
    3
  480.  @TraxelAxel  Socialist will also erase people based on their ethnicity(Ukrainian, Lithuania and more for USSR), the family they born from or their past ( Five Black Categories for PRC) or even wearing glass （Khmer Rouge ）which are something you also cannot control.
    3
  481.  @tonys1585  Would you kindly show us the evidence that how rich in money those industrialists actually privately made ( in Reich Marks or US dollars) from the Nazi Regime. As their private ownership right of those firms that collaborated the Nazi Regime was not guaranteed or instated by Nazi Government but West Germany Government. Furthermore, most of those benefited “minions” were all Nazi members, which were the extension of the party and state of an one party totalitarian state. Finally their actions were still under the control of the state/party order/direction, otherwise they would face repercussions like expropriation or send to concentration camp.
    3
  482.  @lt4109  Archiving Classless Stateless Communist State with total state control was exactly what Karl Marx instructed in the manifesto. The communist with class consciousness leading the whole revolution was also Karl Marx instruction. Again, USSR faithfully follow the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifasto(State Totalitarian didn't lead to a stateless utopia, who can see that coming.) Under Marxism definition, socialist state is a intermediary phase between capitalist state and communist state. USSR were following those revolutionary measures to eliminate capitalism, hence by definition it is a socialist state under Marxism. Therefore, by refuting USSR from Socialism in your definition, your are also refuting Marxist from Socialism.
    3
  483. Congratulations you refuted Marxism from the definition of Socialism. As the idea that socialism is achieved on the state, not in the workplace, level was proposed by no one but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    3
  484. 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)
    3
  485.  @trago034  TIK said that socialism is not worker do stuff, similar to what you said socialism is not when government does stuff. Your definition of what is not socialism did aligned. For you accusing him saying Socialism is bad, he is just saying his personal choice, instead of making any comment about socialism.
    3
  486. Opportunism is the practice of taking advantage of circumstances – with little regard for principles or what the consequences are for others. (wiki) It has no contradiction with either Nazism or Communism. Both ideologies can still be classified as Socialism as long as they aimed to achieve social (state or whatever community) ownership of the mean of production. Socialism didn’t require to be for proletarian and against bourgeois. That is only necessary for Marxist Class Socialism.
    3
  487. All but one executives of IG Farben were Nazi. 3:54
    3
  488. Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Without owning private property, how could bourgeoisie exist, how could different class exist, they were just people in the same class with different positions. Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those properties were sold to party members only, the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply the party orders were property being seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialists in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
    3
  489. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialism ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organise the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.) But as the lowest boundary of Socialist state is set by how unfaithful those Cold War/ Contemporary Communist State economic policies to socialism. It is very likely that Nazi Germany is still valid to be classified as Socialist State. Use Soviet Union as example, they used Slave Labor, in gulag and build the road of bones. Soviet also tried to let free market economic incentives to improve economic growth with NEP, and permitted household plots since it foundation from 1922 to 1928, Kosygin reform from 1965 to 1970, permission of private garden markets since 1971, the expansion of the khozraschyot in 1985 and countless economic reforms. And they have a Hyperinflation in 1917-1924. If USSR can still be classified as Socialist State while broke multiple criteria that you set, I believe Nazi Germany can also be classified as Socialist State under the same standard.
    3
  490.  @CamaradaRivera  After they finish their revolution the profit of the bourgeoisie were distributed throughout every class with the national syndicate. After the revolution, fascist mindset would be the same as the communist after the revolution, class struggle would lose their meaning, every bourgeois would be in check by the proletarian base national syndicates, every labor movement will not justify and just patently counter fascist revolutions therefore deem to be crushed.
    3
  491.  @niknitro8751  Then you are the one who is playing the definition game, as under the common definition of Socialism, USSR is definitely a socialist country.
    3
  492. Did USA abolished the private property right like Nazi did 3:00 , if no then they were not socialised enough to be regarded as socialist.
    3
  493. ​ @heinrichpreussen  They suspended the constitutions that entitled citizens private property rights. What more fundamental abolishment do you want? Companies in Nazi Germany was owned by the state 3:00, directed by Nazi party members 13:32, and regulated by Daf 9:13. Their only seller and buyer was the state 11:24, they cannot fire anyone 17:21, and rise or reduce the wage of the workers 16:37 without Daf permission. De facto or de jure the property was no longer privately owned or controlled by the ex-owner anymore.
    3
  494.  @heinrichpreussen  How can I lie, every sentence of my statement has the corresponding time stamp to this video, and each corresponding time stamp has its own corresponding reference to different historians' pieces. So you need to do more than say I am lying to disprove my statement. No one said that government involvement == Socialism. The definition of Socialism in the video used here is the social (state) ownership of the means of production; one of the sources of that definition of Socialism was Das Kapital V3 by Karl Marx. Distorting that from social (state) ownership of the means of production to just government involvement is just a straw man fallacy.
    3
  495.  @gladys2563  And your statement of [Hitler followed corporate interests, bargaining for bills and debt, lowering taxation.] contradicted with the following sources. "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) "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) 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.) Average Worker real wage has been gradually increase from 88.5 at 1933 to 107.5 at 1938 (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). With the price control imposed them on the German people since 1936, 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 (Table 1 ”Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”,). Historical fact also 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.)
    3
  496. But isn’t Trump anti Health Care?
    3
  497. TL;DR 1. Your definition of socialism was is "when the workers themselves own the means of production", under your definition of socialism, USSR other Communists regime and NAZI German are both not socialist states. 2. Their Leader Lenin Mao and Hitler were/can be socialist.
    3
  498.  @Loregamorl  You classification of of socialist state also seems to be too theoretically. The countries are the product of the founder ideology right. Let all 10 communists/socialists found the first 10 Communists/Socialist Totalitarian countries(Actually there should be more) with similar systems. While those countries have nothing against the definition of Marxist or Socialism( those definition didn’t have any about how the community itself should be represented or any free will of individual or must be achieved by democratic mean and etc), shouldn’t the definition of Communists/Socialist state be morphed to fit those Totalitarian countries. Or else, you can just distance every ideology from its evil products.
    3
  499.  @Loregamorl  The next part from "let all" to "similar systems" I cant really comprehend, I am sorry. “Let” means assuming that, As I don't want to over simplified the history, that why I am assuming here. " I do not know what you mean about Marxist or socialist stuff, iirc there were very much ideas on how individuals or people must be represented. Then I am pretty sure the Communist State IRL can pass fulfilled the requirements on how individuals or people must be represented. "There is a common misconception that socialism, Marxism, or communism means absolute death of free will or individualism, at least as I have understood it." I didn't said that "Marxism, or communism means absolute death of free will or individualism". If that phase is true, I would just said : Marxism, or communism didn't forbid the absolute death of free will or individualism. Marxist, or communist state IRL that made the absolute death of free will or individualist of its citizen should still be considered as Marxist, or communist state. "At the end of the day, it does come down to philosophy and definitions, morphing definitions is possible but then you can fall down the trap of "everything that I dont like is [insert socialism/communism/fascism]"." That why I started and confined the discussion on Marxist/Communist state only at this stage to ensure we will not fall down the trap of "everything that I dont like is [insert socialism/communism/fascism]". "For example, stated goal of Lenin would be to create a vanguard party to usher in socialism then communism. Result was state capitalism, lots of people killed through a failure of the party and the existence of a secret police, and so on." In 1920-70 communist eyes, that was not a fail model at all, bassically all the "communism states" followed just used the similar systems to govern their countries.
    3
  500. ​ @Loregamorl  It seems you just take the assuming part too seriously and totally neglected "As I don't want to over simplified the history" and every communist countries during the cold war. Those countries predated the autonomous administrative region you suggested and were actually found by comunist and defined as "communist state". What make them just "State Capitalist" state but not "Socailist" state in your definition of "Socailism"?
    3
  501.  @Loregamorl  It is fine things happened. " It does depend since in USSR, it was pseudo-democracy. Can vote for candidates as long as they are CCCP and approved which... isnt exactly democracy. They can pass the requirement of having ideas on how people should be represented, but not the practical effects of it." It seems the you started to used subjective criteria and unqualifiable variables to define “Socialism” which it original and Marxist definition didn’t included. With such standard you can excluded anything from you definition. "That is indeed true, most/all communist states did end up being vanguardist in one way or another. Very strong party, etc, etc. But we as the modern people can look back and say that style of socialism failed horrendously. Either they collapse or revert back to capitalism. At the end of the day they are still "socialist" if you go by intent, I will try not use a "no true scotsman argument" here." Are you adding another criteria to your definition of "Socialism". Cannot be collapse or revert back to capitalism? Again with such standard you can excluded anything from you definition. For "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". It is possible to make it not a Socialist state under your definition. 1. administrative region is not a state. 2.They have income taxes, so the means of production is not owned by worker but the Government. BTW please define worker.
    3
  502.  @jamesbest9038  The definition of Socialism is different for everyone if it is not based on any reference. However, it is quite impossible to ideologically exclude fascism or Nazism from Socialism without excluding either authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism), libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) or non pure class based Socialism (Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism) from the definition of Socialism, as fascism or Nazism are just authoritarian, free market tolerating (liberal socialism) , and non pure class based Socialism.
    3
  503. ​ @LactoseTheeIntolerant  Regarding definition, it is the socialized "entity", not "entities". There can only be one entity representing society to own the means of production. If the current Society is really bourgeoisie ownership of mean of production, there will be no business competition anymore as all the mean of production is own by one class of bourgeoisie as a whole. Even under "workers ownership of the mean of production," the definition leftist usually use, it doesn't mean every worker owns a piece of a means of production that they have a full range of control like selling as private property. The ownership belongs to workers as a whole, not equally separated and distributed to each worker. Regarding democracy, the contemporary definition of democracy, aka bourgeoisie democracy or Liberal Democracy, was not well established before the 1950s. Under the old "people rule" definition, Soviet democracy, and even North Korea, is democracy. Marx anarcho-communists????? "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." ("Manifesto of the Communist Party", 1848) "The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not 'abolished.' It dies out." (Engels, “Anti-Dühring,” Part 3 Chapter 2, Sonnenschein edition, 1892, p. 76) I know his claim of achieving a stateless society, but his proposed measurements are all empowered the State. I cannot see how his state-empowering measures would lead to a stateless society. This brings us to the next point, USSR faithfully followed the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifesto (which didn't guarantee any contemporary Liberal, not North Korean-style Democratic governments). The problem they were facing was the implementation of those measures didn't lead to an increase in production and could not reach the final goal of the communist State. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to an increase of productive powers, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.) Under Marxism's definition, a socialist State is an intermediary phase between a capitalist State and a communist State. USSR was following those revolutionary measures to eliminate capitalism. Hence by definition, it is a socialist state under Marxism. Therefore, by refuting USSR as Socialist State, you also deny Marxism from Socialism.
    3
  504.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  Indeed lack of democratic engagement. However, the lack of democratic engagement is something Karl Marx permitted in his "Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith" "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." ("Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith", 1847) Beside, Marxist Communism is a scientific socialism. When reality does not follow the theory's predictions, ad hoc assumptions are added to the initial theory to ensure it fits the actual facts. Base on that Lenin and other Soviet Leader can partial embrace capitalism elements or whatever to increase the total productivity which is required to lead to the final Communist Society.
    3
  505. ​ @LactoseTheeIntolerant  [Having some amount of control is literally the founding principle of socialism. Without it, your labor is being exploited by someone else and their interests. Without it, there is likely a class system.] This is just your wishfully thought stipulated into Socialism; Robert Owen didn't introduce any concept of control for each workers into his New Lanark mill social experiment, and neither did Marxism. "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.) If I was wrong, please kindly prove it with evidence. _____________________________________________ All the quotes you are using cannot address the issue of North Korea, as they were just statements against the monarchy, feudalism, or aristocracy system lacking democracy. However, North Korea and the Communist style democracy were using controlled democracies. They indeed have universal suffrage, and everyone needs to vote. The real issue of North Korean democracy was totalitarianism, which originated from the people. Thus, I believe I can fit North Korea Democracy into most of the democracies described in that quote, except "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," as Marxists fundamentally oppose the right of private property within it. As the Communist-style democracy ( which North Korea is currently using) can deceive people from 100 years ago with controlled democracy, I don't think ideology from 200 years ago even had the concept of controlled democracy. Furthermore, all the democracy you are mentioning here was not the contemporary Liberal Democracy that we are saying now. The most apparent indication of it was women, and minor ethnicity were not included. Even in America, universal suffrage, one of the foundations of Liberal Democracy, was achieved in 1965, French in 1945, UK in 1928, Canada in 1960. The first batch of countries with universal suffrage were those new European Countries established after WWI, but most were decent back to dictatorship, so I didn't count them. Finland has done an excellent job since its independence in 1918, but it was still 35 years after Karl Marx's death. Human Rights are another foundation of Liberal Democracy. "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" in 1804 didn't ban slavery and mentioned women's rights, which are significant parts of Human Rights. The Earliest contemporary standard Human Rights related document is the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," passed by the UN in 1948. [I didn't say he was anarcho-communist. You misread what I stated.] "Marx… who essentially are anarcho-communists." Maybe you can show me how to understand this sentence. [ It was a critique of capitalism and a theory on how communism would come about. They weren't saying that the state controlling labor and capital was socialism. ] Surely they didn't say what you exactly said, he said : "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) When the state controls labor and capital, society would be able to slough off the old economic habits that fixated on "social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now" ('The German Ideology') It would not just become a socialist state; it would become "a communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." ('The German Ideology') In "Critique of the Gotha Programme," Marx claimed that "Between capitalist and communist society, there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." (Critique of the Gotha Programme) While in "Part III: Socialism of Anti-Dühring", Engels suggested "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 more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, 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 the proletariat abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms and also abolishes the state as a state. … When at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out." (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels) These statements outline the last two stages of the economic development of Marxism. The proletarian revolution(The Manifesto of Communist Party, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Anti-Dühring) The dictatorship of proletarian (Critique of the Gotha Programme, Anti-Dühring) State Socialism (means of production, socialized, into state property" (Anti-Dühring ) ) The abolish of Class and State (Anti-Dühring, The Manifesto of Communist Party) The Communist Society (The German Ideology, The Manifesto of Communist Party) [They were outlining what they thought would be a natural progression towards communism.] From the name of The Manifesto of the Communist Party through the formation of the Communist League to the following content within The Manifesto of the Communist Party, it is quite evident that they were not just outlining what they thought would be a natural progression towards communism. On the contrary, they wanted to change it. "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (The Manifesto of the Communist Party) "Workers of the world, unite!"(The Manifesto of the Communist Party) Furthermore, Das Kapitals, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, and Anti-Dühring had a lot of guidelines on how to introduce the Communist State. Do I need to list out those revolutionary measures in The Manifesto of the Communist Part? The critique of capitalism was not wrong but also used as justification for the necessity of Marxism.
    3
  506.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  _______________________________________________________ [They further stated a clear understanding of that. "Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."] Reality proves my logic is correct then; Total state control didn't lead to a Stateless Society, no matter their justification. [ummm, no. Where does Marx say that? Where does Marx ever mention or define a "socialist state"?] Marxism is not just about the ideology of Karl Marx; it also includes the ideologies of Friedrich Engels and other Marxists. Even Marx and Engels didn't propose "a socialist State is an intermediate phase between a capitalist State and a communist State." Yet, from their pieces, this narrative has already been well-accepted amount the Marxists and Sociologists. Pieces used this narrative included: "Capital and Community: the results of the immediate process of Production and the economic work of Marx" by Jacques Camatte. "The State and Revolution" by Lenin. and "From state socialism to Capitalism" by Professor David Lane. ___________________________________________________________ [Engfles and Marx's work wasn't to explain what socialism or communism necessarily was.] He did at least for communism in his Private Property and Communism Manuscripts of 1844. [ Though, I would argue that the ruling class wasn't the proletariat, as Marx had envisioned.] May you kindly provide any quote and source regarding the Marx's envision to support your argument?? [They wouldn't be classified as socialist. Socialism doesn't equal the one aspect of Marxism that you are pointing out (overthrowing governments).] Before Gorbachev, USSR was also in the progress of entirely socializing the means of production into state property, as Anti-Dühring suggests. So yes, if you really refute USSR as Socialist State(except during the Gorbachev period), you also deny Marxism from Socialism.
    3
  507. Seems you read “Against the Mainstream” out of the context. 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.), No one could fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF( 17:23). ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.). The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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) Nazi was not selling the property right of the company, they were just selling the administrative right, which they can take it back if they want, of the company.
    3
  508. If the Nazi is far right and capitalist shill as in the “Marxist Narrative” mentioned in 0:00. By the definitions listed below, the Nazis would at worst only allow all means of production to be monopolised by the capitalist, but would never strip the right of private ownership of anyone through legal and illegal means nor nationalised any private property, as it is contradictory to the far Right Capitalist label that Nazi being stigmatised with. Therefore, either the Jews can sue the Nazis to get back their private property ( the ownership right of property by non-governmental legal entities), or Nazism is not a far-right Capitalistic ideology. The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left-right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations. (wiki) Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] (Wiki) Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. (Wiki)
    3
  509. Hitler was against both Christian and Monarchy.
    3
  510.  @hobbso8508  Surely every Nazi member was private individual, but it is totally irrelevant the fact that mean of production of the factories ,administrated by the members, were centrally controlled by the state plan economy.
    3
  511.  @hobbso8508  Central Planning is the mean to achieve state ownership of mean of production. If the price, input and output of a factory is controlled by the state. The state have the ownership of the mean of production of said factory.
    3
  512.  @hobbso8508  “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.” Is right under your quote, the democracy, communist established would consider as valueless if they loss the election. Don’t distort the meaning of valueless if democracy cannot achieve socialism into thinking that a result that isn’t socialism would be a loss for workers. The second statement recognised the meaning of democracy while the first one didn’t. What he written definitely not pro democracy. Especially from a man who also written “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”(The Communist Manifesto) and “the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
    3
  513. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. So Hitler From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    3
  514. The leftist economic policies of Nazi German were explained in 00:00 to 18:22 of this video. Which includes: The abolishing of Private Property Rights Expropriation of Industrialist Nationalise the firms by replacing firms’ board members with Nazi Party members. Price Control Quota System Fix wage Banned firing Employees Better Social Welfare Farmer Subsidies and more The part regarding the relationship between Nazi and the industrialist was started in 20:00 TL;DR Most of the industrialist started support Hitler after Hitler had risen to Power.
    3
  515.  @slevinchannel7589  The funerary ceremonies for Prime Minister Kurt Eisner (1867-1919) took place in Munich on 26 February 1919, and Hitler was recruited in early June 1919. He was a communist before being a spy.
    3
  516. Nazis did share the means of production by implementing regulations, including fixed wages and employment of workers (17:15, 17:31) by the DAF and the centralized distribution of raw materials and goods with price control even before the war started (11:27). 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) subsidised by the State. (10:09). Btw your definition of socialism doesn't even require the abolishing of private property if socialism is the sharing of the means of production. It can be done regardless of who actually owns the property. The definition of private property is irrelevant to your definition of socialism.
    3
  517. Hitler is socialist because his ideologies advocate the implementation of the Socialist System, social (State) ownership of the mean of production), to the nation he ruled.
    3
  518. The OG socialism used in Marxism is just about centralising the means of production into the state. His definition of socialism didn’t invalidate your definition of socialism. In the meantime, your definition of socialism also didn't invalidate Marxist Socialism from the definition of Socialism.
    3
  519.  @Liberty_or_Ded  In 1950s, it is really quite hard but not impossible to define Nazism as Socialism. But, nowadays after all the communist atrocities has been uncovered and various new socialist theories created during the Cold War. It is quite impossible to ideologically exclude fascism or Nazism from Socialism without excluding either authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism), libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) or non pure class based Socialism (Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism) from the definition of Socialism, as fascism or Nazism are just authoritarian, free market tolerating (liberal socialism) , and non pure class based Socialism.
    3
  520. ​ @hoztravels2024  As you said, being left like GDR doesn't require actual democracy. It also doesn't require to have any respect for humanity as in the cases of Stalin and Mao. With those two factors out of the table, what makes the Nazis being set on the left side unacceptable? Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of the USSR and PRC than in Nazi Germany in peacetime (1933 to 1939). USSR: 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. PRC: Just in the Sufan movement of 1955-1957, which targeted the counter-revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal deaths. 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 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 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. _______________________ 2. Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can 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." ______________________ 3. The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates 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, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production. The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112) ________________________________ 4. 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. 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)
    3
  521.  @hoztravels2024  I literally listed out the reasons why Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology, other than it has socialism in its name.
    3
  522.  @hoztravels2024  What last general election? Don’t assume everyone in the world can enjoy such first-world privilege.
    3
  523. Actually, Hitler was as Socialist as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did. If the Left can categorise Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as Socialist, Hitler can surely be categorise as a Socialist under the same standard.
    3
  524. ​ @Faustobellissimo  Democracy that is nothing against the state? The one who opposed it would be forced to adopt it by war against them? Even North Korean democracy is more democratic than the democracy you are saying here. How old are you? Is this some kind of fan fiction in your mind? The socialism you are justifying its legality of existence here is just a global totalitarian dictator oppressive regime that is no different from Nazi German or Stalin Soviet IRL. So other than failing the world domination, what makes Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, not the socialist you are currently describing?
    3
  525. What the US thought they would need was anyone but the Communists, who publicly announced they would abolish all private ownership. Nazis abolished the legal right of private ownership anyway.
    3
  526.  @nicknolte8671  Yes, they did. 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. )
    3
  527.  @nicknolte8671  Yet 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.) Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Why would that happen if Private property exists in the context that at least one of those capitalists did not violate any law.
    3
  528.  @nicknolte8671  We have discussed about this before. You still don’t understand the spectrum of Socialism at all.​​ Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he can't legally strip administration right from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) Germans were allowed to keep their control to their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State's ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren't obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources, written in the 1940s by Neumann. "The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..." (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," (no page number on Kindle). "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".) So, he controlled the private properties legally. He was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit. Workers had fixed wages , firms could not fire their workers (also from your source), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934. So the only parts being social darwinised were the firms. 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 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 Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. ) 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 Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist States' economy 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. ______________________________________________________________ 1.5 "In that case, Hitler did not ban private property because he LIKES private property because he believes in social Darwinism, that you seem to not understand the principle.The price control, rant and wage control was here to protect the economy from the war and the great depression." Germany has already started recovering from the depression since 1932. They don't need extra policy to protect the economy. Your narrative just dismissed all the social welfare policies of Nazi as necessary good for their evil. Again, the workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.). Btw, You see the highest welfare of the Germanic people from the quote in "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry"?
    3
  529.  @nicknolte8671  Let give you a TL;DR version here. Sure, Hitler did permit limited private control; that is also actually how reformed communist states work with their mixed economy. The Soviet Union before 1922 and after 1980, Vietnam after 1988, PRC before 1956 and after 1980 (before 1989) and Cube after 2000 had all allowed the existence of private firms to run within their state-regulated markets. Not to even mention, Liberal Socialism would not forcefully eliminate private property within the state. Are you saying that none of those regimes were socialists and their ideologies were socialism.
    3
  530.  @nicknolte8671  I am just stating that those reformed communist states also ran their states in the mixed economy system. Not to even mention, Liberal Socialism would not forcefully eliminate private property within the state. I am not making excuses for anyone involved in committing any atrocity. I don't know what your comment was replying to. Are you suggesting that there was no private control in Nazi Germany, or are you suggesting that there was limited private control in Nazi Germany? [Repeating fallacies doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Limited private control is when you can refuse to engage in projects vital to state interests and suffer zero consequences, instead benefiting from this refusal until the state gives you tax breaks, more subsidies or agrees to take a more substantial investment risk. There are no examples of officers or soldiers who faced any sort of consequences for refusing to participate in the Holocaust. In fact, we have examples of officers who were promoted after refusing what they knew were unlawful orders. Source: "Those Who Said "No!": Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians during World War II" by David H. Kitterman Which means private companies willingly collaborated. Why else would the executives of these private companies be tried and convicted for their role in the Holocaust? "The economy needed a steady or growing development. Because of the rivalries between the many political parties in Germany and the general disorder there was no opportunity for prosperity. ... We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that. ... We Krupps never cared much about [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business." — Alfried Krupp, the capitalist who used over 100,000 slaves]
    3
  531.  @nicknolte8671  Again, those reformed communist states also ran their states from a planned economy to a mixed economy system. Not to even mention, Liberal Socialism would not forcefully eliminate private property and run the state with free markets. Why would you think a war economy system organised by the ruling party (CARTEL) where parties industrialist (GROUPS OF INTERESTED PRIVATE PARTIES) exercised State Power would not be able to fit into the economic spectrum of Socialism? Besides, if the Nazi economy really worked in the liberal way Otto Ohlendorf wanted, he didn’t need to criticise the Nazi Economy system.
    3
  532.  @romulusmars3766  The whole system actually collapsed in 1991, does it count as the way how they failed?
    3
  533. Stating that Jews and Communists were the targets of the fire decree doesn't make TIK's claim, the fire decree abolished private property rights, wrong. Those two narratives are still not mutually exclusive. Both narratives can be right at the same time. Regarding the "old bosses" can still keep their position, that is not a very relevant indicator that NAZI was not running the country socialistically. As the economic relations between firms and the workers were still 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 without DAF approved. 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 by the Corporation Law of 1937. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms. Buchheims described here that the Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly. According to Das Kapital V3, what the Nazis did was the socialist way to run a society. "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.) Even though there was a deterioration in the working condition and longer working hours, it was not the capitalist, but the state/Nazi/DAF exploiting the workers. Regarding the Nazi privatization from Against the mainstream. Nazi scammed the buyer who brought the “privatised assets” 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)
    2
  534. No workers owned the means of production like the USSR, PRC even before Mao death, Cuba, or any communist states ever existed?
    2
  535. Isn’t all your listed Socialist State need to fall back to free market system and trading with Capitalist States, two of many things Socialist ideology vows to abolish, in order to survive a very obvious sign of failure?
    2
  536.  @rickglorie  personal attack didn’t make a good argument.
    2
  537.  @rickglorie  Sorry, I should use the proper wording, wording is often lost in translation. Ad hominem does not contribute to a good argument.
    2
  538.  @rickglorie  I don’t know. Every references TIK used is written by renowned historian, except those two book written by Hitler himself.
    2
  539. It is also because 1. Private Property right was abolished in 1933. 3:00 2. German Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks. 3. Nazi Firms were owned by the state and co-controlled by the "leader," ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploited for the state and the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. 4. Nazis also implemented regulations, including fixed wages and employment of workers (17:15, 17:31) by the DAF and the centralized distribution of raw materials and goods with price control even before the war started (11:27).
    2
  540. You just neglected the existence of every communist (socialist) state ever existed and their leaders ideologies, then redefined the definition of Socialism. By doing so you also dissociate every Communist Atrocity with Communism (a kind of Socialism in your narrative ). Your narrative up there is just implying socialism have nothing to do with holodomor and cultural revolution, which is no different than denying the fact that Holocaust and Nazism were related.
    2
  541.  @hobbso8508  That's why they are communist (socialist) states, not just communist states. They are Socialist states trying to achieve moneyless, stateless, and classless societies through practicing Marxist Communism. Their Socialist status didn't affect the fact that they were practicing Marxist Communism and their status of being historical examples of Marxist Communism in practice.
    2
  542. ​ @nicknolte8671  According to his own statements, Buchrucker learned about the arrest warrant issued against him on September 30 and ordered that the work detachments housed in the outer forts of Küstrin Fortress should march into the fortress in the Old Town of Küstrin on the morning of October 1, 1923.(Zum Ablauf des Putsches siehe Sauer, Reichswehr, S. 57ff.) Küstrin was where the Buchrucker 's unit was positioned, and Berlin was the capital of Germany, which would very likely be the final destination of coups within Germany. I believe a quote from the Reichswehr official documents would be much more trustworthy than a statement written in 1934-1936 by a French author without access to any German official record. [Yeah, a putsch attempt less than 100 kilometers away from the place the Nazis wanted to march and seize power is just a coincidence. Well, where is the confession? Is it possible for people to lie? Well, not according to you. We should take fascists and Nazis at face value.]
    2
  543.  @hobbso8508  Because trust you, Marxism is about democracy?
    2
  544.  @hobbso8508  But it can be also allow undemorcadic state exist as the Communist Manifesto suggested, right?
    2
  545. ​ @hobbso8508  those points are for before getting the power not after. And you censored and modified the last point for your own aganda. "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" "...used as a means for putting through measures ..." It is democracy result needed to guarantee those changing the system. Not the only way you can guarantee democracy and fairness for the workers is by changing the system as it existed before And those measure were (i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc. (ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds. (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people. (iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state. (v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers. (vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation. (viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together. (ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each. (x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts. (xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock. (xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
    2
  546.  @hobbso8508  "The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" The last sentence especially "necessary result" indicated that the voting results were predetermined. (Democracy is valueless if they are not used as a means for putting through measures...The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations.) The point you are mentioning was just Karl Marx mean and method overthrown the capitalist state(revolution). None of those points were about after overthrowing the capitalist state. Even Nazi and Soviet Union established via democracy. The problem is after established for you, right? Or else, you will agree Nazi German is Socialist then. You modified the meaning of "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" into " the only way you can guarantee democracy and fairness for the workers is by changing the system as it existed before..." ________________________________ And censored "(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people. " "(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
    2
  547.  @hobbso8508  “you have to vote this way” seems limiting your choices(pseudo-democracy) for me. "As the Manifesto says, this is done democratically. So what exactly are you even hoping to achieve?" Nope, it 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. " Just like if someone said "Democracy would be wholly valueless to people if it cannot used as a means to putting through Brexit or elect Trump as the president." Do you think that man want a fair democracy or a psuedo-democracy which can used as a means to putting through his agenda? You really need to learn your history. NSDAP was the largest party in Germany and Hitler was therefore appointed by Hindenburg as the prime minister even before the burning. In a brief period after the October Revolution Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic had a country wide election Socialist Revolutionary Party(not Lenin Party) won. But both Hitler and Lenin just consolidated the power with administrative and violent mean afterwards. "Again, I was pointing out the specific measures that are similar to current countries. The abolition of private property does not match current nations, but it's also not really relevant to the discussion. " No you didn't said that before, you said "They were saying that the only way you can guarantee democracy and fairness for the workers is by changing the system as it existed before. It then lists how the parts of the previous system would be changed democratically, and even states that these changes would not be all at once, and would require systematic change by the people. In fact the stuff they list is pretty damn progressive"
    2
  548.  @hobbso8508  A democracy which its only values is passing some measure is a limited/pseudo-democracy. NSDAP were the largest party in Germany in two elections before the burning.
    2
  549.  @hobbso8508  Or by violence without democracy. Democracy was always just an optional mean of archiving revolution. But the bottom line is “the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.” Hitler Cabinet was form in January 1933. NSDAP was the largest party in both the July 1932 November 1932 election. Get the power didn’t mean getting all the power. Nazi got the majority of German politic power better now? I thought as a socialist you need to have some common knowledge in politics. “The president has far-reaching ceremonial obligations, but also the right and duty to act politically.[3] They can give direction to general political and societal debates and have some important "reserve powers" in case of political instability (such as those provided for by Article 81 of the Basic Law).”
    2
  550.  @hobbso8508  Are you having any misunderstandings here. Overthrowing old government and establishing communism are two things, surly you can overthrowing old government by democratic,violent or any mean like the manifesto said. After overthrowing the old government, to establish communism state you need to archive those 12 measures by any mean including democracy. But the bottom line is democracy would be valueless if it cannot achieved those measures and only the proletariat can win. You blinded? I said “NSDAP was the largest party in Germany and Hitler was therefore appointed by Hindenburg as the prime minister even before the burning.”
    2
  551.  @hobbso8508  or the proletariat can just do those measures by force. “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. ” (The same source) Get the actual power doesn’t mean need to in the highest position, but it is fine what ever you say.
    2
  552.  @trogdor1977  The argument of why National socialism can be classified as socialism because National socialism did advocate to appropriate means of production to the workers and to the Society as a whole. Here are the relevant quote from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    2
  553.  @brandonmorel2658  Businessmen always had seats in the National People's Congress since the 1st National People's Congress of 1954 during the Mao’s era. I don't know the why capitalist got into the representative system would refute a state from being Socialist State, but it seems it contradicted to your provided examples of Socialist States. Jack Ma still owned Alibaba btw, what stripped of property are you talking about? The reason Jack Ma was fined 1 billion was because his Ant Group broke rules related to consumer protection and corporate governance not because he fled from Xi China like Fritz Thyssen did. Every Chinese businessman was punished for their private property because of corruption or any other kind of illegal activities in Xi’s China. Beside what is your logic to prove Nazi Germany, a regime had no right of private ownership de jure, have right of private ownership with the Chinese regime, which has right of private ownership de jure. The illegal stripping of private property in China if it actually exists can at most prove that Chinese de facto has no right of private ownership, not the other way around. Götz Aly was born in 1947 in Germany, what state capitalist regime agenda can he have?
    2
  554.  @night6724  As they are usually not going to compare their own economic doctrine with the Nazi's one, when they tried to refute Nazism from Socialism and expected Authoritarian Socialism can only exist in the form of total collectivisation.
    2
  555. ⁠​⁠ @night6724  The most TL;DR version of my point is there should be no “gap” between Democratic Socialism/Social Democrat and Authoritarian Communism. Where Nazism sitting is right in the middle of two branches. Nazi economic policies are anything but gentle. Just with the most generally acknowledged policies: fixed wage and nearly eliminating unemployment with fixed employment in peacetime, how many Social Democratic states can have such influence on the firms within their nation? If those policies were too gentle for the Nazis to be socialist, I think most of the democratic Marxists/Socialists would also refute themselves from socialists with the Nazis by this definition.
    2
  556.  @davidstrelec2000  In theory, as long as those factory are run by party members or state. The mean of production is state own, social ownership. In practice, Soviet Union still allow private ownership of mean of production ( Household Plot) and allow for private farmer markets since 1971. So it seems there is Certain allowance of limited Market freedom in the definition of Socialist State in practice. As even excluding PRC after Chinese economic reform and USSR after Gorbachev reform, the bar of the definition of Socialist state was actually lower than most of the people believed.
    2
  557.  @davidstrelec2000  Those factory are run by party members or state. The mean of production is state own, social ownership. Despite, the term was translated to “Privatisation”, everything was actually Nationalised. For objective detail or reference to support my point, it should be the first 5 mins of the video.
    2
  558.  @davidstrelec2000  I double checked it, they sold the state own company just into the hand of NAZI member to deepen NAZI control of the country( 4:32). They sold Jews individual industries and property and state owned industries to Party Members. Then they confiscate the private Industry section with the mean of mafia in 1935 with Gleichschaltung, but the result is still state ownership of mean of production. Btw selling Jews property and Nationalisation were two separate policy. The first is Arisierung The second is Gleichschaltung
    2
  559.  @davidstrelec2000  Plus the definition of (ownership of)* mean of production is the administrative right of production, buying raw material, selling products or maybe other things. The ownership of said property is not part of the mean of production.
    2
  560.  @davidstrelec2000  Yeah but not “private property ownership” itself O sorry I should said ownership of mean of production.
    2
  561. Lenin and Stalin did the same thing and still being called socialist/communist. Furthermore, the definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    2
  562.  @CoolDrifty  Labor Zionism and Poale Zion is still placed in left and far left, although they believe the Jews, their race, is the one race chosen by god. Francoist fascism didn’t have Superiority Race in their ideology. There is also no Social Darwinism base on race or class in Italian fascism ideology. (Hawkins, M. (1997). Nazism, Fascism and Social Darwinism. In Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (pp. 286, 289).) Under your narrative why do those fascisms are on the right and the race superiority socialism is on the left?
    2
  563.  @nicknolte8671 TIK said, "None of these industrialists could be considered committed Nazis prior to 1933"(21:59). He never said [before the March 1933 elections] or before [consolidated his power]
    2
  564.  @walterbailey2950  As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 and 42:21 instead of maximising profit, the Hitler can still consider as Leftist and actionary.
    2
  565.  @walterbailey2950  The content of your argument become more and more empty. Proof by intimidation doesn’t make a very good counter argument.
    2
  566.  @PantheraKitty  For example, erasing the pre-existing Jews systematically from the society is as left and revolutionary as erasing bourgeoisie from the society.
    2
  567. Just Stalin’s USSR, what an understatement. All Communist States centred their power on a tiny elite within the Party itself, away from all other existing state apparatus and most certainly away from any real social influence or accountability.
    2
  568.  @lt4109  USSR faithfully follow the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifasto (which didn't guarantee any contemporary Liberal not North Korean style Democratic governments at all), the problem they were facing was the implanmintation of those measures didn't lead to the increase of production and cannot reach the final goal of communist state. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to a increase of productive powers and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.) Under Marxism definition, socialist state is a intermediary phase between capitalist state and communist state. USSR were following those revolutionary measures to eliminate capitalism, hence by definition it is a socialist state under Marxism. Therefore, by refuting USSR from Socialism in your definition, your are also refuting Marxist from Socialism.
    2
  569.  @lt4109  Because they are practicing Marxism scientifically, their policy reform were aimed to archive the final increase of productivity of the Socialist state that the manifesto promised. I still don’t understand why people would praise the USSR policies that lead to more people died in hunger, and despise the political that increased the living conditions of their people.
    2
  570.  @hobbso8508  With money that cannot buy any property? Nazi Germany exactly did that with MEFO bill to nationalise the mean of production.
    2
  571.  @hobbso8508  Can the business separate from individual with democracy and freedom? It seems it would require a great amount of surveillance to reinforce. How can you control that without infringing human right? Which is a very essential component of the Western Democracy. Or you are believing people would voluntarily follow that rule? That is Utopia Socialism even under your definition.
    2
  572.  @hobbso8508  How can you reinforce such business separation between individuals.
    2
  573.  @hobbso8508  Which is? As no democratic country prohibited people from doing all business with each other.
    2
  574.  @hobbso8508  That is your problem. Almost everything can become a mean of production.
    2
  575.  @hobbso8508  What is bussiness property then
    2
  576.  @hobbso8508  Income and property are two different concepts. If you may please transform the tax policy, to one that can regulate ownership of private property and private transactions of properties and the product of those properties.
    2
  577.  @hobbso8508  No they don’t in the sense of prohibit all private businesses, even kids selling lemonade on street or garage sale.
    2
  578.  @hobbso8508  That is for tax only, then how you to discover and stop them from happening? And how you ensure people don’t process private property?
    2
  579.  @hobbso8508  Because you said you are going to separate business from individual. And no individual should proceed the mean of production the property that can generate capital.
    2
  580.  @hobbso8508  Personal tools are means of production, they can generate commodities by crafting, or collecting natural resources. And if you are using bartering system, what do you pay those private property owners to buy back their private property? And furthermore, how do you discover and stop private trading from happening and how you ensure people don’t process private property while respect the human right of individual which is a essential part of democracy which is a necessary essence of your definition of socialism.
    2
  581.  @hobbso8508  As I already gave you an example how personal tool can become a mean of production, restating your statement is futile Bartering means the exchange of goods and services between two or more parties without the use of money. What are you talking about. You just said Businesses are separate from individuals. How can you tax something which is illegal.
    2
  582.  @hobbso8508  Who will report their criminal income? You are the one who said that pure communist would separate business from individual. And how you know their income, they won’t save the ill gained money into bank.
    2
  583.  @hobbso8508  Surely, especially in Socialist State, when everything can technically become contraband by owning too much. How do you stop that from happening in your Socialist paradise without infringing human right and personal freedoms?
    2
  584. ​ @hobbso8508  That is not an inventing scenario. This is base on the scenario you set. You said you would use reported income and compare it to their wages to judge did someone obtain surplus resources illegally. If you have more resources than the leftover of resources which distributed by the society, minus your consumption. Your income is higher then your wages, the way you obtain those resources would be illegal, therefore, you are illegal to possess it, hance those extra resources you process are contraband. That is why everything can technically become contraband by owning too much.
    2
  585. ​ @hobbso8508  Right, which is different to "owning too much". The issue is illegal trade." owning too much is the indicator of illegal trade. As social distribution is the only source of money/resource income. "What's funny is the whole point of communism is that everyone's needs are met. So why pay someone to fix something when it can be done for free. There is also the idea that in a full communist society everyone act altruistically so why not just help your fellow man? Why charge them at all?" Are you showing that how a utopia Socialist you are? You just took the property from the rich by paying them and now the society suddenly become full communist society that everyone's needs are met and everyone act altruistically?
    2
  586.  @healthmain  Isn’t left and right the economy axis in the political compress? Killing people from with same economy approach (or even anyone in the economic axis spectrum )but believing in different ideology is irrelevant from his economic approach. PS: He might not target “rightist”, he was just targeting “Class struggle Believers”/“Class Socialist from all spectrum”.
    2
  587.  @mikemcmike6427  If historians didn’t make this term for Poi Pot or Stalin. I don’t see why you need to make this term for him. They both Nationalised the supply and demand chain of Germany achieving Social ownership of mean of production and governed in a totalitarian style. Plus the reason why he didn’t target right as a group might because race socialism didn’t target capitalist as class socialism did, capitalist and leftists are not outlawed by the state. Therefore they cannot use their class as a reason to prosecuting them. For the “Class struggle Believers”/“Class Socialist from all spectrum” and Jews they were and can be prosecuted as a group as the their identities itself are their crime.
    2
  588.  @healthmain  make your definition carefully, Spain did not care race while it was a fascist country
    2
  589.  @healthmain  Like communism supposed only care about class,Nazism supposed only care about race but doesn’t care about class, sex or orientation. But both did care about all those things in practice, as long as both still have state(social) ownership of mean of production, they can be consider as Socialist. And when both practising economics that heavy regulated by government they can still be consider as left.
    2
  590.  @healthmain  Other than the lying theory part( hope we can agree on that), What different between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did economic-wise you think you can differentiate Soviet Union as Socialist and Nazi Germany as non-Socialist?
    2
  591.  @healthmain  Abolished is very strong word. Private Property was allowed in USSR but heavily regulated. You heard the Soviet car buying 10 years waiting joke, right? And farmer can sell the surplus produced from the Household plot for their own profits.
    2
  592.  @healthmain  those different things you mentioning are defined as mean of production.
    2
  593.  @pegacorn13  [Socialism advocates for the equal distribution of wealth across all social classes] Did you really watched the video? Natioanal socialism did seek to spread wealth across all social classes. Here are the relevant quote from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    2
  594. As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    2
  595.  @MadmanMcNabb  Don’t go too extreme in Socialism doesn’t mean you need to go straight to democratic neoliberalism.
    2
  596. Communism is the one which kill the most among three and it is the egalitarian one? If all three socialism have same amount of effort to eliminate poverty among their society, aren’t they all egalitarian? Communism is at most Class National Socialism, which use the class of proletarian to form the communist nation.
    2
  597. Ideologically, it is the mentality of National Socialism, which advocated to socialise Germany into a pure Aryan nation by eliminating other races, especially Jews, from the society that caused the Holocaust. Coincidentally, it is the mentality of Marxism, which advocated socialise the whole world into a proletarian international, through eliminating private property, subsequently eliminating other classes, especially capitalists, aka private property owners from the society, caused the red terror in the USSR and the Cambodian genocide in Khmer Rouge.
    2
  598.  @ramosman0469  Vietnam Communist, they invaded Cambodia after the Cambodia Army invaded Vietnam and committed Ba Chúc massacre inside Vietnam. The narrative you are using can only apply to African countries, but not Cambodia, because Cambodia lacked natural resources like metal, oil or diamond when compared to African countries. However, during Cold War no African Countries were being classified as Communist State, because they were practising African socialism, which is a Socialism based on Race/Ethnicity/Skin Color ( Sorry I don’t know the proper range of African in African socialism, but I don’t think White African like Elon Musk is included, if you know please tell me). Which make African Socialism more similar to Nazism than Communism ideologically, but without the class nor race genocide from ideology. Regardless of the inaccuracy from the narrative you mentioned, that was just the first half of the Story for most of the Communist State. The second half of the story was the Communist government Nationalised/ Socialised the economy, and re-educate/eliminate different groups of people range from ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), intellectuals (USSR and PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge) .
    2
  599.  @ramosman0469  And the Soviet Support the Vietnam. Both China and Soviet were both Communist states and purged more people than Khmer Rouge. Noted that the Chinese economic reform announced at 18/12/1978, just 20 days before the Cambodian genocide ended.
    2
  600. 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)
    2
  601.  @azerty8866  So as Czech and Austrian for Nazi Germany
    2
  602.  @Nickshady2254  Japanese don’t care about race, Japanese advocates anti-colonialism ideology during its occupation of Western Colony and even found the Indian National Army. The official aims of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is to create a self-sufficient bloc of Asian peoples and states that would be led by the Japanese and be free from the rule of Western powers. Even its propaganda aims is totally different from that of the Lebensraum. For Italy as you said, the antisemitism policies is based on the interests and threat from NAZI Germany instead of its fascist ideology.
    2
  603.  @Nickshady2254  Doctors' Plot of USSR in 1953 indicates the anti-semitism of Marxism still retained in the reversional Marxism of USSR and put that in practice.
    2
  604. 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 different class exist, how could boss exist? They were just people in the same class with different job positions. Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory.
    2
  605. Yeah that should be the whole point but just has some little problems Despite based on different ideology, the policy of and atrocities committed by Nazi German was nearly identical to that of China and the USSR. They were just like church of Catholics and Orthodox, talk differently but, act similarly. The policy and action of Nazism was much closer to Communism than Fascism. "...They were highly efficient at producing" Yeah their production efficiency was so high that people would literally die in famine and economically collapse in 1991. They were highly efficient at making decisions, which was not necessarily correct, didn’t mean they were highly efficient at producing.
    2
  606. Once Karl Marx put “end state of history as classless human society” into his theory. It pretty much nailed the totalitarian nature of Communism. As after overthrowing the old system and build of a socialist system, they always found out human nature didn’t actually like socialism. Communism party would then become totalitarian to ensure the state cannot “counter-revolution” back to Capitalist.
    2
  607. The action of “Privatisation” did exist, however it didn’t diversified the ownership of public property from the state sector to the private sector . As the “Privatisation” was just the first step of a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalised the control of 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.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) Every public own firm that were sold to the bank or the private sector during privatisation were all eventually went back to the control of the Nazi State. Regarding the DemocraticMarxist01, In a one-party totalitarian state, party property very often equals to state property. The very notable example would be the People's Liberation Army, it is the army of the Chinese Communist Party, instead of the People Republic of China. Does it make People's Liberation Army a privately owned Army?
    2
  608.  @jawaddddd6730  [It did.] I am not saying privatisation never took place. I am saying Nazi later pushed out a regulation that stripped all the control of the firms from the stockholders of firms in 1937 and a regulation that made the Nazi Regime able to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management" in 1934.(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) Nazi sold the property as stocks , then nationalised the control of means of production given by the stocks. All those policies were pushed out years before the war, how would [The liberal countries also exercised tighter control over banking because of war making reasons but their banks weren't nationalized.] can be the a reason to refuted anything. [The USW was sold to Thyssen, the 4 biggest banks became private again and the shipyards and shipping lines were sold to private companies. ] The buyer were either all Nazi members, or were sold as stock which really didn’t provide any control of said companies to the stockholders after the corporate law in 1937. [There's literally a chart in Bel's paper (the JSTOR version, use sci hub to get it) that shows which capitalists got which firm.] There is no chart in Bel's paper (the JSTOR version, use sci hub to get it), the closest thing to what you described is Table.1. Table.1 only indicated the position of the state after the sale(s). [False, that was the Nuremburg defence and it failed. Krupp, Flick were punished, BMW and Hugo Boss apologized for benefitting heavily from Nazism.] They are all Nazi members, of course they were benefitting heavily from the Nazi Regime. [The liberal countries had war economies and were even stricter (UK adopted total war measures 1.5 years before Nazi Germany) but they still had private property the same way Nazi Germany had an 85% private sector.] I am very curious where does your conclusion [Nazi Germany had an 85% private sector] come from. "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) [The PLA was the army of the PRC as a whole.] PLA is an Army of the Patty not the state. “第四条 中国人民解放军是中国共产党缔造和领导的….” (中国人民解放军内务条令（试行）,2018） That is why party property very often equals to state property in a one-party totalitarian state. [State Capitalism] Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of 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). Claiming a state practising State Capitalism, doesn’t mean that state was not practising Socialism, as they were not mutually exclusive. [The capitalist companies in Nazi Germany were identical to the ones in other capitalist countries; independent capitalists who owned large firms and sold goods on a market for profit, there was competition and the capitalist class benefitted tremendously from Nazism (shown in DemocraticMarxist01's video).] There was no free market in the economic system of Nazi German 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.)
    2
  609.  @jawaddddd6730  [The problem with this argument is that every country that doesn't have a feudal or slave economy would be socialist (state regulations are needed in capitalism).] It can be true according to Karl Marx, otherwise Proudhon’s Anarchism cannot be defined as Socialism. 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
  610.  @jawaddddd6730  1. TIK didn't define Capitalism in this video and the another video that he put in this thread. Where do you get that [TIK’s definition of Capitalism]? 2. Regarding UK regulation, what regulation and how tight? Is it tight to a point that "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management"? (Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) Did UK also abolish the Constitution that enshrined Private property rights, as Nazi did in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933? (2:40) Did UK also Nationalised all Trade Unions? Just because UK is a Capitalist State and have bank regulations, rationing system and other plan economy policy during WWII, it doesn't refute those policies from being a policy of practicing social ownership of means of production. 3. Regarding “'The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich” That data can also indicated that Nazi Germany taxed more on business, less on the worker. As Average Worker real wage has been gradually increase from 88.5 at 1933 to 107.5 at 1938 (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). 4. Regarding the doubt of German Nationalisation, again Nazi renationalised the control of 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.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) Every public own firm that were sold to the bank or the private sector during privatisation were all eventually went back to the control of the Nazi State. Nazi would usually took the control of Germany firms through replacing the executive members of saids firms with Nazi members. Notable example would be the executive board of IG Farben “Every member of the executive branches of IG Farben was member of the Nazi Party, except the one who was a Swiss national and therefore exempt. 3:54” Direct Nationalisation did also happened in Nazi German. The properties of Heinrich Lübbe (Arado Flugzeugwerke), Professor Junker (Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG) (Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P17.), and Fritz Thyssen (Thyssen AG ) were seized by the State. The Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - officially nationalized in 1937 under the Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn”. 5. Regarding German Firms profiting, I literally show you the data that "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) And you are trying to refuted that just by quoting Tooze said business did profit, and neglecting the fact that the net private wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% under Nazi ruling. 6. Regarding Free Market is an oxymoronic term. Regardless how you see free market, it doesn't relevant to how Nazi German was practicing Socialism. The definition of Socialism is Social (can be state or ruling party) 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") As Nazi did appropriate the surplus products produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it to society as a whole by the State or to the workers by DAF. They did meet the definition of practising Socialism 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 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)
    2
  611.  @WhiteWolf126  may you provide an example?
    2
  612. An example of “No he did not do everything a socialist would do” ?
    2
  613.  @WhiteWolf126  I can turn those time stamp into reference referring to historical publication in 5 mins, as every informative statement TIK made in this video had their reference to some publication written by historians.
    2
  614. I never dismiss that “Privatisation” never happened. “Privatisation” was a very important step for Nazi to consolidate the mean of production within German. The Economists did use “Privatisation” to describe the process Nazi Government selling Government and ex-Jews properties back the Nazi Control (Nazi members and their affiliates). In that sense, “Privatisation” was the term Economist created to describe the action of Nazi Centralised Government and ex-Jew properties into their own hands.
    2
  615. Sorry actually privatistion was irrevent to German collectivisation of private property. It is a term Economist use to discribe the policy of the German banks selling shares. "This issue of The Economist did not include the word “reprivatization.” But several months later, the following sentence appeared in the August 1, 1936, number of The Economist (CXXIV, 4849, p. 220): “‘Re-privatisation,’ as it is called, has, however, been under way in the cases of all three banks. Some 40 per cent of the G.D. Bank’s holding of Deutsche-Disconto shares had passed back into private hands by the end of 1935. The new advance of bank shares to above par ought to smooth the way for complete ‘re-privatisation.’” This may well be the first recorded use of the term “reprivatization” in the English language. Later, in The Economist, the April 3, 1937, issue (CXXVII, 4884, p. 16), the correspondent in Germany wrote: “The DeutscheDisconto Bank announces that it is now fully ‘reprivatised.’ The D.D. Bank’s reprivatisation was in part financed by sale to the Reich of the former Disconto Bank’s central offices. The reprivatisation of the Commerz- und Privat Bank is not yet complete. . . . The Finance Ministry’s holding has been reprivatised." ( Bel, "The Coining of "Privatization" and Germany's National Socialist Party,") By 1937, legislation codified Nazi shareholders lost the right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96) and the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101).”(Burhop, Carsten & Chambers, David & Cheffins, Brian. (2018). The Rise and Fall of the German IPO Market, 1870-1938. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte / Economic History Yearbook. 59. 9-37. 10.1515/jbwg-2018-0002. ) So even those reprivitise stocks were centrolise back to the state 1 year later.
    2
  616.  @WhiteWolf126  The transfer of control of companies from the state to the ruling party is indicative of consolidating property from the state to the runing party which also control the state.
    2
  617.  @WhiteWolf126  Reimann is not a businessman, he is an economist. After the Reichstag fire in February 1933, Reimann went underground to oppose the new National Socialist regime under the resistance movement of the German social democrats and communists. How can he conducted any business in Nazi Germany?
    2
  618.  @rodrigolumi  What? Can you be more specific
    2
  619.  @WhiteWolf126  1. Wiki also said Reimann "was noted as founder and editor of International Reports, a New York-based weekly publication he created in 1947 and sold to the London Financial Times in 1983," While " the Gu ar da i n" said Reimann "was a pioneer of global financial analysis and founder of the prestigious newsletter International Reports On Finance And Currency, which provided an independent voice in the field after the second world war." It seems Günter Reimann would not be a good target for ad hominem. 2. If you don't accept the term Collectivisation, I can use Nationalisation, Centralisation, "coordination," or "synchronization." The main point is Nazis used the same method to centralize the private sectors to control the culture and academia sectors. 3. If Stalin and his Communist party were not Socialist, they would be in the third position as Hitler and the Nazis did under your narrative. Then there will be no difference between the Socialist and the third position.
    2
  620.  @WhiteWolf126  Sorry the comment got auto deleted. I need to find out the censored word.
    2
  621.  @WhiteWolf126  The ownership of mean of production was still in the state/ruling party’s hand. Party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 2. Please kindly tell me other than the CommunistParty what other kind of left wing thought is left in USSR?
    2
  622.  @WhiteWolf126  Furthermore, even if party member was not counted as an extension of the state. Even if those property were sold to individuals. The ownership of that property is still belong to the state. As the right of private ownership has already been abolished 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".) Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Without the permission of DAF the leader (so-called owner) cannot change the wage of and hiring and firing workers. (17:15, 17:31) DAF also have the right to decide the employment of the leader (9:17) The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 How was that still count as private ownership.
    2
  623. ⁠ @WhiteWolf126  btw what is your source? Beside you never addressed the case of the expropriation of property of Professor Junker 4:20 Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 And the existence and the function of Daf 8:50 9:17 17:15 17:31
    2
  624. ​ @WhiteWolf126  [Direct orders were incredibly rare, and on the few occasions it happened it was projects concering the war effort. US during the war seized over 64 companies because of the war effort due to the Defense Production Act. You telling me USA was a socialist country at the time?] German did that even before the war, the war effort is not an explanation. "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." Junker and Fritz Thyssen are both industrialists, with all their property expropriated after send to jail. Saying that those two people was jailed because of outspoken is just deliberately ignore of evidence. "Companies were free to pursue their interests however they wished, and invest their capital how they saw fit. There were regulations, yes, just like in every state in existence. Is the USA a socialist state because regulations exist in America as well? Yes or no. If you are making the case that Nazi Germany was socialist because of regulations then every state that has ever existed was socialist as well." Not in Nazi Germany, "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.) "There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy."(Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.) “The kommissar in charge of the supply of iron and steel sent many circulars to industrialists blaming them for and warning them against the use of non-quota iron and steel, as well as against exceeding their quotas.” ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p57.) Firms cannot fire and hire or rise and low the wage of workers without the approval of DAF ( Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
    2
  625.  @WhiteWolf126  Regarding Fascism. Nazism is not Fascism "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5 ______________________ There is no social Darwinism base on race or class in fascism ideology. (Hawkins, M. (1997). Nazism, Fascism and Social Darwinism. In Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (pp. 286, 289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558481.012) _____________________________________
    2
  626.  @WhiteWolf126  ["The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by participating in government contracts for military production—but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and historians Christoph Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."] Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he couldn't legally strip private property from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) Germans were allowed to keep control of their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State's ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren't obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources written in the 1940s by Neumann. "The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..." (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," (no page number on Kindle). "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".) So, he controlled the private properties legally. He was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit. Workers had fixed wages, firms could not fire their workers (17:15, 17:31), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934.  So the only parts being social Darwinism were the firms. 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 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 Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. ) 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 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.
    2
  627.  @WhiteWolf126  [ It was not "privatized into the state". There's no such thing. That would be collectivization. It was privatized into individuals.] Then Nazi nationalization all the stocks in private sector back to the state sector in 1937. In 1937 Nazis changed the corporate law and shifted away powers from shareholders to act collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of "Führerprinzip", with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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, Carsten Burhop) In other words, shares (including state-owned shares) didn't entitle any ownership status and control of said firms in any portion. Nazi Privatization was just a scam to steal investors' money, aka the nationalization of capital in the private sector. Let's look at all the examples of privatization provided in "Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany" by Germà Bel and see how many Nazi party individuals got any property privately. Deutsche Reichsbahn: nationalized by the Act for the New Regulation of the Conditions of the Reichsbank and the Deutsche Reichsbahn (Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn) of 10 February 1937. Gelsenkirchen Bergbau: sold to United Steel Trust, controlled by Fritz Thyssen, one of only two big industrialists to support the Nazi Party before it won political dominance in 1936. Fritz Thyssen's property was expropriated in 1939. Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, Reichs-Kredit-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag” . All the cases here were just the government selling the state-owned shares to the private sector. Hamburg-SüdAmerika, sold to a Hamburg syndicate in 1936, a Nazi Hamburg ship-owners group. Hansa Dampf, Norddeutscher Lloyd sold its remaining shares in Hansa Dampf to a consortium made up of the Deutsche Bank & Berliner Handels-Gesellschaft in mid-1937. Both Deutsche Bank & Berliner Handels-Gesellschaft were controlled by the State. The Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates 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. Transfer the State-owned property to the organizations set up by Nazis, not individual Nazi members. Just ownership transferred from State to the ruling party. If that is privatization, then the People's Liberation Army would be the world's largest privately owned military organization now. As to the Rules of Internal Affairs of the People's Liberation Army, the CCP created and has sole control over the People's Liberation Army.
    2
  628. ​ @WhiteWolf126  [What are you trying to say? What's your claim exactly? That the view expressed in this video is not a fringe minority view?Hitler and NSDAP were not socialists, they were fascists. Fascism is not socialism, nor is it liberal capitalism, even though it shares some similarities with both ideologies.] I have given you two historians' articles as proof to show you that Nazism and Fascism are two different ideologies. They are "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell, and "Nazism, and Fascism and Social Darwinism" by Mike Hawkins. I can never imagine that publication from Cambridge University Press is part of the "programming." Maybe you need to cancel Cambridge University bcause of that.
    2
  629.  @WhiteWolf126  [National socialism is fascism. It's not identical to italian fascism in the sense that a racial component is added.] For your Short attention Span. Here are two direct quotes "Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. " by Prof Zeev Sternhell "But Nazism cannot be adequately conceived in these terms: racism was not a simple accretion to the world view of Fascism but, on the contrary, reflected a different, even incompatible, view of nature, time and humanity. If all references to race were removed the essential structure of Fascist ideology would remain intact, whereas a similar excision for Nazism would remove its central core." by Mike Hawkins It seems your "objective fact" not so objective after all.
    2
  630.  @WhiteWolf126  [Also, it's hilarious that you've now completely shifted the goalpost and are arguing that fascism is not liberal capitalism. Guess you gave up trying to show direct similarities between socialism and fascism after I destroyed you? LMAO. No shit, Sherlock. WOW! Yes, Fascism is not liberal capitalism. Who said otherwise? No one. But that doesn't mean it's socialism. I literally said in like my first post in the thread that fascism is neither socialism nor capitalism.] My statement is still the same, fascism is originate from Communism, and Nazism is not Fascism. But all three ideology aims to socialise the mean of production of the society. I don't know how you unable to read though my long summary means you destroyed me. The argument regarding the origin of fascist ideology was still up there, and you still didn't respond to it. So as the Nationalisation of the firms share, previously “privatised”, in 1937. It is still up there, you just refused to read or responded.
    2
  631.  @WhiteWolf126  [ Either way, I'm done with you. You are a fanatical ideological zealot who's way too low IQ to interact with. If you ever stop becoming a fanatical ideological zealot maybe you'll understand that fascism is neither socialism nor capitalism, because guess what? Fascism is fascism. It's a seperate ideology, and for good reason. Just like a flat earther you'll deny the evidence even if it's right in your face, because you already have your conclusion made up beforehand, then you desperately try to bend everything to fit into your ideological zealot lens.] Hitler's ideology advocated the social (Aryan State) ownership of the mean of production, but he failed. However, as he tried to do so, he was still a Socialist 36:47. Despite Hitler failed to implement full socialism, Nazi German socialistic practice is well within the range of Socialism IRL set up by every Communist Country ever existed, from tolerating private ownership(USSR) to running Mix Economy (Cuba). Hilter and fascist were in third position not because of any ideology reason, but because they were both anti-Communism.
    2
  632. ​ @WhiteWolf126  [Look, I found some quotes. That means, by your own logic, that I have now proven that fascism is not socialism lmao] The quotes you are using are has nothing to do with my argument of “Nazi is Fascist” is an objective facts. It seems you are still unable to prevent the “destruction” of that Argument. I would use objective historical facts or historians' subjective conclusions backed up by objective facts to prove my point. When did Zionist become a problematic figure. I don't know it seems you very hate Jews, you tried to discreadit two Jews authors already. Nazism is Socialism is a conclusion based on historical facts, regardless how previous historian said "nazism is a form of fascism", if that "fascism" met all of the necessary criteria of Socialism. Then that "fascism" can be classified as Socialism. At the same time if that "fascism" didn't metall of the necessary with fascism or vice versa. Then the definition of "fascism" is not equal to the definition of fascism, the ideology. The quotes you are using are just subjective conclusions without any backed up. Where did your quote come from? Could you show me the objective context that supported the subjective conclusions in your quotes? Btw I cannot saw that reply 1 hour after it was posted. Sorry about that.
    2
  633.  @hobbso8508  Lol society in socialism come in many form, states and company can be both act as the society of socialism. What part of this you cannot understand? Do you know who also proposed state Socialism? Karl Marx in “The Communist Manifesto”. In the manifesto democracy was just one of the mean to get the power. Are you trying to use your new definition of Non-state Socialism to exclude Marxism?
    2
  634.  @hobbso8508  I can search the subtitle, TIK never said common control in this video, he only said " 'social' control". Under TIK and his view Marx definition of social = state, he is saying "state control". Again under Carl Marx's socialism, only some people (just the proletariat not the capitalist) control the mean of production. So Marxism still did not fit to your definition of Socialism.
    2
  635.  @hobbso8508  He said the society from Marxism equal State. Not society always equal to state.
    2
  636. The definition of Socialism was not being hostile to the capitalist, is social ownership of means of production. Why would asking funding from capitalist would refute anyone from being socialist?
    2
  637.  @chromaticstorm787 @chromaticstorm787 Zion labourism is a socialism of the Jewish race; the god chose people according to Zionism. Socialism can mix with the idea of Superior Race. Regarding Rejecting socialism. Bakunin and Marx rejected the principles and ideas of each other ideologies, Marx rejected that of the ideologies of Proudhon, and Engels rejected the idea that of the ideologies of Dühring. None of those rejections refuted all those socialists from being socialists.
    2
  638.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  The definition of Socialism is in 25:30. You cannot just have a well-defined, commonly used, well regard definition of Socialism for every Communist State, but when you put all those standards to Nazi Germany, find out it fits all the criteria and say, "the term becomes completely meaningless." Acient Egypt society was not collective in the State level, therefore it didn't even meet the requirement to call collective state.
    2
  639.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  Only Marxist Class Socialism Required the dictatorship of Proletarian. The most important point is no matter where those "leaders" came from, they would become the managing proletarian after the reform as there was no private ownership for both country, what the "leaders" had were administrative power for both USSR and Nazi Germany.
    2
  640.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  Nazi is as democratic as USSR anyway. The meaning of "democracy" (the one Karl Marx used in his book) was far different from the current definition of democracy, aka Liberal Democracy. The one Karl Marx used was the power from the people (proletariat).
    2
  641.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  I am not the one who play the meaning of Democracy, it had been played since at least Karl Marx. Socialism is not about democratic from Robert Owen's New Lanark mill experiment through "Communist Confession of Faith" to "The Capital Vol 3" "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." Therefore, USSR actually quite faithfully followed the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifesto (which didn't guarantee any contemporary Liberal Democracy, not North Korean-style Democracy). The problem stopping it to become a classless society was the implementation of those measures didn't lead to an increase in production and could not reach the final goal of the communist State. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to an increase of productive powers, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.)
    2
  642.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  [ "the positions of the companies were sold the the members of the nazi party" ah yes im totally sure these average worker could buy these positions and it wasn't just buisness people that were also just part of the nazi party bruh how can you not recognice how wrong this guy is again State does something doesn't equal socialism] As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those properties were sold to party members, the extension of 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 mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply with the party's instruction 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
    2
  643. ​ @freemindrebel  Hitler put out a lot of leftist policy after they got the power. 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). 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, renT, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (10:15) How was this acted in burgeoisie class interests?
    2
  644.  @freemindrebel  Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. 
Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. 
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06.
 The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 What kind of private ownership is that
    2
  645. Here were the ten Revolution measures of Karl Marx from Manifesto of the Communist Party, the central planning part was in points 5, 6 and 7: " 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. "
    2
  646. Interacting with big business cannot refute anyone from practicing Socialism. Because there are also tons of cases that capitalist companies interacted with Communist States. Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers also had business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively. It didn’t prove the USSR was not a Socialist State in those years? The other cases would be Cuba, it also actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies If both cases didn't make those Communist State not practising Socialism, so should be the case of IBM, Henry Ford and Nazi.
    2
  647.  @ReadGospelOfJohn  TIK never made the statement that business didn’t support Hitler. TIK said: "Prior to Hitler's seizure of power, the only major industrialist who was actually a committed supporter of Hitler was Fritz Thyssen" (20:48) "Of course, there were more industrialists who gave some support to the Nazis, but as Turner points out in "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", most of this support went to individual Nazis rather than the Party itself. Also, support for the Party itself came late in the day (either at the 11th hour, or even after the Nazis had gained power), and the big businesses were simultaneously supporting other parties." (21:22) "None of these industrialists could be considered committed Nazis prior to 1933 "(21:59). In this video, TIK was just debunking these two narratives regarding Big Business and Nazi: 1. Hitler was a pawn of big business (who were the real puppet masters);(19:59) 2. the industrialists financially supported Hitler into power(19:59)/capitalists brought Hitler to power (23:28). When compare to modern “New Socialism”, “Hitler’s Socialism” certainly didn’t support business, they put them under national control though nationalisation or replacing the executive with Nazi member. Hitler’s Socialism was actually more antagonise toward capitalists than the “New Socialism”.
    2
  648.  @ReadGospelOfJohn  Nazis were way more hostile against the Capitalists than the “Modern New Socialism”. Nazis replace the executives of German Firms with Nazi members. 3:56 Nazis also heavily stripped the right of stock owners. The corporate law in 1937 removed 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) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist. 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)
    2
  649. “despite the German  Army stealing food from numerous other countries.” 15:16 It seems you missed the last sentence. Here is the origin quote. “By June 30, 1939, Germany had 5.5 million tons of grain reserves, and the figure remained constant a year later. But by June 30, 1941, the reserves had dwindled to 2 million tons; a year later they were down to a meager 670,000. In response, officials at an emergency meeting called by Goring in August 1942 decided to step up Germany's extraction of food from occupied countries. As a result, Backe was able to get grain reserves back up to 1.2 million tons in 1943 and 1.7 million in 1944.”(170, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,”) With your logic why the more war torn Germany would have a higher grain reserves? Allied bombings never focus on food production of Nazi Germany, bombing against transportation began in 1944. In 1943, the Allied bombing targets inside Germany were mostly Heavy Industrial Zone, and Urban area. Most of the transportation system and farm land were still intact. TIK point was, from 1939 to 1943, under Nazi ruling, even with the extra land, extra manpower, purposefully creating artificial hunger amongst the occupied native to ensure extra food would send to German and furthermore purposefully store up grain reserves in 1942, Germany can still able to had their grain reserves decreased from 5.5 millions to 1.2 millions.
    2
  650.  @hobbso8508  Then use those Historian logic to prove TIK wrong. As far as I know no historian TIK referred have criticised the concept Racist Socialism that TIK used here.
    2
  651. ​ @hobbso8508  "Historians explained the selling off of government assets to private individuals. TIK called that nationalisation." You missed the following part, “the state/party order was not an suggestion but reinforced by enforcer and precaution. The mean of production (the freedom of production) is in the hand of state/party. 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.) "Historians explained thay unions were crushed and had all their powers removed. members had no say in how the unions were run. TIK called that union nationalisation and said it made them stronger." USSR did the same thing, and those historian agreed that USSR was a Socialist state.
    2
  652.  @hobbso8508  "Quoting TIK doesn't make it true, you get that right? You are talking about his interpretation, not the historical account." Proof it wrong then. "Name a historian that said that said that the USSR put the hands in the power of the people, the literal guiding philosophy of socialism." They don't because they didn't use your funky definition of Socialism, the definition of Socialism they used is "social ownership of mean of production"
    2
  653.  @hobbso8508  1. Those were pre war policy,and the industrialist were scamed out by the party with MEFO which cannot be exchanged into other or used as currency and never paid off. 2. Unlike your definition of social ownership of mean of production, their definition didn’t require Western Democracy.
    2
  654.  @hobbso8508  I am not the only one classify USSR PRC and Cuba as socialist states. And those countries surely without your “non Western Democracy” that has the same criteria of Western Democracy.
    2
  655.  @hobbso8508  Cole Behnke here also stated that USSR is Socialist state in other post. What democracy in what definition?
    2
  656. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @charleymount582 [how do you have socialism when private companies own the mean of production and distribution of good and services?] Just like any contemporary social democratic state? Or like USSR which permitted household plots since its foundation, and permitted those private grown food in private garden markets since 1971? Or even within Marxist theory , where class difference can still exists in Socialist State, because it would only be eliminated in Communist society. "Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
    2
  657.  @charleymount582  See the word “Advocate” there. Just because the rulers of any socialist state advocated the means of production should be regulated or owned by the community ( including state) as a whole. It doesn’t mean that they can make it really happened. There is no single nation able to regulate or own all means of production within the state. Under your logic, does it mean socialism ( the ideology) never existed in those countries? TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology that advocated the mean of production should be regulated or owned by the Aryan Ethnonation (the Reich), with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy. (As Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race instead of maximizing profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.)
    2
  658.  @charleymount582  The USSR didn’t own all the means of production. Farmer have household plot that can produce food privately. In 1971, they permitted farmers to sell their own food from their household plot with private farms market. (Soviet Promoting Private Farm Markets, Theodore Shabad, The New York Times, March 16, 1972) And for the long article you quoted or summarised, it is just repeating the narrative without any support of historical evidence. The most apparent contradiction between your narrative and reality is, Nazi Germany Economy Recession was directly caused by the government, while the 2008 Recession was caused by unregulated private capitalist. This difference is a very hard proof that large amount of mean of production is under the control or regulation of the state instead of private. Just point it out, what entity was unable to payback the Mefo bill in 1938?
    2
  659.  @charleymount582  Hjalmar Schacht was the Reichsminister of Economics, General Plenipotentiary for War Economy, and President of the Reichsbank during the creation of the MEFO bill. He is part of the state. MEFO was the more common abbreviation for German: MEtallurgische FOrschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (English: Society for Metallurgical Research LLC),[1] a dummy company set up by the Nazi German government to finance the German re-armament effort in the years prior to World War II. This dummy company was set up in May 1933, just after appointment of Hjalmar Schacht as Reichsbank President in March 1933, as a front for purchases from four German armament manufacturers, Krupp, Siemens, Gutehoffnungshütte, and Rheinmetall. The four were persuaded to put up the initial share capital of 250,000 Reichsmarks.[2] The German government was not openly involved in any way; on paper, MEFO was entirely a private company, in reality, the company had two directors, one appointed by the Reich Ministry of Defence and the other by the Reichsbank. The four companies pooled together over 1 billion Reichsmark (equivalent to 5 billion 2021 euros) where the National Socialist government agreed to repay the money with five-year promissory notes known as Mefo bills.[3][4] MEFO bill was an IOU for the Nazi rearmament and would be repaid by the Nazi. Source: The same wiki page-MEFO bill you used. and the wiki page of Hjalmar Schacht.
    2
  660.  @charleymount582  The MEFO was just a state scheme not a state-capitalist partnership .
    2
  661. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27, he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    2
  662.  @brandonmorel2658  Pointing out one obese person ate too much doesn’t mean you are starving. Pointing out Nazi is as Socialised as USSR after 1965, doesn’t mean I am an anti-establishment Anarchist.
    2
  663.  @brandonmorel2658  O sorry, I forgot to specify, it should be USSR after 1965. After the Kosygin reform from 1965 to 1970, permission of private garden markets since 1971, the expansion of the khozraschyot in 1985 and countless economic reforms.
    2
  664.  @brandonmorel2658  Nazi Germany failed to accumulate wealth. Other than the account of Hjalmar Schacht, Nazi Germany had an economic crisis in 1935-1936 and failed to pay the MEFO bill in 1938. They needed to pay back the MEFO by starting the war and with the wealth of citizens via party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," Chapter 2.), national investment policy like Geräuschlose Kriegsfinanzierung (forcing banks to "invest" war bonds with the customer saving) and Eisernes Sparen ( Provident fund but for the war effort, involuntary if you were Civil servants, state employees, employees of the NSDAP and their organizations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car). If you tried to use the economic data to prove Nazi Germany did accumulate wealth, I can also use the USSR data to prove that the overall capital of USSR had been accumulating since its foundation and its dissolution was totally not due to its economic collapsed.
    2
  665.  @brandonmorel2658  According to Hjalmar Schacht, the economic crisis faced by Nazi Germany was over demand of product due to ineffective resources allocation by the state and the state direct economy of Nazi Germany fail to accumulate wealth and growth its productivity to meet the state quota demand. Then economic crisis faced by Nazi German in 1935 and 1938 were direct opposite of overproduction example your given and very similar to every Communist Stste’s economic 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 you can conclude the US Great Depression and the Nazi Economic crises were caused by the same economic problem ———overproduction?
    2
  666. Firstly, there is no distortion of Nazi racist ideology into socialism. Nazi claimed themselves as the Socialist, that was the origin narrative. As per the information from the video, German National Socialisation started in 1933, 6 years before the war. And he did talk about the exploitation of workers 17:12 Besides, exploitation and inequality is irrelevant to how socialistic a state is as long as workers are not exploited by the “capitalists.” USSR would be a great example, proven by the the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party.
    2
  667. ⁠ @paulsame1124 [nazis claimed themselves to be all sorts of things, doesn’t make any of it true. ] You are the one who is claiming TIK is distorting the origin narrative. Regardless you thought what Nazism actually was, Nazis claiming Nazism as Socialism was the origin narrative. [You’ve spent half your response talking about the USSR. Back to Nazi Germany.] Comparing what happened in Nazi German with that of the USSR is not a whataboutism. This is a logic gate that works like this, if the Nazis did something horrible and a communist country did the same horrible thing and still be considered a socialist state, then you cannot really use that horrible thing to prove Nazi German was not practicing Socialism. [Unions were not nationalised, they were taken over by Nazi party members.] The Nazi Members and the DAF, just like SS, were the extension of the state when the party was equal to the state. You won’t say the PLA is a private army just because it was under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, not the Chinese government. [ Workers were subjected to poor pay and conditions, profits did not go to the workers; workers were having to buy stamps for a car that didn’t even have the factories built yet.] Socialism never guarantees it can do what it promises. Here is an example from the communist counterpart. Mao promised PRC would “Exceeding the UK in 2 years , catching the USA” in 10 years in 21/6/1958, and subsequently causing the Great Chinese Famine.
    2
  668.  @paulsame1124  Lenin was supported by Imperial Germany in 1917. Did it make Lenin a Monarchist?
    2
  669. ⁠​⁠ @spencerjohnson5871  Privatisation in Nazi Germany was a 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 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party. ——————————————— Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: 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. “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) 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)
    2
  670.  @AdanALW  Maybe you should use USSR and PRC as examples. No one would doubt that higher form of modern socialism exists. But when we are trying to find if something fit into the category of certain concept. We should only see if that thing meet the necessary criteria to fit in that concept.
    2
  671.  @AdanALW  They are under the control of German race( the socialised entity, just like proletariat in Class Socialism.) Again The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    2
  672.  @AdanALW  socialism in practice and even in theory have no contradiction with authoritarian. Look at USSR and PRC. As long as their is social ownership of mean of production, slavery is not prohibited by the definition of socialism. You can own them, but only the society (State,Farm,corporation) can use that as a mean of production.
    2
  673.  @AdanALW  Btw the social welfare of Worker actually became better during NAZI ruling
    2
  674.  @AdanALW  Yeah do you consider Soviet Union and PRC and other communist states as Socialist countries, if yes both of your point of are totally pointless. As all those communist states also started wars because of “National Interest” and the killing their own people because of their family class, race, religion and even wearing glass.
    2
  675.  @AdanALW  PRC before Chinese economic reform and USSR before Gorbachev reform.
    2
  676.  @AdanALW  It really depends, in Marxist theory only the oppressed can save themselves. If the slave did that themselves and removed the slavery system and confiscated all the property of the slave owners yes. But the liberation of slavery didn’t really fit the Marxist way of progression of state. The slave is liberated by non-slave owners. In that case you cannot put Marxist theory on that. So I cannot say yes base on Marxism, but the non-slave owners seems to end that base on morality ( which Karl Marx Economic Determinism may disagree)
    2
  677.  @AdanALW  Most of the Wars Started by Communist states during the Cold War were publicly claimed to be based on National Interests.
    2
  678.  @AdanALW  “Even narrower. USSR post-NEP and pre-Kosygin reform. PRC from the Cultural Revolution to the dismantling of the Shanghai Commune with the "three-in-one" policy. EDIT: actually even before Kosygin reform, when Khrushchev announced the USSR was a state of "all the people" that politically was then end of the worker state.” Can you elaborate the PRC part?
    2
  679.  @AdanALW  It is just because it is the slave class struggle against the slave owning class, not because they are the property. In practice, they will very likely also killed the slave owners while they are using violence to overthrow the establishment of the slave owning class. After the revolution. they are also very likely going to harass, reeducation or even killed the offspring and the servants of the slave owner, according to what really happened in history.
    2
  680.  @AdanALW  I believed you use the wrong term Mao didn’t went through the “New Democracy” and there is 10 years gap between the reform and the Culture revolution. And what make you think China didn’t have the revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes in 1949 right after the Civil War which they won , while USSR had that right after the civil war in 1921?
    2
  681.  @AdanALW  I answered you already. Hate should be involved when the slave class start an revolution and overthrown the slave owning class as it is the slave class struggle against the slave owning class, not because they are the property. In practice, they will very likely also killed the slave owners while they are using violence to overthrow the establishment of the slave owning class. After the revolution. they are also very likely going to harass, reeducation or even killed the offspring and the servants of the slave owner, according to what really happened in history. But the liberation of slavery didn’t really fit the Marxist way of progression of state. The slave is liberated by Abolitionist. In that case you cannot put Marxist theory on that. So I cannot say yes base on Marxism, but the Abolitionist seems to end that base on morality ( which Karl Marx Economic Determinism may disagree, as he will think the the Abolitionists were act in their economic interest to do that, which I disagree.)
    2
  682.  @AdanALW  Are you refusing economic determinism from Karl Marx ideology? Abolitionist is not a class trailer in this case as they were neither slave and slave owner. May I actually know what was the end year of PRC being a working state in your opinion?
    2
  683. ​ @AdanALW  He was an abolitionist after he retired as an slave ship captain , got rid of its slave owner class characteristics. Was he still a slave owner class? Karl Marx would used economic determinism to explain the economic causes behind the formation of political and the ideological. (That why I used economic determinism, when we were discussing about the emotion/intension behind abolitionist ) “In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or -- what is but a legal expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic -- in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. .... This consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.” (MER, 5)
    2
  684.  @AdanALW  May I know what was the actually start and end year of PRC being a worker state in your opinion?
    2
  685.  @AdanALW  “In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic -- in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. .... This consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.” (MER, 5) Be careful the context here I am saying the rise of the ideology of abolitionism amount society instead of individual, in this case such as other Marxist argue the phenomenon would very likely caused by the objective change of certain factors in the material life, the effects of individual free will would become minimal. Btw may I know what was the actually end year of PRC being a working state in your opinion? As your description of PRC history was too detached from the the historical. I cannot continue the discussion with your claim.
    2
  686.  @AdanALW  " PRC wasn't yet socialist until the Cultural Revolution, but neither was it feudalist, capitalist and bourgeois democratic. It was New Democracy, or whatever you want to call it, that's what they called it." New Democracy is an concept that Mao abolished after 1949, because of many reasons mostly about farmer/the higher up or someone didn't want plan economy. It was not a stage, project, plan or Political movement that was going to restructure China into socialist state. In 1958, Mao even claimed「新民主主义秩序」「实际是资本主义秩序，发展资本主义」(The rule of New Democracy is the rule of Capitialsm, developing capitalism). So yeah, maybe you should use “socialist transformation of ownership of the means of production” instead of New Democracy. But there is a problem. Socialist transformation of ownership of the means of production finished in 1956, 10 years before Cultural Revolution started (May 16, 1966). PS: PRC had 17 years between 1949 and 1966 to create “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes”.
    2
  687.  @AdanALW  Regarding Cultural Revolution “The Cultural Revolution opened the PRC to a political Socialism but the move to disband the Shanghai Commune marked the end of the political move towards that worker and progressive peasantry controlled state and a move towards oligarchy politically. The economic move towards capitalism followed only years later.” Shanghai Commune won the January revolution and was never disbanded. "three-in-one” was a policy, Mao request every Revolutionary committee must carry out "three-in-one" combination during Cultural Revolution, not a policy to stop the cultural revolution. Here is the relevant timeline for you. Cultural Revolution start on May 16, 1966 ;
Shanghai People's Commune was established and started the January Revolution on 5 January 1967; the term "three-in-one”(三结合) was first used on 2 February 1967; Mao used the January Revolution as the reason to disbanded the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party(the old establishment) on 16 February, 1967 (February Countercurrent) Shanghai People's Commune changed their name to Shanghai Revolutionary committee on 24 February 1967. Mao request every Revolutionary committee must carry out "three-in-one" combination in Hongqi (Red Flag) on 31 March, 1967.
([Chairman Mao has pointed out that in those places and organizations where power needs to be seized, the policy of the revolutionary "three-in-one" combination must be carried out in establishing a provisional organ of power that is revolutionary and representative and has proletarian authority. This organ of power should preferably be called a revolutionary committee.] “在需要夺权的那些地方和单位，必须实行革命的‘三结合’的方针，建立一个革命的、有代表性的、有无产阶级权威的临时权力机构。这个机构的名称，叫革命委员会好。”) Cultural Revolution ended on October 6, 1976. That why I asked you to give me an actual ending date you believe Chinese actually being a worker state.
    2
  688.  @AdanALW  Regarding the when PRC started to be a Socialist state. PRC had 17 years between 1949 and 1966 to create “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes”. In your description regarding PRC history. You missed out the following political campaigns that aim to create “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes”. The Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns (1951 to 1952), Thought reform in China (1951 to 1952), Anti-Rightist Campaign( 1957 to 1959), Three Red Banners (1959 to 1964), and many more. Are you sure you are claiming that PRC wasn't yet socialist until the Cultural Revolution (17 years [1949-1966]) while claiming that USSR achieved socialist during the civil war (4 years [ 1918-1921])?
    2
  689.  @AdanALW  I set the time period of socialism for those two countries. It is you want to change the time period which I didn’t ask you to. What I want to take is the standard you put on PRC is totally different from USSR. I cannot understand your definition of Worker state IRL at all. NEP-New Economic Policy is a applied policy. New Democracy was an abolished ideology, again it was never applied to PRC, it has no effect on PRC development what so ever. It depends how you define democracy and the slaved people , if you defined those slaved people are sub-human just like Americans tried to do in the past , you can exclude slave from democracy even it has universal suffrage in the definition of democracy.
    2
  690.  @AdanALW  That what exactly America did before the Civil War, but it was still being defined as a democratic country even before the civil war. That was not my definition at all, it was just the an example I can found that can fit through all the criteria you gave me. ——————————————————————- How can you accuse me mistaken about things that I didn’t even commented at all. I am still trying very hard to figure out what is your definition of workers state in term of PRC history. As your narrative of PRC not only detached from history facts, but also contradicted to the standard you used on USSR. 1. Why you used “New Democracy” an abolished concept to explain the early political developments history of PRC? 2. What is the definition of “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes”? 3. What make people into “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes”? 4. Why 1949-1966 was blank in your narrative of PRC? 5. Why can’t all those political campaigns in those 17 years could not bring up the “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes” in PRC? 6. Why that PRC wasn't able to have “ revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes” until the Cultural Revolution 17 years [1949-1966] after the civil war ended, while claiming that USSR achieved that even during the civil war (4 years [ 1918-1921])? 7. Why you claimed the Shanghai Commune disbanded, but the fact was they won the January revolution, and overthrown the old establishment faction. The 10 years Cultural Revolution was just in its first year. 8. Why “three-in-one” policy ended everything, while that was a policy used by the revolutionary? The your narrative of PRC as a worker state just had too many contradicting claims that required a lot of explanation. You are very right about that Sherlock Holmes quote as you clearly making up theory before having data.
    2
  691.  @AdanALW  I set those date for USSR and PRC just because they opened up free market after those date.
    2
  692. ​ @AdanALW  "it's not really as easy as giving it a start and end date, because it was an unfolding process, with hybrid characteristics before and after rather than clear lines of demarcation. But using the key events I mentioned the Cultural Revolution was launched in January 1966 and the end of the Shanghai Commune was in February 1967. The "Three-in-one" is sometimes also called the Triple Alliance. It differed from the Commune. The Triple Alliance was based upon three categories only: representatives of the people designated by them through mass organizations, representatives of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), and party cadres. This was far more limited and narrow that the Commune, and actually inserted right wing elements to dilute people power. The Party was filled with right wing capitalist-roaders looking to become oligarchs, the army represented a security organs of the state who represented the status quo. The only revolutionary segment were the mass organizations. Forcing the Triple Alliance broke the power of the revolutionary movement and this ended the ability of the working class and other revolutionaries to weird power, wresting it back to the status quo powers away from revolutionaries." No, every segment was revolutionary. The revolutionary leading cadres were the party cadres raised up to combat the old establishment, even the Shanghai Commune was found by revolutionary leading cadres, they were the class trailor. ("各个地方，各个部门，各个企业事业单位，都有大批的革命干部。就是在被走资本主义道路当权派所盘据的一些地方和一些部门，也是这样，不过那里的革命干部长期受到压抑罢了。我们必须看到这一点。" [In every place, department, enterprise and unit there are great numbers of revolutionary cadres. This is also true even for some places or departments where those in authority taking the capitalist road have been entrenched, but the revolutionary cadres there have long been suppressed. We must be aware of this.]) The army were just there to support the mass organizations. ("伟大的人民解放军，是无产阶级专政的柱石。毛主席号召人民解放军要积极支持广大的革命左派群众，具有伟大的战略意义。"[The great People's Liberation Army is the mainstay of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman Mao's call on the People's Liberation Army to actively support the broad masses of revolutionary Left is a matter of great strategic significance.]) _____________________________________
    2
  693.  @AdanALW  "If you want to examine what a workers state looks like IRL, I am willing to point you towards Cuba." No one stopping you from elaborate your point on Cuba, but as we are not just talking about an example, but to get a thorough definition of Worker states IRL, what is its necessary condition. Therefore, you need to clarify the definition of worker state in PRC first.
    2
  694. ​ @AdanALW I edited my reply
    2
  695.  @hanklesacks Prices were fixed in Nazi Germany. 12:22
    2
  696. Imperial German supported Lenin too, did it make Lenin a Monarchist?
    2
  697. 29:45 Here’s right here TIK said Nazism is not Marxism. Furthermore, implying that Marxist party did [represent the will of the workers nor gave them any power, but rather the will of the party, which was financed, influenced, and directly integrated with the bourgeoisie, and whose members weren't democratically elected.] is extremely dishonest. Inequality is irrelevant to how socialistic a state is as long as they are not exploited by the “capitalists.” USSR would be a great example, proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party.
    2
  698. ⁠ @carlomdlf ​​⁠​⁠​⁠Would you mind pointing out what socialist buzzwords you are referring to, and can you explain how those socialist buzzwords are irrelevant to what the Nazis did? It seems you are so biased against Nazi to a point that when Nazi committed Genocide, it was absolute evil, but when Communist committed Genocide, it was just some flawed.
    2
  699. Practically fascism NS and Communism work in the same way, the interest come with the power and to the hand of the leading class. In theory, his action had a further goal to socialise the socialsed entity the race 32:44, and maximum the profit of all (Aryan) people within the society, (similar to the end goal political fiction of communism) instead of just maximum the profit of the state or the oligarchy. NS is more than just class fascism (national syndicalism, which is technically still socialism) which balance the interests of all class of people in society, and old fashion authoritarianism which serve for the interests of the elite.
    2
  700. [The main objective of socialism is an equal society within a liberal democratic setting. Communism has the same objective of equality but through a totalitarian structure.] If you can justify the Communist totalitarian structure with millions of death by their objective of equality among one class, the proletariat. And classified that to be Socialism. Using the same reasoning, why can't Fascism and Nazism also be classified as Socialism? Theoretically, Fascism and Nazism are also ideologies that want to achieve equality of one nation or race through a totalitarian structure.
    2
  701.  @MatthewWhite-z5l  Even before the war. Seems like those historians had their conclusions before they had the evidence and made up the Horseshoe theory to cover the plot hole in their narrative. The evidence TIK used is as sound as those mainstream historians used. If you think there is any reason that made TIK's argument invalid, just point it out? Your Argument is just using the conclusions of those mainstream historians( not their argument and reasoning) to invalidate TIK's argument. It is just the Ad hominem and Argumentum ad verecundiam, fallacious. If every one thinks like that, history would just become something based on authority and belief rather than evidence and reasoning. TIK has a history degree, btw.
    2
  702.  @adrijan6510  TIK also said that in his other video Comparing the ideologies of Hitler, Mussolini and Mosley. Beside being a socialist, Hitler is not the traditional nationalists , he is a Volkist*, one of the first ethnonationalist. So in broad term of nationalism, Hitler is still a nationalist.
    2
  703.  @adrijan6510  https://youtu.be/bvm8I1mnucM 14:39
    2
  704. Beside TIK claim was Hitler’s national socialism is socialism, not national socialism. What are you actually argue againsting ?
    2
  705.  @adrijan6510  From TIK’s video we, we proofed that Hitler is an ethnonationalist and he is a race Socialist. What evidence is your current argument based on?
    2
  706.  @adrijan6510  1. The main point is the ownership of the means of production. Even in a capitalist factory, the boss will still provide the mean of production to the worker to work for his profit. If you are just talking about providing the mean of production, even Nazi Germany provide slave labor in concentration the mean of production. 2. If you are saying the government needs to provide ownership of the mean of production to all people. What you are saying is just capitalism after redistribution. The ownership of the means of production is still in privates’ hands. 3. Communism also prefers the proletariat over all other classes. Both Nazism and Communism want to achieve equality by erasing another group of people, Jews for the Nazis and the bourgeoisie for Communism. What difference makes Communism a Socialist ideology while Nazism is not?
    2
  707. But you can still tell USA is the capitalist one and USSR is the socialist one.
    2
  708. 25:29 The definition is right here maybe you should watch the video first.
    2
  709.  @gumpmosh  nope, utopia socialism is just the utopia end goal. Most of the Nazism and Communism have nothing to do with that end goal. Both ideologies made some logical leap and claim do what I said can achieve that utopia. It just like you need to give me all your right to achieve freedom.
    2
  710.  @gumpmosh  Yup, I read all of those from the Manifesto of Communist Party and Mein Kampf.
    2
  711.  @gumpmosh  “ The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. (10 revolution measures I am going to skip here) When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” If this is not enough, here is the version from “Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith” “It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces. Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”
    2
  712.  @shte_ken3978  No matter which socialsts hitler killed (like how many comrade Stalin and Lenin killed), after those killing, Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 which was left leaning policy and his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, so he was not a State Capitalist. What action and word he made you believe he was not a socialist base on race?
    2
  713.  @shte_ken3978  Regarding fascism Firstly Nazism is not fascism. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    2
  714.  @gumpmosh  I just cut the list of measure to prevent the comment reaching the word limit. Those two sections literally said that do what the revolution measure Karl Marx listed out, the capitalist state would transform into a state that without class different, Political power, oppressing and the old conditions of production (for the first quote) and " private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” (for the second quote).
    2
  715. ​ @shte_ken3978  Secondly, fascism is a variant of Marxism. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" also illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideology. __________________________ The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) _________________________________________ The 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)
    2
  716.  @shte_ken3978  Surely just Centralised economy and increasing social welfare cannot prove Hitler was a socialist, but it can prove he is a leftist. Together with the abolish of the right of private property in 1933 3:00 and the ultimate goal of socialise the Aryan 36:17. He can be recognised as an socialist. Regarding Nazism is a kind of fascism, just based on the fact that fascism is a class socialist ideology that developed from Marxism, while Nazism was a Race socialist ideology. You cannot just group them up together just because they fought in the same side in WWII. Please enlighten me ideologically, what common features only fascism and Nazism but not communism have that can allow you to group two but not three ideologies in the same group?
    2
  717.  @shte_ken3978  From what happened to Prof. Junker 4:26 and those who send to concentration camp, both right of private and personal property were abolished. Can you at least really watch the video. The part related to private property ended in 20:00. Hitler said he is a national socialist in his second book 42:30. Claiming that Hitler final goal was to establish a people states of fascism is against Hitler own word. Furthermore, the economic theory of fascism cannot explain the concept of thousands year Reich and the Hitler final solution of shrinking market in National Socialism. You might need stronger evidence to support your point. PS: I can turn the time stamp of this video directly to the book reference TIK referring to.
    2
  718.  @shte_ken3978  It seems I skipped some of the comment here. ["Fascism was meant to be a third way among Socialism and Liberalism, it advocates for the full control of the state which result in a mixed economy that could make people think that it is socialism because "Government does stuff" but it's false. Also, fascism does not advocate for class struggle and denies its conception completely, it does not want to help the working class which is very logical since the whole ideology is based on social Darwinism, it creates a hierarchy among the population that is calculated and wanted."] Alot of logical leap here, 1. Fascism does not advocate for class struggle and denies its conception completely, did not mean it does not want to help the working class. They will equally distributed the profit of economics gain though out all the people with the national syndicate (Trade Union). 2. Fascism was not based on social Darwinism, they treat all the class equally, and again all the class would share the fruit of profit in a equal manner. (I don't do quoting here as I am just repeating my summary on "The Birth of Fascist Ideology") Here is the quote of the main idea “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). ["Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine […]" (The Doctrine of Fascism pp.7-8 by Mussolini and Gentile).] From "No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle."(The Doctrine of Fascism pp.2 by Mussolini and Gentile) We can see that the socialism mentioned in the "The Doctrine of Fascism" is the Marxist Class Socialism, not Soicalism as general. Again Utopia Socialism, which is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory, class struggle itself can be excluded from Socialism. In fascist ideology, they believed that the classes different would be the foundation of all socialism. Rather than the overthrown of capitalism, because the bourgeoisie would complimise, the end result 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). [Furthermore, Fascism has no intention of banning private properties and give the means of production to the workers, based on Marxism or not, Fascism is simply not Socialist. it's a Far right ideology that advocates for Militarism, Totalitarianism, Imperialism, Social Darwinism and Ultra-nationalism.] Again, yes Fascism has no intention of banning private properties, but it aims to equalised the means of production to the workers with other classes through national syndicate (Trade Union). That is the reason they won the leftist struggle against the communist in Italy, fascism was a very idealistic ideology for every classes, not just for proletarian. They are Militarism(basically all Communist State) and nationalism (basically all Communist State after 1940s) But they are not necessarily Totalitarian(fascist Italy and Spain), Imperialism(Spain) or Social Darwinism (fascist Italy and Spain) If you want to say Social Darwinism, Communism which propose the dictatorship of prolitarian is more Social Darwinist than facsism, as they propose the ideology of prolitarian is the best class in the Society, and other classes is needed to be purged or transformed into prolitarian.
    2
  719.  @shte_ken3978  ["hum, Militarism, Totalitarianism, Imperialism, Social Darwinism and Ultra-nationalism? And Hitler was a leftist LMAO, yeah for sure. He definitely was not following the basic trend of a world war and a crumbling economy. Also, the centralization of the economy was just to have a full control over the country not to give the means of production to the workers, again, what he is doing is not socialism of democrat socialism, it's totalitarianism, completely different. And for the welfare, these politics were only here to calm and appease the population. This among all his personal beliefs regarding all kind of social problems show that he's not a leftist, he's a fascist. I never thought I would need to explain that Hitler was not a leftist in my life holy. If you think otherwise and think I'm wrong, please enlighten me!"] Soviet Union is also Militarist, Totalitarian, Imperialist, Social Darwinist and Ultra-nationalism( USSR as a whole), yet it was still being regard as socialist state. The rest of it just change Hitler into Stalin, you will get your enlightenment you need.
    2
  720. ​ @shte_ken3978  1. Preventing their workers from seeking different jobs is the first step of centralisation, USSR did that, PRC did that to ensure the accuracy of central planning. 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.) 2. and 5. Again that definition did not included Facist Italy, as there is no social Darwinism base on race or class in fascism ideology. (Hawkins, M. (1997). Nazism, Fascism and Social Darwinism. In Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (pp. 286, 289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558481.012) Those historians were trying to include Nazism into fascism, but by doing so, they alienated Facist Italy and Fanco Spain. 3. and 4. Private ownership was a sacm in Nazi Germany. As your quote "The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government" If they don't comply to government or supported the economic goals of the government, they will be expropriated (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.) or send to concentration camp(Jeffreys, “Hell’s Cartel,” Kindle Chapter 6.), that surly a good indication that people have the right of private ownership. Beside, who own the mean of production if the amount of getting raw material, quota of production, price of selling and the right of employment were all in the hand of the state? 5. It is quite easy for me to find a quote from Karl Marx that dehumanised the bourgeoisie. If you can find anything social Darwinist within fascism ideology. Using the same standard you used, I can guarantee that you can find social Darwinist content within Marxism.
    2
  721. ​ @shte_ken3978  [I also don't want to address other thing than that, if Fascism was totalitarian or advocated for militarism doesn't matter that much to me since it's a completely other debate. I think I showed plenty proof that Nazi Germany did not abolish private properties and did not put the means of production between the hands of the workers. There are also plenty of arguments that show that Hitler was not socialist at all.] TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialism ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organise the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.) No single one Communist State actually put the means of production between the hands of the workers nor ever abolish private properties, Household plot for USSR and PRC and tourist industry(especially the taxi driver) for Cuba. Yet they are still being regard as Socialist State. With this loose standard of Socialist state, even if Nazi Germany did not fully abolish private property, Nazi Germany is still valid to be classified as Socialist State. The boundary of Socialist state is not really about how Nazi Germany Economy policies faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state. PS: this part is so important I want to specifically again separately.
    2
  722.  @shte_ken3978  I missed to reply this one sorry. [that he deeply believed in social darwinism. He does not want equal chances for his fellow aryans and socialise the race. ] He believed in social Darwinism while he believed the Aryans(the greatest race in his opinion) should have equal chance and socialised, there is no contradiction between social Darwinism and egalitarian, if you only egalitate the same race. Those are the things that he said in his books, no one but Hitler himself can disprove his ideology. [he thinks that if you're poor it's your fault and you should just own it. How is that socialism in anyway? ] I already show you that Germany had great social welfare during 1933-1939 to disprove your claim. [ I showed you proof that he did not try to centrally organise the economy] I missed this part, where did you showed you proof that he did not try to centrally organise the economy. Here are some direct reference from the script to show that Hitler tried to centrally organise the economy. I can give you more if you want. "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.)
    2
  723.  @shte_ken3978  You can point out which source he is using is biased if you can. If he is really voluntarily hiding crucial facts and manipulating the truth. Just prove him wrong with your fact and logic. In the premise that you have not yet prove it wrong with objective facts not subjective opinions , you cannot accused TIK narrative is disinformation nor historical inaccurate. Under this premise, with the current traditional narrative, what you see regarding Fascism and Nazism is just pure evil and oppression. The term "Fascist" and Nazi" has no objective meaning anymore. The lie and deception that "Fascist" and "Nazi" used lure people into oppression was never been told, people in the future might just repeat the history under a different name. TIK narrative serve the public interest more than the traditional narrative, that why I think it has the moral high ground compare to the traditional narrative. Beside, what would be the problem of discredit socialism? Isn't every Communist countries discreated socialism not enough. There is also tons of Leftwing Youtuber discreadit Capitalism, is capitalism fallen yet? No. Socialism is not a faith, If every historical fact he used is correct, what TIK criticism does is just improving socialism in future by warning socialists to not repeat those errors in their ideology, and warning people to not to fell for those trap of oppression again.
    2
  724. ​ @shte_ken3978  2. Yeah, Hitler Social Darwined disabled and other races, but not the poor and the workers, against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.). It is a racist Socialism, other races and disabled for Nazism just like bourgeoisie in Marxism, they were not part of the Society, the weak and the bourgeoisie is not the subject in the bottom, but for elimination. 3. Regarding Daf, so as Soviet Russia, being represented is allowed for Socialist State in real live. "The Labour Front had become a gigantic state prison from which workers had no way out." is just a sign of Central planned economy, how capitalistic is that?
    2
  725. ​ @shte_ken3978  1. Logical leap here, Hitler tolarated didn't mean he can't legally strip the private property from anyone. I have shown you two examples again and again the consequences of Hitler intolaratation were property seized, and send to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. The ownership of private property was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” P576.) Germans were allowed to keep their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State’s ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren’t obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources, written in the 1940s by Neumann. “The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen.” “Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.” “How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials.” “You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years.” “We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep...” (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” (no page number on Kindle). “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”.) So, he actually controlled the private properties legally , he was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he known the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit. Beside, with the information you used as counter-argument, how can't you see how centrally organised the Nazi German economy system, and heavily protected the workers were. Workers had fixed wages as per the information you provided, firms cannot fire their workers (also from your source), and Nazi Germany had less than 3% unemployment rate since 1934. So it seems that the only parts being social darwinised were the firms. The firms can't cut cost from the workers by firing them or reducing their salary. Even when the firm went bankrupt , or being forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the state could do whatever nesscary to remove the weak firm, the workers would still have their jobs and wage. 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, 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 Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. ) If the demand and supply were regulated, the employment and wage were also being regulated, the only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. The Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist State economy system. If Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam after 2000 were still considered as Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still being counted as one of them. ______________________________________________________________ 1.5 "In that case, Hitler did not ban private property because he LIKES private property because he believes in social Darwinism, that you seem to not understand the principle.The price control, rant and wage control was here to protect the economy from the war and the great depression." Germany has already started recovering from the depression since 1932. They don't need extra policy to protect the economy. Your narrative just dismissed all the social welfare policies of Nazi as necessary good for their evil. Again, the workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.). Btw, You see the highest welfare of the Germanic people from the quote in "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry"?
    2
  726.  @shte_ken3978  He think the Aryan is the best Race in the world and he want to Socialise it, there is no contradiction between those two concepts. Once the society was purified into mono-race, everyone can be equally socialised. He said he is a socialist. And I also gave you multiple sources to show you that Hitler did provide greater Social Welfare to the German Workers. Even the source you are using said he would only help German Race and want to maximise the welfare to German people. He use social Darwinism to justify the Aryan is the chosen Races in his ideology, just like Karl Marx used the oppression to justify the workers/proletariat is the chosen Class in his ideology.
    2
  727.  @shte_ken3978  Marxism is just Class cleansing instead of Race cleansing. Karl Marx used his math and the claim of “self destruct nature” of Capitalism and bourgeoisie to justify the creation of a mono class state of proletarian. If Marxist can do that and still being classified as Socialist, it is very hard do see why Nazism can’t.
    2
  728. ​ @shte_ken3978  Socialism is not just all about class struggle. Even in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx list out and criticised different kinds of Socialism that without the concept of class struggle. They were Feudal Socialism, Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, German or “True” Socialism, Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism and Utopian Socialism. Socialism can be not about kill and eradicates bourgeois. But Marxism, is surely about that in real life and in the ideology of Leninism. “ War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers and the rowdies! ”(How to Organise Competition?, Vladimir Lenin)
    2
  729.  @shte_ken3978  [No, once society was purified into mono-race, everyone will live under fascist politics that are not socialist, What do you think the world would look like if the nazis achieved their utopia? Certainly not a socialist one.] Maybe a socialist society similar to Soviet Union with mono-class of prolitarian? You are now arguing Hitler ideology against Hitler own two books about his ideology, not a great move. [You are comparing an egalitarian ideology with a racist and eugenic ideology, not the same, not the same at all. I feel like you are trying to make socialism look bad by comparing it to Nazism.] I don't need to, I just need to show you the communist attrocity. You just need to search what happen in China since 1949 to 1976, or Khmer Rouge, or what happened in Soviet Union before Stalin death. You can see how they eradicated the "bourgeois". The most ironic point is fascism is actually the most egalitarian ideology out of Marxism, Nazism and fascism, yet it is the ideology retain the less social ownership of the mean of production out of those three ideology.
    2
  730.  @shte_ken3978  "2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism ... The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. ...." I believe you really need to read the manifesto first to say all those socialism didn't embrace the idea of class struggle. Reactionary Socialism is not Socialism, is just like saying white horse is not a horse. Is Marxist ideology distorted your basic understanding of English ? Reactionary never mean "anti-" or "not" in English. Beside I am not even talking about those Marxist History books.
    2
  731.  @shte_ken3978  Marxist discredit some other socialism didn't mean that kind of socialism didn't exist. If he need to mention that in his manifesto. It already prove the existence of that socialism. And it proof my point, Socialism did not necessarily need class struggle. Class struggle is just the creation of Karl Marx and he did not monopolised the definition of Socialism.
    2
  732.  @shte_ken3978  [ then why are you trying to make socialism work for the Nazis if you have plenty of sources that naively compare "communism" to (it's not actually communism but I'll let it slide).] Because, Socialism is not a faith, If every historical fact he used is correct, what TIK criticism does is just improving socialism in future by warning socialists to not repeat those errors in their ideology, and warning people to not to fell for those trap of oppression again. [Don't push your luck lmao] Prove me wrong then. Why fascism ideology was not the most egalitarian ideology out of those three ideology?
    2
  733.  @shte_ken3978  Have you even read the fascist ideology I previously posted. "Equalised the means of production to the workers with other classes through national syndicate (Trade Union)." is one of the solution. Controlling all the capitalistic competition only between the Bourgeois and forbidden the Bourgeois' right to change workers' salary and employment like the Nazi did is another one.
    2
  734. ​ @shte_ken3978  Fascist (in theory) and Communist (also in theory) were have the same origin, they are both originate from prolitarian. Both Hitler and Mussolini had their communist origin.
    2
  735.  @shte_ken3978  Logical leap here again, the existence of class differences doesn’t mean there must be class conflicts. It seems it is you don’t understand that theory and reality are differences. Fascism, communism, and Nazism in theory are all ideology to impose equally throughout the society by giving different degrees of mean of production to a central control entity under different name , and eliminated certain group of people in society for Nazism and Communism. In reality, the central control entity will always become the oppressor. You praise communism solely through their ideology in theories, and judge Nazism with their practice in reality. The disagreement is not caused by our ideological differences. But the double standard that you never realised you have.
    2
  736.  @shte_ken3978  advocates stateless society through total state control of mean of production, very convincing. If I really completely misunderstood different ideologies, you can just proof me wrong with evidence and logic, but not by what you think is right.
    2
  737.  @shte_ken3978  You are right, a communist society would have no need for the state, but to archive that communist society, you would need an Socialist State with total control of mean of production. Under Marxism, the existence of the state would be wither away or died out in the process of transformation from a total state control Socialist State to a Stateless Communist Society. “The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not ‘abolished.’ It dies out.” (Engels, “Anti-Dühring,” Part 3 Chapter 2, Sonnenschein edition, 1892, p. 76) IMO The total control Socialist State would just become another entity of total control that just equivalent to the total control state. But yes, even in Engels own word, Marxist need a socialist state of total state control to achieve a Stateless Communist Society.
    2
  738.  @hobbso8508  Eliminate private ownership doesn’t mean threatened or eliminated the capitalist class. Even in your fantasy socialism world, you didn’t eliminate them. You just buy out their mean of production with money and leave their personal property alone.
    2
  739.  @hobbso8508  Nazis abolished the ownership of means of production withheld by company shares in 1937, meaning that all the private privatized in the "privatization" policy, selling government assets to private sectors in the mean of stock, since 1933, were renationalized in 1937. Are you just copying and repeating other people's points without even trying to understand the context within the history here? “Nazis turned their attention to corporate law, culminating in the enactment of a new corporate law in 1937, managerial authority was expanded at shareholders’ expense (Levy, 1950: 215). While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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).” They can only be evil by controlling everything and diversifying the mean of production. We have been through this so many times. You are just constantly propagating your imagination of the righteousness of Socialism and Marxism, and the evil of Nazism, without based on any historical facts or the actual writings of Socialist literature with a basic level of English understanding.
    2
  740.  @hobbso8508  regardless the intention you think he had, you still cannot change the fact that he eliminated the mean for individual to obtain private property though company share. Say do you have any sources to support your claim?
    2
  741.  @hobbso8508  They abolish the constitution that given private property right in 1933. 3:00
    2
  742.  @hobbso8508  If they remove the constitution that establish the legal designation of private property right, then the legal designation doesn’t exist anymore. So what you are saying is you claim Citizens in Nazi Germany have private property, because you think or they think they had.
    2
  743.  @hobbso8508  With your logic , I can point out that the people in your Socialist state still have private property , because they factually would be. What you are saying is just baseless claim.
    2
  744.  @hobbso8508  So it would be as the Nazi Germany did, no single private individual would have the ownership and the control of the mean of production
    2
  745.  @hobbso8508  DAF co-control the factory who to hire and fired, and how to used the profit of the firms. Where your absolutely did have control from? Your imagination?
    2
  746. ⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508 Again, where is your source? The profit of the firm would be allocated by DAF to further used on the workers (to further the state goal) (The Vampire Economy) Only in West Germany the Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream) It was not the Nazis who gave the postwar owners private ownership. It was the West German Government.
    2
  747. Even USSR cannot achieve any of the things you mentioned, including the Huge financial capital, which like Nazi Party, the financial capital of USSR was still on the hand of the Communist Party. Yet USSR was still considered as a Socialist state. Under the same standards, It is very likely that Nazi Germany is still valid to be classified as Socialist State. The boundary of Socialist state is not really about how Nazi Germany Economy policies faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state.
    2
  748. Sure the Communist only own just 1-3% of national wealth. I wonder how those oligarch got so wealthy after USSR collapse. The nomenklatura own very little private property, but they own enormous power to use those public property. Similar but more powerful to those so-called property owner of Nazi German. The private property right was abolished in 1933, the party own give those industrialist the right of administration. Who failed to comply the party’s order were stripped from those properties and/or send to concentration camp. Their post war wealth was not guaranteed and enforced by the Nazi Government but the West Germany Government.
    2
  749.  @andreylyubavin1211  Regardless the bank and industry were own by the proletariat, the state, the party or whatever, the party was the one entity that can use and legally forbidden any individual from using those properties without the party permission.
    2
  750.  @andreylyubavin1211  All those people you listed gain their wealth not from the NAZI Government but from the West Germany Government. The people you mentioned also have none of those yacht or Castle you mentioned during the time of Nazi Regime.
    2
  751.  @andreylyubavin1211  You mean the rigged election that banned all opposition party and would be immediately recognised if you if you vote against in the election.
    2
  752.  @andreylyubavin1211  The state and party is so close to their people that millions of people died in purging and artificial famine.
    2
  753.  @andreylyubavin1211  "One little thing - there was no holodomor ahaahahaha, it's a pathetic propagandist concept which was disproved decades ago. There was a famine which was not only in the USSR in that time, but in Poland and Romania too. Ah, yes, those logical connections. Party that consisted of all segments of the population, yea, how separate the party and the people were lol." Right, so are you denying there were Soviet famines in 1921 to 1925 and 1932 to 1933. Nope Poland and Romania didn't have famine in 1932-1933. You may provide evidence to prove me wrong. Yes, similar to Communist Party, Nazi Party also consisted of all segments of the population, despite how totalitarian and undemocratic both party were. If Soviet could achieve dictatorship of the proletariat , Nazi Germany could achieve dictatorship of the "Volk" too.
    2
  754.  @andreylyubavin1211  Please kindly post those news paper here. The closest related thing I can found is from "Bessarabia - Encyclopedia of Ukraine" mentioned "In 1935 the Ukrainians of the Akkerman region suffered famine, which was caused by a drought. The Bessarabian Relief Committee, organized in Bukovyna, manifested the solidarity of all Ukrainians who lived under Romania." USSR were never the argest agricultural or industrial producer in the world. It was either USA or China since 1960
    2
  755.  @andreylyubavin1211  So as the nomenklatura had grown together and became the big bourgeoisie. Beside how can anyone be bourgeoisie if private property was abolished in 1933.
    2
  756.  @andreylyubavin1211  Are there any pictures, records, or any historian quoting those articles. Regardless the lack of sources of those socall newspapers, what was the death toll of the "Polish drought"? Drought didn't necessarily mean bad harvest, bad harvest didn't necessarily caused famine, and even famine didn't necessarily caused millions of deaths , if the state reacted fast enough and did things. Showing the news that there were drought or famine in other countries in the same time, but failed to show how other countries were impacted by the drought or famine, just demonstrated how those millions of death could be avoidable if the Soviet able or chosen to do a better job.
    2
  757. Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of 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). Claiming a state practising State Capitalism, doesn’t mean that state was not practising Socialism, as they were not mutually exclusive.
    2
  758.  @Supernautiloid  How about the Spartacist uprising against the Social democratic, dis it make the Social democratic rightist or the German Communist the rightist ?
    2
  759. "THIS IS ONLY A WAY NOT A PURPOSE - but is the equality of all peoples who can t be separated by race, class, gender, etc." Not all the people, just the equality of Proletarian, as they erase all other classes already. Nazism need to achieve their Volksgemeinschaft ethico-nation of equality, by just erasing Jews and their plots and taking the Lebensraum to solve the Shrinking Markets problem of the Volksgemeinschaft. Both ideologies have some leap of conclusion, but in the end, they still claimed their final goal is to achieve utopia by removing the different entity. Just a TL;DR version, it is quite impossible to summarise all the detail of an ideology in one sentence. "Lenin invented the USSR system in which emphasyze 'the equality between nationalities" exactly for eliminate the feeling that some certain ethnics could opress others." How about the oppression of ex-Bourgeois by the Proletarian. He focused on emphasised the inferior of the Bourgeois class. "HE KNEW THAT THE IDEA OF A SUPERIOR "SOMETHING, ANYTHING" is the basic enemy of any socialist theory and he try to cover it. For Hiter the superiority IS THE MAIN REASON!! " The SUPERIOR of Proletarian ??? "More than that, Marx didn t invent the social centralized economy, he just suggested it in terms of philosophical solution against exploitation" Have you ever read Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx's Revolution measures were applicative instructions: " 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. " "You simply cannot equalize all socialism with Lenin just because Hitler's actions look somehow similar!!" Nazism is Socialism, doesn't mean All Socialism is Nazism, just like claiming Nazism is Capitalism, doesn’t make all Capitalism into Nazism.
    2
  760.  @TudorCrossroads  The theory of Socialism is achieving equality through centralised mean of production. If it is just achieving equality. You can also count anarchist capitalism, achieving equality through decentralised mean of production, into Socialism. And you cannot just dismiss the instructions he put into the manifesto, just because it is a leaflet. Leaders acted according to those instructions, people died because of those actions. You cannot just shift all the blame to those leaders, when all those leaders were believers of your ideology, and draw their face next to yours.
    2
  761. Congratulations you refuted Marxism from the definition of Socialism. As the idea of ,the state is society, is not from Lenin nor Hitler but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    2
  762. Marx criticised Proudhon as Bourgeois Socialist in the Manifesto and Bakunin criticised Marx as “pretend that only dictatorship – of course their own – can create freedom for the people. To this we reply that no dictatorship can have any other goal but to endure as long as possible.” In Statism and Anarchy. None of that can refute the fact that the ideology of all three people was advocated for the Social (State for Karl Marx) ownership of means of production. You can only dismiss someone from being a socialist by showing that their ideology is not advocated for the Social ownership of means of production. Not by which and how many Socialist(s) they criticised or purged.
    2
  763. Can you provide any source indicating that? Their spending surely increase during the war year.
    2
  764. Force Labor did also exist in Communists States. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. Ideologically, Lenin said “Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919) In real life, use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) Regarding the function of DAF: Historical fact indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. The "capitalists" 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)
    2
  765.  @Rundstedt1  No rational man would deny that Nazi System was bad. They killed millions of people to implement their ideology. If, as you said, the ideology difference is not a critical component to differentiating Ideology Governing System. Then what common critical component makes Nazism Fascist, their atrocity? Fascist Italy didn't erase groups of people with certain social status (not limited Jews or bourgeoisie) purely because of the implementation of their ideology. The only other Ideology Governing System that did exactly the same thing was the Communist System; billions of people lost their lives also because of the implementation of their ideology. So why wasn't Nazism Communism? If you are not referring to the atrocities. I cannot see what critical components solely between Fascist and Nazi Governing System (not including Communism) are, that Fascists need a scapegoat for. As "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated, Fascists don’t need to be racist, and their core ideology is just a version of class Socialism.
    2
  766.  @nicknolte8671 I still don't know why are you so obsessed with the point Nazi got funded by capitalist. Besides trying to debunk TIK’s claim, which you can’t as Hitler was the chancellor and his cabinet was formed in 30/1/1933, and since 11/1932 Nazi Party was still the largest party in Reichstag. The definition of Socialism was not being hostile to the conservative elements, is social ownership of means of production. Why would accepting funding from conservative elements would refute anyone from being socialist? Under your standard, you are also going to refute Lenin from being a Socialist. Lenin was also supported by the Imperial German monarchy and capitalists like Armand Hammer and Alexander Parvus.
    2
  767. Even after ditching Otto Strasser, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production. The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates 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 of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10) Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
    2
  768. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671 That is not “Cultural Marxism” at all. Do you even know what is the conspiracy of “Cultural Marxism” ? The perpetrator of “Cultural Marxism” is the Frankfurt School and their aims was to destroy the western transitional values, and the identity of white race and so on and so on. What you are quoting here are far from “Cultural Marxism”.
    2
  769.  @nicknolte8671  [Wow, this is the biggest self-own ever. You LITERALLY just parroted the neo-Nazi conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism. I screenshotted this by the way. LMFAO Cultural Marxism is a critique of capitalism by the Frankfurt School. Claiming the Frankfurt School aims to destroy Western "transitional" values, and the identity of white race and so on and so on is LITERALLY AN ANTISEMTIC NEO-NAZI CONSPIRACY THEORY. "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values."] That was the neo-Nazi conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism. Are you suggesting that I would be a neo-Nazi just by repeating its narrative? What a classic attempt to poison the well. Can you answer how TIK's statement fits the description that "posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values."
    2
  770.  @Schnoz42069  Nazi did nationalised all the control of means of production of all public companies 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.
    2
  771. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @Schnoz42069  Socializing doesn't means to engage in social collectivism nor collective owner even under Marxist Theory. As under Marxist theory, socialization of private property is exactly the cause of exploitation. According to [1], joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of 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 socialized, 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
  772.  @riverbankfrank4896  That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The goal of Marxist class socialism didn’t monopolise every goal of every ideology inside the socialist spectrum.
    2
  773.  @hobbso8508  Btw, if nazism is not capitalism, why do you need to explain that "the reason socialism is opposed to capitalism is because both are economic systems."? Furthermore, ""Even under Marxism, no the public cannot decide how the money is spent, only the proletariat can." Which is the public." How could socialist erase all preexisting classes other than proletariat democratically. Or under your socialism, other pre-existing classes were not considered part of the "Society" and can be treated as resources for expropriate like Nazi did to Jews?
    2
  774.  @hobbso8508  "This is utterly nonsensical as it ignores what socialism actually is. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. There is no economic system that hates Jews. Hating Jews is entirely independent to an economic system." Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? "By voting to ban private ownership of business, requiring either cooperative ownership, or public ownership. By definition, all people would then be part of the proletariat. All people would be workers" "This is why your comparison falls flat. Proletariat and bourgeoisie are just economic positions. You are either a worker, or you are an owner. " Can you see your contradiction in your 2 statement. If all people would be worker, there is no owner. If there is no owner, what need to be struggle for? "There is nothing stopping someone from being one then the other, and back to the one as well. Being Jewish however is not a movable goal." The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. What is being socialised and what is the socialised entity's enemy is not restricted by this definition. Furthermore race is not an objective fact, Jews can theoretically just move/merge with other races as bourgeoisie can theoretically become proletarian by willingly give up their private ownership. At the same time how and why would the owner remove their ownership willingly and democratically. This is what Karl Marx claim to be Utopia Socialist "fanatical and a superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science."
    2
  775.  @hobbso8508  You are just saying the the Utopia Socialism that Karl Marx said. First you believe Property owners would democratically give up theirs ownership. And then you believe they are willing to give up their ideology of private ownership. What your are saying is just a social reset, the bourgeoisie will just rise from the reset society.
    2
  776.  @hobbso8508  should give up, isn’t it another term of Voluntarily give up? And what if they vote no, vote again?
    2
  777.  @hobbso8508  No, it would start a violent revolution. ""If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. " And then how would you solve the problem of previous owner still believeing in the ideology of private ownership. Without fixing that it would just a social reset, the bourgeoisie will just rise from the reset society.
    2
  778.  @hobbso8508  The quote clearly stated that “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class.” It is “by the force of circumstances”, not “not allowing a democratic vote”. Losing the worker votes to another bourgeoisie socialist party as (Lenin did in 1918 elections) is totally within the category of “by the force of circumstances”. Furthermore, if democracy will not be guaranteed in a nation that not allow a democratic vote. Then Marxism would permit a violent revolution, therefore it will still exclude from your definition of Socialism.
    2
  779.  @hobbso8508  "Not being allowed to vote is the circumstance." Is there no other circumstance, Who and why can you monopolise the interpretation of Marxism. "After the socialist parties won in Russia in 1917 they outlawed other political parties. This is exact opposite of what Marx and Engels wrote about, and bans the idea of social ownership. It is not even remotely socialist." Where Marx and Engels wrote that Marxism require other political parties, and how they bans the idea of social ownership? Can you provide more detail and reference. "In non-democratic nations group action is the only way to force democracy. First the monarchs are overthrown, then democracy is installed, then that democracy votes on a constitution. You violently overthrow the non-democratic leaders to install democracy and subsequently vote for the way your nation is run." No it is not, it said the state will become classlesss after the violent revolution transformation. What you are typing here is just your fanfiction. Here is the quote, which part it said democracy? "If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. " ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
    2
  780.  @nathandts3401  Nationalism existed since the founding of the Second Reich, and can even go earlier. Say using your current definition of fascism, why not all Communist states were also Fascist? They were also militaristic, had a supreme leader, and endorsed nationalism.
    2
  781. If Stalin is red fascist, Hitler is just black fascist. The “real” NS theory can be just as ideal as “real” Marxism, and still apart of Socialism.
    2
  782. The Jews were not in the society of National Socialism, they were exploited and oppressed just as the bourgeoisie in Communist Socialism. As per the information from the video, German National Socialisation started at 1933, 6 years before the war. Private Property right was abolished in 1933. 3:00 All the war profiteers you are mentioning was just the administrator of those war industries. Failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 The private ownership of those firms of those war profiteers were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime.
    2
  783.  @arnodobler1096  You are right, so which part of the statement is against Socialism?
    2
  784.  @arnodobler1096  Those “party bosses” you are saying were party members, they were part of the state in an one party authoritarian regime. They were in the state sector instead of the private sector. Those private properties you are saying were not private owned. No one have the right to own it, the state can take it back without any legal reason. The mean of production controlled by the “war profiteer” was actually owned by the state. The state just let them controlled it as long as it fits the state interest.
    2
  785.  @arnodobler1096  Were the Rieker forced to use the prisoners in state run concentration camp to test their shoes if not they would be expropriated like Junker were from his company, or it is their own business decision? And Schindler was a Nazi member, and half of the film was he bribe the SS to give him permission to open factory in concentration camp to save the Jews. Bribe not buy, the factor he ran was state own.
    2
  786. ​ @hobbso8508  I don't know but Karl Marx equated socialism with state control, maybe Marxism is not Socialism under your definition? "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
    2
  787.  @hobbso8508  Again Marxist permit violent revolution and force though those revolution measures not only when democracy is not allowed, it is "by the force of circumstances” So if democracy is not allow or failed to do a democratic proletarian revolution democratically, even they can't get collective consensus, Marxist can and will do a violent social revolution to force through those revolutionary measures. The permission to implement those revolutionary measure through violent revolution itself already excluding Marxism from your definition of Socialism which the transformation can only be done though the check and balances of Western Democracy.
    2
  788.  @hobbso8508  "Again, you are confused. Democratically elected means they can be replaces, their movement and positions can shift. It also means that the regular people can be elected, can be part of the move government. What you are describing is not consistent with democracy. It should also be noted that while social control can be achieved through a democratic government, this is not a requirement." Any Source regarding this definition?
    2
  789.  @hobbso8508  No you didn’t send me anything
    2
  790.  @coffeyvov2020  TIK deliberately said Socialism is Social ownership of means of production not "Socialism is when the government dors stuff". 25:42 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. “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) 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)
    2
  791.  @coffeyvov2020 ​⁠​⁠Actually Communist didn’t just eliminate ex-Capitalist. They also eliminate different groups of people range from property owners, ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), other socialist (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).
    2
  792. ⁠​⁠ @coffeyvov2020  I remember I quoted everything about the prohibition of strike and collective bargaining. What [socialist standard] are you referring to? The whole great purge was [not done with violence]. Right. From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD. It is estimated that this would make up 34% of the total victims of the Great Purge.[3] * Polish Operation of the NKVD ~111,091 killed[4] * NKVD Order No. 00485 * German Operation of the NKVD ~41,898 killed[5] * Greek Operation of the NKVD ~20,000[6]—50,000[7] * Latvian Operation of the NKVD 16,573 killed[8] * Korean Operation of the NKVD ~40,000 killed[9] * Chinese Operation of the NKVD * Estonian Operation of the NKVD 4,672 killed[10] * Finnish Operation of the NKVD 8,000–25,000 killed or disappeared[11]
    2
  793.  @coffeyvov2020  Can you provide any sources to support your claim there is collective bargaining in Cuba. Which the case was not applied to Maxi Germany, as the workers wage was fixed by the state.
    2
  794.  @coffeyvov2020  Fixed and minimum are two different concept. Besides, National socialism did appropriate means of production to the workers. Here are the relevant quote from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) Also inequality is irrelevant to how socialistic a state is as long as they are not exploited by the “capitalists.” USSR would be a great example, proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. Finally can you provide any sources to support your claim there is collective bargaining in Cuba?
    2
  795. Maybe it is because you never read Karl Marx. Under the broadest definition of Socialism within Marxism. Karl Marx even 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
  796.  @tg4678  The main point is here “The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom.” Regardless the state in “the state of society” doesn't mean nation or country, it doesn't change the meaning the passage convey. Besides, Karl Marx did mention what social policy should be, how much authority the state should have and what democracy means to his proletarians' revolution in the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith and the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Just because you don't read Karl Marx's literature, it doesn't mean he never mentioned it.
    2
  797. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @tg4678 If there is no consensus in the practices and definition of Socialism, how can you refute National Soocialism from socialism by defining Socislism as worker cooperative with voting? Besides, here is the where Karl Marx talk about how the state should work after the proletarian revolution. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
    2
  798.  @tg4678  Then your so called “consensus” refute Marxism from Socialism. As national control of the means of production is what socialism is according to Karl Marx . 

"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith') "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
    2
  799. 1. All the historical facts TIK used here was from mainstream historical research. Not any Neo-Nazi propaganda. 2. Many communist states also suppressed other leftists once they took power. Mao, Stalin, and Lenin all did it. Killing leftists does not indicate whether an ideology is leftist or not. 3. What Socialist ideology are you referring to? Just those developed from Marxist Class socialism? Even in the Original post-revolution State under Marxism, the mean of production were owned by the nation and regulated by the communist (socialized men), not any commune or any small size of society by every worker.[1] [2] 4. Where do you learn your Marxism? A Socialist State was always about state ownership, not workers or people. [3] 5. Historical context? All the atrocities done by Cambodia, USSR, and PRC during the Uncompromised Communism era were already enough to link Socialism with living hell. As long as Marxism and its genocidal variants are still considered part of Socialism, no matter how the theory of Socialism advance, Nazism will still meet the lowest requirements of Socialism set by Marxism. [1] "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith', Marx) [2] “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) [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.” (‘Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring’, Engels)
    2
  800.  @Azazin187  Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he couldn't legally strip private property from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) Germans were allowed to keep control of their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State's ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren't obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources written in the 1940s by Neumann. "The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..." (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," (no page number on Kindle). "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".) So, he controlled the private properties legally. He was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit. Workers had fixed wages, firms could not fire their workers (17:15, 17:31), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934.  So the only parts in society with competition were between the firms. 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 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 Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. ) 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 Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist States' economy 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.
    2
  801. ​ @Azazin187  The Spectrum of Socialism is beyond the Marxist Class Socialism and its variant. Both Bismarck's Bourgeois Socialism and Owen's Utopian Socialism didn't have the ideology of class solidarity, yet still classified as Socialism by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. If your counter-argument has already been explained in the TIK's script, why do I need to use any quote other than his? The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. 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. Other than replacing class solidarity with race solidarity, Nazism did embrace equality, overcoming classes, and egalitarian principles. Ideologically "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi' Twenty-Five Points', declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community." In practice, workers had fixed wages, firms could not fire their workers (17:15, 17:31), and Nazi Germany had reduced the unemployment rate to less than a 3% since 1934. The decreased workers living quality was due to the interest of the whole society (the German Reich), not the interest of any capitalist. Regardless of how free Buchheims claimed entrepreneurs in Nazi Germany had, he was still describing Nazi Germany's Economic System as state-regulated. It also didn't challenge the narrative that the demand and supply within Nazi Germany were regulated; the employment and wage were also regulated. The only competition within the economic system was between firms, which Party members dominated. Despite less restricted than the Soviet System, it was still an attempt to organize the economy centrally. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a fully Socialist State. (36:18) He only claimed that Nazism is a socialist (under the definition of Das Kapital and other sources) ideology, with the proof of that failed attempt to centrally organize the economy 26:29. (As Hitler's action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race 32:44 instead of maximizing profit, it is not State Capitalism.) However, the Nazi economic system was nearly identical to the 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 Socialist State.
    2
  802.  @Azazin187 Again I am not the one who made that big range. That is a direct quote from Karl Marx in Communists Manifesto. If you have any problem with Karl Marx words, just criticised the source —— Karl Marx, not criticising me confused Social Program with Socialism. Btw why are you also suggesting the Social Program of SPD which was heavily criticised by Rosa Luxemburg and KPD for subsidising the Proletarian revolution with bourgeois institutions? On one hand, you disagree bourgeois socialism under Karl Marx definition is one of the Socialist ideologies. On the other, you think a bourgeois socialism regime was practicing socialism?
    2
  803.  @Azazin187  ["There occurred hardly any nationalizations of private firms during the Third Reich." (391 ff.)] The properties of Professor Junker 4:20 and Fritz Thyssen 20:55 were seized by the State. The Reichsbahn - the German railways - was officially nationalized in 1937. 12:51 All the state property that was previously privatized through selling stock was renationalized in 1937 by the 1937 corporate law, which 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) ______ ["who considered the regime as an instrument of big business by which the latter emerged from the Great Depression even more powerful than before. "Big Business" is indeed the right term with regard to the second hypothesis because it did not deal with industry in general but focused on "organized capitalism," namely industrial organizations, cartels, and trusts such as the companies of heavy industry or IG Farben." Almost all the executive of those big businesses were replaced or became Nazi members. "Similarly, Arthur Schweitzer detected a coalition of the party, the generals, and big business, which originally was quite successful in achieving its mutual aims-above all rearmament and the suppression of trade unions."] Nearly all those business owners joined the Nazi Party, and Arthur Schweitzer overlooked the function of DAF; the author didn't counter the historical evidence that indicated "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi' Twenty-Five Points', declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community."; and why workers had fixed wages, firms could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31). In the meantime, Nazi Germany had reduced the unemployment rate to less than a 3% since 1934 with the function of DAF. ___________________________ ["Firms preserved a good deal of their autonomy even under the Nazi regime. As a rule, freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "Private ownership of firms still had economic significance because entrepreneurs preserved a good deal of their autonomy with regard to the profile of their production." "Private property rights and entrepreneurial autonomy were not abolished during the Third Reich."] Those claims were just blatantly false; 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. Beside, 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) _____________________________________ ["Investment decisions in industry were influenced by state regulation, but the initiative generally remained with the enterprises. There was no central planning of the level or the composition of investment, neither under the Four-Year Plan nor during the war. Even with respect to its own war and autarky-related investment projects, the State normally did not use power in order to secure the unconditional support of industry. Rather, freedom of contract was respected." "A corollary of the still great autonomy of industry with regard to its production plans and another difference to a centrally planned economy was that enterprises normally continued to select their customers themselves. An obligation to serve a specific demand hardly existed for the majority of firms. That also applied to orders from state agencies. Firms could, in principle, refuse to accept them." "Of course, small and medium-sized enterprises were exactly those that, during the war, came under mounting pressure to close down and release their labor and other resources for more efficient use in larger firms heavily engaged in armaments production. The most severe threat in this respect stemmed from a decree of January 1943. However, the resistance to such actions was great, and consequently, closures proceeded more slowly than planned. The decree itself clearly was an emergency measure of total warfare and, therefore cannot be taken as evidence for an inclination of the regime towards socialism and central planning. In fact, the reopening of firms closed after the war was guaranteed."] Yet, 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. Buchheims described here that was the Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly. According to Das Kapital V3, what the Nazis did was the socialist way to run a society. "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.) _________________________________________________ ["The foregoing analysis again proves that in the Nazi period, enterprises continued to shape their actions according to their expectations and that the state authorities not only tolerated this behavior but bowed to it by adapting their contract offers to the wishes of industry. That is also confirmed by Tooze, who argues that there was no "Stalinist option" available to the Nazi regime and consequently, "a mixture of incentives provided by the state with private economic motives" was decisive for the development of certain sectors of production."] Socialism is not necessarily mean Stalinist, Communist States since 1970 also started adopting loosened control (capitalist characteristic, allowing competition), which is similar to the Nazi system, overproduction units to increase their initiative. 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 Socialist State.
    2
  804.  @Azazin187  You don’t need to be a socialist to create/operate a bourgeoisie socialist system. Bismarck can also believed that what he was doing was enough to achieve some sort of socialism, so that communist revolution can be prevented. That was the whole point of Marx criticism against Bourgeoisie socialism. “ 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; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.” Beside it is not my view, it is Karl Marx definition. Keynes could be described as a socialist in your own interpretation in Marx’s word.
    2
  805.  @Azazin187  Before you make this ridiculous claim that to be an adherent of a system of beliefs or principles, someone need to identified by others adherent, do I need to point you out that a Socialist System and a Socialist (person) are two different concepts? Stalin, Mao, Lenin and even Friedrich Ebert also suppressed other socialists in their country. Suppressing or killing other socialists didn't indicated was someone conservative or not.
    2
  806. ⁠ @Azazin187 Again I am not the one who make that claim, that is a direct reference from Communism Manifesto. If you think it is wrong you can criticise the quote directly, instead of shifting your criticism towards Karl Marx to me.
    2
  807.  @Azazin187  Because you read the Manifesto not hard enough, the first sector of that Subchapter was called Feudal Socialism----- socialisms created by aristocracy, or the church. Conservative socicalisms were recognised by Karl Marx in the Manifesto.
    2
  808.  @Azazin187 Those were just examples Karl Marx used to illustrate and criticize those Socialisms. It didn't mean that those examples were the only form of those Reactionary and Conservative/Bourgeois Socialisms at that time or in the future. Karl Marx recognized that Socialism could be created by the aristocracy or church, which would, in practice, "join in all coercive measures against the working class." He also recognized Socialism can be used to "depreciate every revolutionary movement." Karl Marx criticized those Socialisms like you criticized Bismarck's State Socialism. However, while Karl Marx was still referring those "Socialism" as Socialism, despite those demerits, you dismissed "Bismarck's State Socialism" as Socialism because of those demerits.
    2
  809. ​ @Azazin187  Then point out my selective, out of context, quotes. I would like to see how can you interpret the meaning of "We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form." from "Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère" is an example of Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism into the only specific one case of Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism? Also how can you inturpret "As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism." into Clerical Socialism is the only specific one case that Feudal Socialism can be applied to?
    2
  810. I never know that Academic would bend the meaning of Someone’s Something from only that particular thing to that particular thing and it’s possessor. I never claimed Bismarck (the person) is a Socialist, I am saying his State Socialism objectively fell within the definition of Bourgeoisie Socialism (a kind of Socialism) under the description of Bourgeoisie Socialism in Communist Manifesto. If my statement is false, just point out the part I was wrong according to the Manifesto. If my statement is right, then your criticism should against the Manifesto not the one who pointed out the discrepancy between your and Karl Marx’s definition of socialism.
    2
  811.  @Azazin187  I don’t know, are those social policy aimed to substitute communist revolution, are those social policy aimed to preserve the interests of the aristocracy from the social progress? If no, then their social policies didn’t fit into the description of feudal socialism and bourgeoisie socialism in the manifesto. They could be fell into the definition of socialism from other Marxist Literature but not in that two sections of the manifasto. For Friedman and Hayek themselves, the first question would be have they ever self-proclaimed themselves as socialists. If they didn’t, then no, they are mostly likely not Socialists. If yes, please provide the context, and we may discuss it.
    2
  812. I meant I don't know which Friedman and Haye "social policies" you are referring to and their context of advocating those "social policies". ______________ Do you have any idea what "the first question would be" and "If yes, please provide the context, and we may discuss it." actually mean? It meant if they self-proclaimed as socialists, please further provide the context (when, where, and why) of their proclamation so that we can further discusswe're they socialists or not. __________ I never said Keynes fits the definition of a socialist. I said, "Besides, it is not my view. It is Karl Marx's definition. Keynes could be described as a socialist in your own interpretation of Marx's words." Can you see "your own interpretation" there? _________ Those are just basic reading comprehension. How can you be an Economist/Political scientist if you cannot even understand those simple sentences?
    2
  813.  @Azazin187 The Marx’s description to those reactionary socialism was a general criticism that not limited to that specific period. It seems that you don’t understand in Karl Marx point of view, his proletariat revolution was the only correct direction of human progress, all those reactionary socialisms he was referring to were nothing more than the capitalists’ or feudalists’ reactionary forces against the proletariat. That would be the reason why you used those examples of reactionary socialisms to proudly legitimise the socialistic nature of modern socialisms. Again, those example were just ones examples but not the specific cases of those reactionary socialism. How can you interpret the meaning of "We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form." from "Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère" is an example of Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism into the only specific one case of Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism? Also how can you inturpret "As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism." into Clerical Socialism is the only specific one case that Feudal Socialism can be applied to? Don’t blame the contradiction between your own beliefs and Marx’s literature. It was Karl Marx not me who described those other socialisms as just the capitalists’ or feudalists’ reactionary forces against the proletarian revolution.
    2
  814. 1. Where is the Hitler's quote come from? 2. The book was published in 1938 by a French, most of the "Big Business scandal" of Nazi Germany was not yet exposed. 3. After a quick skimmed, most of the criticisms were just how bad Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy planned economy (Left wing) was from a libertarian (Right wing) standpoint. Maybe I was wrong. Please kindly correct me with the quotes from the book if there are any. 4. As communist IRL also suppressed the rights of both the property owners and the workers, just saying the workers' rights were being opposed cannot indicate whether a country is socialist or capitalist, or else USSR can also be defined as capitalist under this definition.
    2
  815. ​ @AutonomousVoice  1. Nazism is not Fascism "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    2
  816. ​ @AutonomousVoice  2.1 Fascism did not want to reverse the effects of the French Revolution and wipe it from history. It is an(theoretically) egalitarian ideology evolved from Marxist Class Socialism. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" also illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) 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)
    2
  817.  @AutonomousVoice  2.2 The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    2
  818.  @AutonomousVoice  3. Karl Marx never defined Communism or Socialism as worker ownership of the mean of production. His definition is in 26:07 of the video or “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) If you want to read.
    2
  819. 4. Archiving Classless, Stateless Communist State with total state control was exactly what Karl Marx instructed in the manifesto. The communist with class consciousness leading the revolution was also Karl Marx's instruction. Again, USSR faithfully followed the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifesto (State Totalitarian didn't lead to a stateless utopia, who could see that coming.) Under Marxism's definition, the Socialist state is an intermediary phase between the capitalist state and the communist state. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
    2
  820. ​ @AutonomousVoice  I summarised the "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" in this discussion with reference and page number. Every claim I made had reference, how did it prove here that I "haven't got a clue about fascism etc"?
    2
  821. 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."
    2
  822. TL;DR version: According to Marx and Engels, both the USA and the Revolutionary Catalonia are reactionary Socialist States. That is how classic Marxism defined Socialism. In "The Principles of Communism," Engels used "The so-called socialists" to refer to all the non-communist socialists when being asked, "How do communists differ from socialists?" Which included Reactionary Socialists(Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism), Bourgeois Socialists (including Proudhon's Syndicalism and Anarchism, being used as an example of Bourgeois Socialism in the Manifesto (2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party) ), and Democratic Socialists. The only good Socialism is just Marxist.
    2
  823. However, If we are using the historical definition of Socialist States, which is mostly anchored to Communists Dictatorship regimes. The Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, have less state control over firms than Nazi German. 
If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered to be Socialist States, under the same standard Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State.
    2
  824. Nazism can meet the definition of Socialism because: 1. all the atrocities they committed ( including purging communists and genocide) , that should refuted them from being socialists were also committed by other Marxist Leninist Socialists States. As long as they were still being classified as Socialist State and their ideology as Socialism, the same standard should too apply to Nazi German and Nazism. 2. 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
  825. Nazism can meet the definition of Socialism because: 1. all the atrocities they committed ( including purging communists and genocide) , that should refuted them from being socialists were also committed by other Marxist Leninist Socialists States. As long as they were still being classified as Socialist State and their ideology as Socialism, the same standard should too apply to Nazi German and Nazism. 2. 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
  826. ⁠​⁠ @ajax2181 Regardless Corporatism or not, it is not a criteria to refute any regime from being socialist. 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. Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of 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). Soviet Union before 1922 and after 1980, Vietnam after 1988, PRC before 1956 and after 1980 and Cube after 2000 had all allowed the existence of private firms to run within their state regulated markets, the Corporatism system. If Corporatism can refute Nazi Germany from being a Socialist State, by the same logic it would also refute all those Communist States in those era from being Socialist States.
    2
  827.  @ajax2181  [Corporatism and socialism are two separate systems that ideologically oppose each other] I recognised the existence of Social corporatism, saying that [Corporatism and socialism are two separate systems that ideologically oppose each other] seems contradicted with the general definition of Corporatism. beside, you should read the late economic reform history of communist state from 1980. Let debunk what you have said in your previous comment. [In socialist regimes like the USSR, Cuba, Mao’s China and Vitetnam, they were relatively progressive when it came to social issues like abortion.] In 1933, during the Stalin era, views changed. In the Congress of Kiev in 1932, abortion was criticized for decreasing the country's birth rate. Abortion was finally banned in 1933. The number of officially recorded abortions dropped sharply from 1.9 million in 1935 to 570,000 in 1937, but began to climb just two years later, reaching 755,000 in 1939. (wiki) [The whole purpose of socialism is social liberation and the elevation of the lower classes.] So do Nazism: Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf.
    2
  828. Isn’t all Communist States Socialised in a similar way to North Korea? If USSR and North Korea can be classified as Socialist States, seems reasonable to also classified Nazi Germany into Socialist State.
    2
  829. Nazi Germany was even more qualify to be a socialist state IRL, when the lowest boundary of socialist state was set by Soviet Unions.
    2
  830.  @hobbso8508  1,2 We have been through these 3 times already. 3. Here is the quote if the time stamped video is too much for your attention "Hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and their customers are forced to violate the law daily, and a whole army of policemen has been mobilized to catch these lawbreakers. Die Deutsche Polizei, the organ of the S.S., issued the following appeal which graphically shows the relations between the State and shopkeepers in Germany today: "Businessmen who are ignorant [ of the new legislation ] must be reminded of the price restrictions; they must know the prescribed prices .... Police, making their regular visits, are informed by the retailers that they were just about to put price tags on or that the goods had just arrived. As a matter of principle, this kind of excuse cannot be condoned any longer. Fixed maximum prices are ignored; shrewd businessmen mark the prescribed maximum price on one side of the price tag, and a higher price on the other side. Even when official prices are quoted, forbidden price increases must be looked for. ... Special attention must be paid to the firm's books." (The Vampire Economy.pdf, p.101)
    2
  831.  @hobbso8508  Social Welfare and Big Government are economical left wing. Oops, sorry I copied the wrong response. It should be As 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states
    2
  832.  @hobbso8508  “"left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can [mean the state ] but also a network of communes” Big Government is economically left. As long as they need to follow the orders from the higher up they are the extension of the state.
    2
  833.  @hobbso8508  [ ] is an highlight not implying . Have you read anything before reply?
    2
  834.  @hobbso8508  “collective agency which can be the state but also a network of communes” mean communes are big government? Seems your belief in Socialism blind your understanding in English.
    2
  835.  @hobbso8508  state and network of communes are both collective agency.🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Where did you learn your English
    2
  836.  @hobbso8508  You never heard the term of big government and small market? Your English level is uncommunicable
    2
  837. ​ @hobbso8508  both state and commune can be Society we have been though that before.
    2
  838.  @hobbso8508  Socialism can just more than Market Socialism.
    2
  839. Congratulations you refuted Marxism from the definition of Socialism. As the idea that socialism can be achieved through state, instead of each individual, control was proposed by no one but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    2
  840.  @Jenseduca  This is the only "idealism" referred to in his recent video on Hegelian. "Fascism had three components - Nationalism, syndicalism, and a philosophy he called “Actualism”, but which is now known as “Actual Idealism”. Here is the Wikipedia page on Actual Idealism. Let me just read the first sentence. “Actual idealism was a form of idealism, developed by Giovanni Gentile, that grew into a "grounded" idealism, contrasting the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant, and the absolute idealism of… Hegel.” Okay, sounds like gibberish, right?" 2:17 ("Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism" - TIKhistory) Are you suggesting that Marxism originated from Giovanni Gentile's ideology? Otherwise, your statement didn't make sense at all, as TIK never claimed there was any relationship between "Marxism" and "Hegelian idealism."
    2
  841.  @Jenseduca  It missed the “Hegels idealism” that you claim [T.H clamed that Marx based his philosophy on…]
    2
  842.  @Jenseduca  [Does it matter? What would change if I say yes or no? You have "Marxism", you have "based on" and you have "Hegel" in the same sentence so how can you read it any other way? Now I'm kind of curious how do you do that? It's literally in front of you in plane text)) I really do hope that the source of your confusion is the lack of knowledge and understanding what idealism stands for in philosophy rather that inability of rational thinking))] Again the video title "Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism" missed the “Hegels idealism” that you claim [T.H clamed that Marx based his philosophy on…] You just put words in TIK's mouth and argued against those words.
    2
  843.  @Jenseduca  Again where is the Hegel idealism you are referring to. Where is the part TIK [clamed that Marx based his philosophy on the Hegelian idealism]? TIK mentioned the “dialectic from Hegel” from the following quote: "And I know Marxists will screech and say that Marx said this isn’t what he did; he claimed he demystified the dialectic from Hegel. But it doesn’t matter what Marx said; it matters what he did. He didn’t kick out the priest; all he did was draw the curtain so you can’t see the priest behind it. And it’s literally in the name: “Dialectical Materialism”. Dialectic - Mind. And Materialism = Reality. Mind Reality. Reality of the Mind. It’s literally in the name." 19:06 ("The cult many are in but don’t realize" - TIKhistory) ;and the Hegelian style ideobabble(verbose) from the video title of "Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism"
    2
  844.  @Jenseduca  Both “dialectic from Hegel”and [Hegelian idealism] can be classified as "Hegel's ideological nonsense". They are still difference concept even if they are in the same catalogory. Again, would you kindly point out where is the part that TIK [clamed that Marx based his philosophy on the Hegelian idealism]?
    2
  845.  @Jenseduca  You said TIK deleted your comments under the Hegelian video. Now you said he [answered to you when you pointed out that materialism as a philosophical teaching is THE OPPOSITE of idealism]? It seems your story doesn't hang together. You either made up his reply, or you lied about TIK and deleted your comment under the Hegelian video.
    2
  846.  @Jenseduca  I can point you to your only non-deleted comment under the comment section of the video "Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism" and TIK didn't reply to it. It seems you really putting words in TIK's mouth. [@vitalij8415 3 weeks ago Mate, you just don't know what you are talking about)) It never stops to amaze me how stupid people have the audacity to criticize something they don't understand. Right at the beginning, just less than a minute and you are making fool of yourself. Commodity is then a product is made for selling, for profit otherwise is just a product. There is no need to comment further, the rest is just as bad as this one, the whole video is a joke. Anyone who understands what ideology is and anyone who knows about Hegels logic and familiar with Marxism will beat you in second. Faking clown 🤡]
    2
  847. They have a very clear goal other than profit for its socialised entity here. 32:50 With Plan economic and Nationalisation( privatised to the party member, the extant of the state when the party itself is the state). They can be classified as Socialism.
    2
  848.  @niknitro8751  . According to wiki, they denazified in 1967 and the leadership changed to Norbert Steger a non-Nazi liberal in 1980. Your example were at least 19 years after that happened, you cannot just blamed the Nazi for something they were not in-charge of anymore. Different Leadership different direction, it often happened to political parties. It is weak evidence, I can also used what they done during their leadership to proof they were not Right. Friedrich Peter supported Bruno Kreisky’s,a Jew from Social Democratic Party, coalition government. According to wiki, FPO during Anton Reinthaller leadership was described as “Nevertheless, none of them were real revolutionaries and they pursued pragmatic, non-ideological policies, and the FPÖ presented itself as a moderate party.” You cannot proof Nazi are right wing by saying that they are doing Nazi things, it is just tautology. And the RFJ guys said he was right wing, just because this is what every historical book always taught us Nazism = extreme right and their atrocities as needless evil, while Communism = extreme left and their atrocities as good intentions but went too extreme.
    2
  849. Surely Nazi German was not the nirvana Socialist. Nazis did not totally abolish private property, and free trade and fulfil every policy and ideology they proposed. However, so did the Soviet Union, PRC, Cuba and any other communist states. Cuba actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies. PRC didn’t nationalise all private firms not until“Public-Private Partnership"(公私合营) campaign in 1956, 7 years after they took the power. 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. 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 Socialists and Socialism, respectively. Not to mention all those modern liberal socialists that co-existed with the Free Market.
    2
  850.  @walterbailey2950  1. Nazism is not Fascism "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism. “Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction. Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime. In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government. Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
    2
  851.  @walterbailey2950  2. Fascism is a variant of Marxist Communism. Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" also illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideology. ________________________ The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) _______________________________________ The 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)
    2
  852.  @walterbailey2950  The Nazi part and the Communist parts of my comment is surely not from his book. Just the fascist ideology part.
    2
  853.  @walterbailey2950  Neither did I. The closest thing I have said was all three ideologies aimed to archived social equality.
    2
  854.  @walterbailey2950  The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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.
    2
  855.  @walterbailey2950  There is no social Darwinism base on race or class in fascist ideology. (Hawkins, M. (1997). Nazism, Fascism and Social Darwinism. In Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (pp. 286, 289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558481.012)
    2
  856. ​ @walterbailey2950  Even for the Nazi, they can archive social equality by excluding other racess and the people failed to meet the standard from Society, just the the communist did to the bourgeoisie and the prolitarian with bourgeoisie mindset IRL. There will be no different when there is only one entity in the society.
    2
  857.  @hobbso8508  @Walter Bailey "The whole point of fascist ideologies is to create a master race that enslaves or destroys others. thus destroying all notions of equality between races is vital to fascist ideology." You see the master race from the previous comment here, that is a indicator of social Darwinism. Nazi did killed and euthanasia the "mental and physical cripples". Eliminating bad gene from the gene pool is evolve related. I know that is pseudoscientific concept, but that is what they believed. Who is Hawkins btw. And what source are you quoting?
    2
  858.  @hobbso8508  Are you making up sources? I found the exact opposite conclusion made by the same writer. "If the position adopted in this study is accepted - i.e., that Social Darwinism comprises the philosophical infrastructure of a social theory or ideology - then, on the basis of the material reviewed in this chapter, it is reasonable to conclude that German Nazism and Italian Fascism, during the period studied here, reposed upon different intellectual foundations. In the former case, these foundations were Social Darwinist, in the latter not." (Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945, p. 289, Mike Hawkins)
    2
  859.  @hobbso8508  Please put your quoting in the comment. Have you been to a college? Do you know what is the meaning of quoting? You need to show the original text from the reference source and the reference information.
    2
  860.  @hobbso8508  When did I said that? It is you who said that. HobbsO [Nobody said social darwinism. Hawkins openly wrote about the Nazis being a bunch of racists that killed people for their races, but says it's not social darwinism because they weren't trying to evolve anything. So Walter's point stands firm and your point was a red herring that ended up supporting him.] HobbsO [No. He wanted a race to rule over others because he viewed them as already superior. Social darwinism is about evolving the human race to be better. Hitler saw it as already better, through a superior race. I'm quoting your source.]
    2
  861.  @walterbailey2950  Have you watched the video. Or do I need to recite the script of the video. TL;DR Yes Hitler address all the quotes you post here with his action after he risen to power after 1933.
    2
  862.  @walterbailey2950  [ I don’t know where you’re coming from but one thing that Americans rarely understand is that American political thought is not identical to that in Europe, and that what they think of is conservative it’s not necessarily what has been considered conservative in Europe. there is a long tradition of Statism and authoritarian rule within European conservatism. It’s much older, in fact, than the left.] It seems your understanding of history in Europe missed all the communist states. They were the most totalitarian, Statism, and authoritarian countries in 20 century. The first totalitarian, Statism, and authoritarian, non-Monarchy country after the French Revolution in Europe was the USSR. How conservative or Right USSR and its satellite states were?
    2
  863.  @walterbailey2950 First, you need to prove Nazi is capitalist. Secondly, The term Authoritarian was created by Juan Linz in 1964 (not thousands of years of history). According to her book "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain, " authoritarian political legitimacy is based on appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or underdevelopment or insurgency." So you cannot be a state actually ruled by monarch and be Authoritarian. So as the term Capitalism which was invented in 1800s to describe the contemporary Society. I don’t think both capitalist and authoritarian would be applicable to describe any societies or countries before 1700 not to mention thousands of years of history. Would you kindly provide an example of a Renaissance era capitalist authoritarian state?
    2
  864.  @walterbailey2950  political term rarely change their name over time. Only their meaning will change. Just put an example here to let people understand what is the definition of “authoritarian capitalism state ” in Renaissance Era and how “Right”( which also invented in 1800s) that country actually was.
    2
  865.  @walterbailey2950  Ok you give me a Capitalist state in renaissance. Sorry I was wrong there, but where were the authoritarian and right wing part? Florence was rule by duke titled by the pope. That was a feudal monarchy system.
    2
  866.  @walterbailey2950  Any source to support your claim. Authoritarians government doesn’t just mean bad centralise government. Florence republic Political legitimacy based on god and royalty not on appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency.
    2
  867.  @walterbailey2950  [ Are you familiar with the conditions in renaissance Italy?] Tell me if you may.
    2
  868.  @walterbailey2950  Then where is the authoritarian component. Still seems very feudalism for me.
    2
  869.  @walterbailey2950  I found a Historical Journal claiming that Florence republic political system was far from being “paternalism or authoritarianism”. How would your narrative counter that. "Another aspect of the normative universe that helped to legitimise Florentine electoral practices merits our attention: conceptions of political representation. Twenty-first-century readers are likely struck by the fact that the individuals and bodies that could make decisions for the city were not elected. Although popular assemblies were doubtless at the origins of the Italian comuni, even before the consulate (consulatus) was established,  they gradually lost their initial importance and by the twelfth century, if not earlier, no longer played a fundamental role. During the comune’s golden age, they essentially functioned as plebiscites in the form of a “parliament” (parlamento) that met on the Piazza della Signoria. And yet, these unelected bodies (according to today’s definition of elections) were far from being synonymous with paternalism or authoritarianism: on the contrary, they were inseparable from the assertion of a certain “Florentine liberty”. Moreover, the lower classes never demanded elections as an instrument of popular sovereignty during their extremely heated socio-political struggles, in general focusing primarily on gaining participation in the existing forms of representation." (Boutier, Jean, et Yves Sintomer. "The Republic of Florence (from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries). Historical and Political Issues", Revue française de science politique, vol. 64, no. 6, 2014, pp. 1055-1081.)
    2
  870.  @walterbailey2950  Did renaissance Florence labors have fix wages, 1-2% unemployment rate, wage and price controls, rent controls, subsidies on food, rent, coal, national insurance policies, and nationalized trade union like German labors had? ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Again, all three ideologies aimed to archived social equality. Fascists wanted to achieve it among all classes by equally sharing the profit with the national syndicate. While Communism and Nazism wanted to purify society in terms of race (Aryan) or class (Proletarian) to archive social equality. (Logic Leap here, but this was what they actually did and said)
    2
  871.  @walterbailey2950  So as every Communist state persecuted the bourgeoisie, ex-bourgeoisie. How come you can suggest communism was promoting equality, or you are suggesting that Soicalist do not require to promote equality as long as they exclude those persecuting groups from society just like the Nazis and every Communist state did. I read the debate, Hitler lied in the debate, as he socialized the German economy after he rose to power.
    2
  872.  @walterbailey2950  For your convenience, here are some of the Socialist policies Hitler implemented after he rose to power in 1933 with supplemental references. 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.) There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy. (Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.) 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. (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
    2
  873.  @walterbailey2950  Action speak louder than word. He lied in his speech and debate. [“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 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.)
    2
  874.  @walterbailey2950  When there is no state there is no law, when there is no law there is no right, saying that there were millions of properties owners in Germany at the end of the third Reich was irrelevant to the third Reich, as the State was already gone, The right of owning what on the hands of those German People was enshrined by the occupier or the West-Germany Government not the Third Reich. Beside do you have any proof to support everything you claimed ?
    2
  875.  @walterbailey2950  Nazi also created the RNS, an organization which fixed prices and introduced production controls, which “marked the end of the free market for agricultural produce in Germany.” ( Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," P186)
    2
  876.  @walterbailey2950  Yes, the state own all or nearly all property as the State can take them away from anyone in the State without any reason if they want to.
    2
  877.  @walterbailey2950  [yeah so did the United States and Britain and most other major belligerents during the war. So now we’re back to everyone in the world was socialist except those who conformed to a nonexistent anarcho Libertarian ideal.] The RNS was was founded by the Reichsnährstandsgesetz (decree) of 13 September 1933, way before the war started. (wiki) I don't know what do you mean, you can use the same argument on USSR and claim that it was a capitalist State, or else the whole was socialist except those who conformed to a nonexistent anarcho Libertarian ideal.
    2
  878.  @walterbailey2950  [http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf ] Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he can't legally strip private property from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) Germans were allowed to keep their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State's ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren't obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources, written in the 1940s by Neumann. "The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..." (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," (no page number on Kindle). "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".) So, he controlled the private properties legally. He was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit. Workers had fixed wages , firms could not fire their workers (also from your source), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934. So the only parts being social darwinised were the firms. 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 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 Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. ) 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 Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist States' economy 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.
    2
  879.  @walterbailey2950  The price of the Cafe in Nazi Germany would be fixed, and the restaurant can only buy the food from Government per quote in fix price. The restaurant would also require a government permit to open. Similar to Soviet Russia, you can eat in a restaurant, but every transaction is State regulated. USSR also have restaurant too, does it make USSR a capitalist state too?
    2
  880.  @walterbailey2950  Nazi did all the policy I mentioned even in peace time just like USSR did all their socialist policies in peace time. Is claiming USSR a socialist state also make US and UK a socialist state because they did certain socialist policies in war time?
    2
  881.  @walterbailey2950  I believe both of our view on history are mostly base on what we have read. I don’t know which books you learn history from, but I listed out most of the references of my historical view regarding this subject in this reply section. You are more welcome to prove me wrong with fact and logic.
    2
  882. Regarding inequality of Nazism, not even the communism in Karl Marx writing is about the equality of all human being. Marxism believes in equality under the entity of proletariat, they don’t believe in equality for bourgeoisie, hence the term dictatorship of the proletariat. Similar National racist socialism believes in equality under the entity of Aryan. 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 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
  883. ⁠ @Dread_Gladiator_Spartacus  Racial segregation and racial termination are on two entire levels. Racial Segregation and Slavery were the worst a non-Socialist System could do to the undesired people in peacetime. The dehumanization nature of the excluded people (Jews for Nazism and bourgeoisie for Communism) of Socialism led to the mass and systematic elimination of those undesired people on a country-wide scale. Maybe because they came from the same mold, with different toppings. (Basically, the whole content of this video) Any kind of Socialism that advocates abolishing private property (like Marxism) is inherently impossible to meet the criteria of modern democracy. Because abolishing personal property infringes on human rights, which is a necessary part of modern democracy.
    2
  884. Your are right purging certain classes of peoples doesn’t classified as genocide. Good for the Communist, they dodged the bullets despite millions of people were killed because of them. I can just use mass elimination of undesirable here. Internal means their own citizens. “Factory scale” is a rephrase of the definition of Genocide Noam Chomsky used to denied the Serbian Genocide. The reason I am using “Factory scale” here is to differentiate Holocaust and those Communist Purges (as a combined noun) from the ordinary Genocide in History.
    2
  885.  @Dread_Gladiator_Spartacus  They are equally morally wrong and evil because of the result no doubt about that and all are equally evil despite the Communist Purging doesn’t count as Genocide, unlike you believe Communist Purging, the elimination of people with different ideologies, lass or backgrounds, in some cases were different from genocide. What I was pointing out is the elimination of the undesirable of is different from just Genocide, in terms of how they do it. For example, the elimination of the undesirable is a social movement every level of community in one way or other involved to those elimination. They are high-efficiency, systematic and openly executed. Military would usually not be the main executor and the victim would usually be their own citizens, thus the “internal genocide” I previously mentioned. This kinds of “elimination of the undesirable” would only happened in Socialism System.
    2
  886.  @Dread_Gladiator_Spartacus  Are you saying exterminating peoples with different ideologies or class is less guilty than exterminating people in different races?
    2
  887.  @Dread_Gladiator_Spartacus  So that really your point, purging people with different ideologies, ex-class, and previous background is less evil than purging peoples with different races. Systematically killing the ex-factories owner, the ex-landlords, the people have certain connections with those people and forigner is less evil than killing people of certain race. It seems you have no idea what is a communist purge mean. It is a purge of the tie with old establishment, the seeds of counter revolutionary, and the primitive elimination of potential risk within all sectors of society. Again, the difference between ordinary genocide and ,Holocaust or the socialist elimination of the undesirable is in the mean not in the level of evil.
    2
  888. Again, just because you think socialism is just about workers running an enterprise. It doesn't change the fact that the Marxist Socialist system was ran in a top down centre-planing political state that doesn't need to be democratic. Because: "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."
    2
  889.  @tg4678 You don’t need to agree to Marxist Leninism, but you also can’t refute Marxist Leninism from Socialism, just like they also cannot refute your Liberal Socialism from Socialism. 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. It is the existence of both Totalitarian Communism and Liberal Socialism made the Nazi system set right in the middle of the Socialism Spectrum.
    2
  890.  @tg4678  Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). USSR: According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. PRC: Just in Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death. Nazi German: “Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000. In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
    2
  891.  @tg4678 Are your statement implying that every Communist States, their Socialist Leader and their Marxist Leninism ideologies should be refuted from Socialist State, Socialist and Socialism respectively? If no, arresting and purging socialists should not be a criteria to refute anyone from being socialist.
    2
  892.  @tg4678  The guy who denied the Cambodia and Bosnian genocide? Claim the association of Communist atrocities with Socialism as just Western propaganda. No wonder he need to denied those two genocides. The casualties were the greatest under the ruling of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, three of the most hardline Socialists in history. Was he trying to imply Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were not in anyway attempting to carrying out Socialism? Are you really agreeing with his point?
    2
  893.  @tg4678  Are you fabricating history here? “In the article (“Distortions at Fourth Hand “) Chomsky and Herman described the book by Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, as a "carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources". Chomsky also attacked testimonials from refugees regarding the massacres, calling into question the claims of hundreds of thousands killed. Chomsky does this on the basis of pointing to other first hand accounts that show killings more in the hundreds or thousands. He does not deny the existence of any executions outright. According to historian Peter Maguire, for many years Chomsky served as a "hit man" against media outlets which criticized the Khmer Rouge regime.[Maguire, Peter (2005). Facing Death in Cambodia. ]” Besides, that “cult” you are saying is full supported and endorsed by Mao and PRC.
    2
  894. 1. 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 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) 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) ____________________________ 2. 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
  895.  @tg4678 Great narrative, but historically wrong. Do I need to remind you that Kampuchea was form by overthrowing Khmer Republic another “US backed dictator regime”. Not to even mention the fact that Khmer Kraham were backed by Communist China and Vietnam in the Cambodian Civil War. Next time read some history before formulate your narrative.
    2
  896. ⁠​⁠ @tg4678 Who wasn’t a [US dictator]? Can you at least read the wiki page of the subject before writing your narrative regarding the set subject. “The Khmer Republic (Khmer: សាធារណរដ្ឋខ្មែរ, Sathéarônârôdth Khmêr; French: République khmère) was a Cambodian state under the United States-backed military dictatorship of Marshal Lon Nol from 1970 to 1975. Its establishment was formally declared on 9 October 1970, following the 18 March 1970 coup d'état which saw the overthrow of Norodom Sihanouk's government and the abolishment of the Cambodian monarchy. … Despite the large quantities of military and financial aid from the United States, the Khmer National Armed Forces (Forces armées nationales khmères, or FANK) were poorly trained and unable to defeat either the CPNLAF or the Vietnamese forces of the PAVN and NLF. The Republic eventually fell on 17 April 1975, when the Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh and briefly restored the Kingdom of Cambodia before renaming itself Democratic Kampuchea on 5 January 1976.”
    2
  897.  @tg4678  In 1977, Chomsky denied the Cambodia genocide committed by Khmer Rouge which was the ruling regime of Democratic Kampuchea. That genocide lasted from 1975 to 1979, when Thatcher was the leader of opposition, and the US president was Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Please at least read wiki before making shit up.
    2
  898.  @tg4678  Again, are you implying that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot [didn’t understand or are being dishonest], labelling themselves, their ideology and regime as socialist, socialism and socialist states that were actually not? Even under Marxism, what you are describing here is Petite bourgeoisie Socialism, which is just a reactionary Socialism. Are you also implying that he was also being dishonest and labelling Marxism as Socialism?
    2
  899.  @tg4678 ​​⁠ Your narrative has so many questions to answer. Can you tell me who was backed by US and UK? Sihanouk who released by the Vietnam or Pol Pot who house arrested Sihanouk and fought against the Vietnam? “Sihanouk was placed under house arrest by Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge in 1976, not until Vietnamese forces overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979.” How the USA and UK supported the genocide in 1975-1979. How did Nixon, Thatcher and Reagan supported Pol Pot during the genocide from 1975 to 1979, when they were all not in office in that time period? “The Democratic Kampuchea regime maintained close ties with China, its main backer, and to a lesser extent with North Korea. In 1977, in a message congratulating the Cambodian comrades on the 17th anniversary of the CPK, Kim Jong-il congratulated the Cambodian people for having "wiped out counterrevolutionary group of spies who had committed subversive activities and sabotage[45]". On taking power, the Khmer Rouge spurned both the Western states and the Soviet Union as sources of support.[46] Instead, China became Cambodia's main international partner.[47] With Vietnam increasingly siding with the Soviet Union over China, the Chinese saw Pol Pot's government as a bulwark against Vietnamese influence in Indochina.[48] It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which the Khmer Rouge received came from China, and in 1975 alone, at least US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid came from China.[49][50]” Who was Chomsky defending? How did Chomsky defend the Cambodia Communist in the 60s by publishing an article, that contrasted the genocide narrative made in 1975-1977, on 6 June 1977. “On 6 June 1977, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman published an article in The Nation that contrasted the views expressed ( all made between 1975 to 1977 ) in the books of John Barron and Anthony Paul, François Ponchaud, and Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, as well as in articles and accounts by Fox Butterfield, Carol Bragg (eyewitness testimony), Asian scholar George Kahin, J.J. Cazaux, Sydney Schanberg, Swedish journalist Olle Tolgraven, and others.”
    2
  900.  @tg4678 ​​⁠Let me ask you in another way. Are you refuting Maoism, Marxist Leninism and Marxism from socialism? As non of those ideologies were tried to [put ownership, ie control of management decisions and division of profit, in the hands of the community of people]. They are all about the “dictatorship of proletariat” over a state. Besides, can you stop making shit up? [Pol Pot was working to recreate a lost culture and lifestyle to be more racially pure, ] Recreate what lost culture and what lifestyle? “Year Zero (Khmer: ឆ្នាំសូន្យ, Chhnăm Sony [cʰnam soːn]) is an idea put into practice by Pol Pot in Democratic Kampuchea that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and that a new revolutionary culture must replace it starting from scratch.” “Ideology played an important role in the genocide. Pol Pot was influenced by Marxism–Leninism and he wanted to transform Cambodia into an entirely self-sufficient agrarian socialist society that would be free from foreign influences. Stalin's work has been described as a "crucial formative influence" on his thought. Also heavily influential was Mao's work, particularly On New Democracy. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of his favorite authors, according to historian David Chandler. In the mid-1960s, Pol Pot reformulated his ideas about Marxism–Leninism to suit the Cambodian situation with goals such as bringing Cambodia back to an alleged mythic past of the powerful Khmer Empire, eradicating influences he viewed as "corrupting", such as foreign aid and Western culture, as well as restoring Cambodia's agrarian society.[89] Pol Pot's strong belief that Cambodia needed to be transformed into an agrarian utopia stemmed from his experience in Cambodia's rural northeast—where he developed an affinity for the agrarian self-sufficiency of the area's isolated tribes—while the Khmer Rouge gained power.[90] Attempts to implement these goals (formed upon the observations of small, rural communes) into a larger society were key factors in the ensuing genocide.[91][92] One Khmer Rouge leader said that the killings were meant for the "purification of the populace."[93] The Khmer Rouge virtually forced Cambodia's entire population to divide itself into mobile work teams.[94] Michael Hunt has written that it was "an experiment in social mobilization unmatched in twentieth-century revolutions."[94] The Khmer Rouge used a forced labor regime, starvation, forced resettlement, land collectivization, and state terror to keep the population in line.[94] The Khmer Rouge's economic plan was named the "Maha Lout Ploh",[needs translation] a direct allusion to the "Great Leap Forward" of China that caused tens of millions of deaths in the Great Chinese Famine.[8][95]”
    2
  901.  @tg4678  Chomsky defended the Khymer Rouge from Cambodia Genocide accounts from 1977 in 1977. ”In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain’s Economist called “Foreign Report” which specializes in sensational rumors from the world’s intelligence agencies) asserts that “Cambodia’s pursuit of total revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million people.” Moss informs us that the source of this statement is Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a million died during the war, and that the population had been 7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of starvation). The “slaughter” by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation.”(Distortions at Fourth Hand, Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman, The Nation, June 6, 1977)
    2
  902.  @tg4678 ​​⁠ Besides, good job ignoring all the socialist ideologies behind the genocide and created your own water down narrative that is all about racism and old mythology. “Ideology played an important role in the genocide. Pol Pot was influenced by Marxism–Leninism and he wanted to transform Cambodia into an entirely self-sufficient agrarian socialist society that would be free from foreign influences. Stalin's work has been described as a "crucial formative influence" on his thought. Also heavily influential was Mao's work, particularly On New Democracy. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of his favorite authors, according to historian David Chandler. In the mid-1960s, Pol Pot reformulated his ideas about Marxism–Leninism to suit the Cambodian situation with goals such as bringing Cambodia back to an alleged mythic past of the powerful Khmer Empire, eradicating influences he viewed as "corrupting", such as foreign aid and Western culture, as well as restoring Cambodia's agrarian society.[89] Pol Pot's strong belief that Cambodia needed to be transformed into an agrarian utopia stemmed from his experience in Cambodia's rural northeast—where he developed an affinity for the agrarian self-sufficiency of the area's isolated tribes—while the Khmer Rouge gained power.[90] Attempts to implement these goals (formed upon the observations of small, rural communes) into a larger society were key factors in the ensuing genocide.[91][92] One Khmer Rouge leader said that the killings were meant for the "purification of the populace."[93] The Khmer Rouge virtually forced Cambodia's entire population to divide itself into mobile work teams.[94]” Furthermore, how can the Monarchist was the dominant faction of Khmer Rouge, if the King,Sihanouk, was put into house arrest by Khmer Rouge? “Sihanouk was placed under house arrest by Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge( in 1976), not until Vietnamese forces overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979.”
    2
  903.  @tg4678  Wanting to bring the country back to its ancient mythical power past is a comment feature of Asian Communism, which were all victims of colonialism, including China. Maoism, Ho Chi Minh Thought and Kaysone Phomvihane Thought all aims to establish a strong independence national state with the advancement of socialism and socialist mode of production. Every Communist state tend to isolated their people from foreign corruption. Strong censorship and regulation is a common feature of all communist states. [The rest of the socialist world was opposing apartheid and racism and segregation] What about Holodomor, National Operation of USSR, or the Hmong genocide by Pathet Lao, another country which is just next to Vietnam and Communist Vietnam did nothing about it. Indeed, US and UK supported Khmer Rouge against Communist Vietnam. However. US or UK also supported the Stalin to against Nazi Germany, supported Tito against Stalin, PRC against the USSR. Did being supported by US or UK refuting Stalin, Tito or PRC from being communists? If no, why would supported by US and UK refute Khmer Rouge from being communist?
    2
  904.  @tg4678  Soviets did claim they were living under socialism, and that they were on the way to Communism. “Soviet and East European ideologists put forth the notion in the 1970s that the Communist states had completed a definite stage along the Marxist road to the future, and now enjoyed the system of “developed socialism” or “real existing socialism” that distinguished them from the capitalist world, even though the transition to ideal communism lay much further ahead. Brezhnev affirmed this theme in 1977.” (LEONID BREZHNEV, A HISTORIC STAGE ON THE ROAD TO COMMUNISM. 1977)
    2
  905.  @tg4678  Here is a quote for Stalin claiming that the USSR is a socialist country in 1952. “First, because war with the USSR, as a socialist country, is more dangerous to capitalism than a war between capitalist countries, for if a war between capitalist countries raises only the question of the supremacy of certain capitalist countries over other capitalist countries, war with the USSR must necessarily raise the question of the existence of capitalism itself.” (IOSIF STALIN, INEVITABILITY OF WARS AMONG CAPITALIST COUNTRIES. 1952)
    2
  906.  @tg4678  [So not the Soviet Union of the 20s 30s 40s 50s or 60s, even according to their supporters...] Is Stalin a supporter of Soviet Union?
    2
  907.  @tg4678  Your whole argument based on a baseless assumption, I don't even need to read through your argument to invalid it. You claimed [Soviets didn't claim they were living under socialism…] I shown you that Soviets leader did claim they were living under socialism, and that they were on the way to Communism in 1970s. You then said [So not the Soviet Union of the 20s 30s 40s 50s or 60s (claim they were living under socialism) , even according to their supporters...] I then show you Soviets leader did claim they were living under socialism, and that they were on the way to Communism even in 1950s.
    2
  908.  @tg4678  Khrushchev claimed the USSR was a Socialist State even in the secret speech. “We should recall that the 17th Party Congress is known historically as the Congress of Victors. Delegates to the Congress were active participants in the building of our socialist state; many of them suffered and fought for Party interests during the pre-Revolutionary years in the conspiracy and at the civil-war fronts; they fought their enemies valiantly and often nervelessly looked into the face of death. … During this fight the Party consistently defended the interests of the people and became its experienced leader. [The Party] led the working masses to power, to the creation of the first socialist state. You remember well the wise words of Lenin: that the Soviet state is strong because of the awareness of the masses that history is created by the millions and tens of millions of people.” (“SPECIAL REPORT TO THE 20TH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION”, 1956)
    2
  909.  @tg4678  Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were the leaders of Soviet Union. Regardless what you think they were, they as a representatives of the USSR all claimed that they were living under socialism, which you claimed they didn’t claim that. Your whole argument is based on the invalidated premise, and that invalidate your argument.
    2
  910.  @tg4678  Don’t blame me,it is you who start the whole argument with two factually wrong premises: 1.USSR never claimed itself a Socialist State. 2.Communism State claimed they are working towards to Socialism instead of Communism. If even your factual premise regarding Marxism is factually wrong, your argument is already invalid.
    2
  911.  @tg4678 it has been announced in 1950s and 1970s. If you cannot take historical fact seriously, don't expect people would take your historical narrative seriously.
    2
  912.  @tg4678  You are the one who based your argument on the premise of [Soviets didn't claim they were living under socialism, but that they were on the way to it. Their arguments were why their ideas were needed to reach socialism later, but not that they were already administering a socialist state.] Which I have provided to be factual wrong with multiple historical sources. If you cannot even get your premise right, how can your invalidated argument be taken seriously?
    2
  913.  @tg4678  Strawman? [Soviets didn't claim they were living under socialism, but that they were on the way to it. Their arguments were why their ideas were needed to reach socialism later, but not that they were already administering a socialist state.] is a direct quote from your comment. What claims that weren’t made are you talking about? Besides, two more quotes to proof your premises is wrong. “ARTICLE 4 The economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the implements and means of production firmly established as a result of the liquidation of the capitalist system of economy, the abolition of private property in the implements and means of production and the abolition of exploitation of man by man.” (Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936)) “Our Soviet society has already, in the main, succeeded in achieving Socialism; it has created a Socialist system, i.e., it has brought about what Marxists in other words call the first, or lower, phase of Communism. Hence, in the main, we have already achieved the first phase of Communism. Socialism. (Prolonged applause.) The fundamental principle of this phase of Communism is, as you know, the formula : "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work." Should our Constitution reflect this fact, the fact that Socialism has been achieved? Should it be based on this achievement? Unquestionably, it should. It should, because for the U.S.S.R. Socialism is something already achieved and won. But Soviet society has not yet reached the higher phase of Communism, in which the ruling principle will be the formula : "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," although it sets itself the aim of achieving the higher phase of Communism in the future. Can our Constitution be based on the higher phase of Communism, which does not yet exist and which has still to be achieved? No, it cannot, because for the U.S.S.R. the higher phase of Communism is something that has not yet been realized, and which has to be realized in the future. It cannot, if it is not to be converted into a program or a declaration of future achievements.” (On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R, 1936)
    2
  914.  @tg4678  What I see and understand is you are trying to substitute the meaning of your origin premise, which is [Soviets didn't claim they were living under socialism, but that they were on the way to it. Their arguments were why their ideas were needed to reach socialism later, but not that they were already administering a socialist state.] into something else. Again, when the premise is proven to be factually false, any argument derived from it would be invalidated.
    2
  915.  @tg4678 ​​⁠ None of the arguments/narratives you typed here since yesterday was supported by any historical evidence or quote from any socialiss. Based on the fact that you have previously demonstrated your ignorance regarding the subject of Communist history and Socialists’ historical narrative. I don’t think any of your comments can represent anyone but yourself without the referencing any historical evidence or socialists’ quote.
    2
  916. ⁠ @tg4678  You mean [Orwell took aim at Stalinism with animal farm etc. Trotskyites proud claim was that they were the only people fighting fascism, imperialism and Stalinism] is [named socialists and mentioned the arguments they've made]? At most, it is just your interpretation of Orwell and Trotskyists, not even Trotsky himself. Where did they say that? From what quote from which book? Last time you mentioned Chomsky, you distorted all his narrative regarding the Cambodia Genocide. Therefore, I don’t think any of your comments can represent anyone but yourself without any reference to historical evidence or socialists quotes.
    2
  917.  @tg4678  ​​⁠​​⁠I did show you how. I gave you a direct quote from Chomsky Article to illustrate that how Chomsky defended Khmer Rouge from the accusation within the USA for committing Genocide. While under your narrative, his narrative was distorted to: [I've heard Chomsky complain about the US denying that genocide and claiming the killing fields were invented by Vietnam for the decade the US insisted the UN seat for Cambodia go to the overthrown Khymer Rouge of Pol Pot.]
    2
  918.  @tg4678  My quote has proven that your statement of [Noam Chomsky defending communists in Cambodia in the 60s and the Khymer Rouge that fought them is not the same thing. What you posted had him talking about a totally different group, then assertions he meant it towards the Khymer Rouge without showing those comments themselves.] was an utterly distortion of Noam Chomsky narrative which he was in fact defending the Khmer Rouge for their action in the period of 1975 to 1977, and claiming that “The “slaughter” by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation”, instead of just claiming [massacres by communist forces being exaggerated, which they were. Not denying and defending the genocide, which the US did officially.] You made up new fake narrative once again, at worst US just did nothing about the genocide, they never denying and defending the genocide. In November 1975, U.S. NSA and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Thai foreign minister: "You should tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs but we won't let that stand in our way."[The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide under the Khmer Rouge, 2009] In April 1978, President Carter declared them to be “the worst violator of human rights in the world today.” [UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM] You would just fabricate fake historical facts and distort other people’s narratives in every change you have if it is beneficial to your narrative. How can any of your arguments be taken seriously?
    2
  919.  @tg4678 How can the US covered the Genocide up if Chomsky was defending the Khmer Rouge by accusing the Cambodia Genocide is a US propaganda job? “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered.” [Distortions at Fourth Hand, 1977]
    2
  920. ⁠ @tg4678  In the “Distortions at Fourth Hand” Chomsky was actually attacking the view expressed by John Barron and Anthony Paul, François Ponchaud, and Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, as well as in articles and accounts by Fox Butterfield, Carol Bragg (eyewitness testimony), Asian scholar George Kahin, J.J. Cazaux, Sydney Schanberg, Swedish journalist Olle Tolgraven, and others, not the US government in order to denied the Cambodia Genocide. Are you suggesting that all those people were just working for CIA? Do you have any proof to support it? Otherwise your narrative would not be valid at all. Furthermore, support some group officially or unofficially, doesn’t necessarily mean denying or covering that group atrocities. Logic and critical thinking is a good thing, try to use it if you can.
    2
  921.  @tg4678  Chomsky failed to debunk and deny the fact that the Khmer Rouge committed the Cambodian Genocide. Those individual accounts turned out to be corrected. "The American strategy" in your grand narrative is totally irrelevant to Chomsky. The Chomsky action of defending Khmer Rouge and denying the Cambodian Genocide is the best counterargument against the following Chomsky's narrative that you brought up: [The East wanted to claim the positive parts of socialism, whether or not the leaders were in anyway attempting to carry it out, and the west instead of calling out the propaganda of tyrants, used their propaganda to also rename socialism to associate totalitarian as socialist.] ; and the credibility of Chomsky regarding this topic.
    2
  922.  @tg4678  My argument is why didn’t he immediately denounce Khmer Rouge as totalitarian because of the genocide as his narrative suggested, instead in real life he defended Khmer Rouge and denied the Cambodian Genocide. This action of the Chomsky is the best counterargument against the Chomsky's narrative and his credibility regarding this subject.
    2
  923.  @tg4678  Yes, he did have access to accurate information at the time, and he chose to challenge that information and defended the Khmer Rouge in 1977 by framing the evidence as “seriously distorted”. I don’t think anyone did what Chomsky did. Defending a socialist totalitarian regime from the evidence of committing genocide by dismissing them as “seriously distorted” and claimed […many totalitarian regimes wanted to claim to be working towards socialism on behalf of the people, to claim legitimacy and justify their rule as socialism was a synonym for pro justice, gender equality, self determinism, labour rights and caring for the poor and sick etc.]
    2
  924. Suppose you need a definition of Socialism that required to dismiss Marxist Leninism in order to refute Nazism from Socialism. In that case, it seems to describe “Internationism is Nationalism”, “Socialism wants to conquer the World”, and “Race Socialism” as laughable illiterate gibberish, doesn't hold much water. For Race Socialism, there is Labor Zionism. For “Socialism wants to conquer the world.”, "Workers of the world, unite!" is literally the rallying cries from The Communist Manifesto
    2
  925.  @miketomlin6040 ​​⁠​⁠ The marginal income tax rate of Orthodox Marxism SPD-led Weimar Germany was just 40%. Did their low tax rate also make them not socialists? Able to keep the tax low is where Nazis are good at their job. They didn’t take money from their citizen's income in that obvious way. With party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," Chapter 2.) , national investment policy like Geräuschlose Kriegsfinanzierung (forcing banks to "invest" war bonds with the customer saving) and Eisernes Sparen ( Provident fund but for the war effort, involuntary if you were Civil servants, state employees, employees of the NSDAP and their organizations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car) and "Privatisation", citizens had already been unknowingly "taxed" even before the get their wage. For thr company, they are all under the heavy influence and regulations of Nazi Party. Why do they need to be taxed in order to archive state ownership of means of production? 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.), No one could fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF( 17:23). ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.). The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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) Nazi was not selling the property right of the company, they were just selling the administrative right, which they can take it back if they want, of the company.
    2
  926.  @Pasperis88 Yet, they were still the democratic socialist that practiced the Orthodox Marxism under the Das Heidelberger Programm which was co-written by Karl Kautsky.
    2
  927.  @Pasperis88  In their ideology and policy. Ops it should be Orthodox Marxism instead of Orthodox Communism. Those two terms are too interchangeable, sorry about that.
    2
  928.  @Pasperis88 Did post-1945 Labor UK, not a Capitalist State too? Socialism can always be practised in a Capitalist State with a free market. That is why OP would attempt to use tax brackets to exclude Nazi Germany from practice Socialism.
    2
  929.  @Pasperis88  Orthodox Marxism views that capitalism cannot be reformed through policy and that any attempt to do so would only exacerbate its contradictions or distort the efficiency of the market economy (in contrast to reformism). Orthodox Marxism holds that the only viable and lasting solution to the contradictions of capitalism is for the establishment of a post-capitalist socialist economy.
    2
  930.  @Pasperis88  Every Socialist Society must start from a Capitalist Society, and it takes time and effort to convert the mode of production of one society from one to another. Just because some moderate socialisms took more moderate measures than others doesn’t mean that those moderate Socialisms are not trying to achieve Social ownership of means of production.
    2
  931.  @Pasperis88 Seems you missed the following part: “Orthodox Marxism holds that the only viable and lasting solution to the contradictions of capitalism is for the establishment of a post-capitalist socialist economy.”
    2
  932.  @CoIntelPro23  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 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
  933. ​ @CoIntelPro23  Here are some practical data regarding the worker's wage and the reduction of private property wealth under the Nazi Regime. The real wages of workers didn’t decrease because of the fixed price and the fixed wage. According to table 7.2.1 of “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”, the Average real Wage of workers was at its lowest of 88.5 in 1933 and gradually increased to 107.5 in 1938. With the price, control imposed 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 households reduced to 964 RM from 1369 RM in 1927, where the average real wage per week was 92.3 compare to 103.0 of 1937. "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) Regarding Racial Socialism. Defining nationalism and racism as right contradicted the history and the ideology of Arab Socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Left Socialism, while both wanted to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Regarding purging people because of any reason. Throughout communist history, communist regimes tried to eradicate the counterrevolutionary, old establishment and other undesirable elements by imprisoning and eliminating different groups of people 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), other national (USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge). 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 the Communist States, just by the kind and amount of Nazi 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 Socialist State and Socialism respectively. Regarding the State control of firms within Nazi German. Here are some Nazi German laws that apply to every firms in Germany if not specified. 1. 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) 2. The Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), The Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in the banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) 3. In 1937, the Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn” officially nationalized the Reichsbahn (the German railways) and the Reichsbank (the German Bank). Regarding the first-hand account of Herr A. Z in "The Vampire Economy". The Vampire Economy was written in 1939 by Günter Reimann an exiled German Communist. Reimann surely needed to use a pseudonym to protect his informants, who were still working and living in Nazi Germany. The credibility of Herr A. Z's first-hand account was guaranteed by that of Mr. Günter Reimann the writer of "The Vampire Economy".
    2
  934. Privatisation in Nazi Germany was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalised all the control of 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) The Bank Act 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
    2
  935. Regarding Fascism Part 2 The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    2
  936.  @FreelancerND  Karl Marx claimed his socialism(Communism) is materialistic and scientific. While Sorel believe Communism could not scientific. As the last few decades of failed communist movements show him that Revolution would not happen naturally in a capitalist Society. Therefore, a mythical or other non-materialistic ideology/concept would be required to push through that Revolution that ended capitalism.
    2
  937.  @FreelancerND  Has Ukraine abolished private property or has a stated run national union to regulate every firm in Ukraine?
    2
  938.  @FreelancerND  Yes Nazi did took all mean of production from the capitalist and make it state own. Firms cannot fire anyone 17:21, and rise or reduce the wage of the workers 16:37 without Daf permission. De facto or de jure the property was no longer privately owned or controlled by the ex-owner anymore. What is the organisation in Ukraine has the power to control firms who they can fire or employ 17:21, and approve the rise or reduce the wage of the workers of every firm 16:37?
    2
  939.  @FreelancerND  They did that since 1933, not 1939 The private ownership of those firms and profit of those Industrialists were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime. You cannot say USSR is a capitalist state because many Oligarchy rise from the privatisation of USSR assets of Russia Government.
    2
  940.  @FreelancerND  Where is Soviet Union now if it work? And why USA or UK are still capitalist state 300 years after Industrial Revolution , if communist revolution would happened naturally ?
    2
  941.  @FreelancerND  slave states were going towards feudalism and historical processes are history and facts. In contrast, the latter part that capitalism will be going towards communist society is just a Hypothesis Karl Marx made based on the fact of historical processes. That Hypothesis can be wrong. So as the Hypothesis Sorel made based on decades of failed communist movments.
    2
  942.  @FreelancerND  It can also be the fascist revolution that Sorel hypothesis. Until the future arrived, no one know which one is true, Communism, Fascism or other hypothetical projections.
    2
  943. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are on the left side by definition.
    2
  944. Hitler was the chancellor and his cabinet was formed in 30/1/1933, and since 11/1932 Nazi Party was still the largest party in Reichstag. Those funding was too late to help the Nazi party get into the system. The definition of Socialism was not being hostile to the conservative elements, is social ownership of means of production. Why would accepting funds from conservative elements would refute anyone from being socialist? Under your standard, you are also going to refute Lenin from being a Socialist. Lenin was also supported by the Imperial German monarchy and capitalists like Armand Hammer and Alexander Parvus.
    2
  945.  @nicknolte8671  What you are stating here was fabricated history. Black Reichswehr was led by Bruno Ernst Buchrucker; it was dissolved in 1923 after they failed the Küstrin Putsch in Küstrin (since 1945 Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Poland) on 1 October 1923. Bruno Ernst Buchrucker was then sent to prison after the failed coup attempt and released on October 1927 on the 80th birthday of President Paul von Hindenburg. Buchrucker joined the NSDAP on October 1, 1929 (membership number 153,720), but was expelled on July 1, 1930. (Bundesarchiv R 9361-VIII KARTEI/4360611) How would [all these "combat leagues" were merged into a single organization, at the head of which was put Adolf Hitler.]?
    2
  946.  @nicknolte8671  [There's a historical consensus that Hitler didn't seize power until the Enabling Act which made him a dictator and the consolidation of power didn't come until the Night of the Long Knives. Capitalists funded the Nazis long before Hitler was ever made chancellor and the 19 figures of the industry, finance and agriculture signed a petition demanding that the president make Hitler the chancellor. So they were working behind the scenes to make Hitler a dictator. Hitler was supposed to be a tool to bring about the end of the Weimar democracy, which right-wingers, pro-business parties and businessmen hated and opposed since day one. Hitler enacted their wishlist once coming to power.] TIK said "None of these industrialists could be considered committed Nazis prior to 1933"(21:59). He never said [before the March 1933 elections] or [only one capitalist funded Hitler prior to the seizure of power], you are putting words into TIK's mouth and arguing with the argument you made up for TIK.
    2
  947.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  Yeah I did. Jews are not within the German Society, just like prisoners with "bourgeoisie thought" in Gulag. Practice and theory are totally different things. I forgot to add that disclaimer here, sorry about that.
    2
  948.  @rickglorie  “Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin.” Brown, Timothy S. (2009). Weimar Radicals: Nazis and Communists Between Authenticity and Performance. P.136
    2
  949. Except theoretically, Marxism and Nazism are on the same side for giving the government unlimited power.
    2
  950. As you said Park didn’t care about equality of the Korean. Hitler did care about the equality( on living quality) of Germany people (just the Aryan). Park also got the “War dividend” from Vietnam War and economy aids from Japan and USA. The government controlled on South Korean Economy was also gradually reduce in each 5 year plan. If “Park’s Socialism” was socialism, under the same definition, “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” would also be socialism. So if you believe “Park’s Socialism” was socialism, Park’s South Korea would be only at most the the second most successful case of socialism. The most successful socialist country would be PRC now.
    2
  951. TIK is using the Marxist definition of Socialism here. 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
  952. Regarding oppressing the leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). USSR: According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. PRC: Just in Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death. Nazi German: “Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000. In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 “[Hitler] rejected from the outset the  idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden”  [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them  integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. ) “By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. ) The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
    2
  953.  @justzephan2267 ​​⁠Nazi is nationalistic, but so as every communist state ever existed. 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." The main point is neither nationalism nor oppressing leftist opposition can refute anyone from being socialist.
    2
  954.  @hobbso8508  A sovereign state is a cooperative collective agency regardless of its political system, both democratic state or authoritarian state can fit into this definition. Otherwise, why Stalin, an authoritarian fascist in your point of view or Bernie Sanders a left ring politician in USA, a capitalist non collective society, would be on the left side of the compass?
    2
  955.  @hobbso8508  That is how the political compass defined “cooperative collective agency.” Their definition of “cooperative collective agency” included authoritarian states. Otherwise, not even Marxism can be classified as “Left” because of the authoritarian characteristics lied within Marxism.
    2
  956. ⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508 [It's based on your imagination mate.] [They use the same sources as you, you just apply your own bias.] It is either based on my imagination or we used the same source. You need to get your story straight. [They use the same sources as you, you just apply your own bias.] They didn’t provide any source regarding that scandal claim, and they also created the site before TIK made this video. How can we used the same source ? (this video) You are really delusional, it is time for you to go back to YMCA, Hobo.
    2
  957. Why you always end a discussion with baseless personal attack? The least you can do is to provide any evidence when criticising my claim and comments. I actually used more direct history facts then they do. Here is other arguments they used. [Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts.] The same approach of introducing capitalistic incentive were also used in late cold war USSR and other Comunist States, beside why minimizing the cost, a basic management strategies, would become an indication of capitalism? [But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.] The supporters doesn’t necessarily represent what they are supporting, Lenin is supported by the Imperial Germany. Many western communists supporter were bourgeoisie, the “ruling class” which communist wished to overthrow in their theories.
    2
  958.  @hobbso8508  I didn't ignored their own analysis, I counter-argued it. Again the least you can do is to provide any evidence when criticising my claim and comments.
    2
  959.  @hobbso8508  [Meanwhile your source is just TIKs videos where he changes and misrepresents sources all the time.] Do you have any proof to support your accusations? [But please, tell me more about the sources that you constantly ignore.] I didn’t ignore the argument of political compass, I counter-argued its arguments in my previous comments. [You have to argue with your own source of the political compass just to use them as a reference to make more poorly thought out arguments.] The arguments on the Political Compass is valid. The problem is it is not based on true premise. What I did was just corrected an unsound argument. Why correcting an unsound argument would be an poorly thought out argument?
    2
  960.  @hobbso8508  [Yes, TIKs video.] Do you have any proof to support your accusations? [You ignored it.] Do you have any proof to support your accusations? [You didn't correct anything, you just asserted based on this loons video, which attempts to rewite history for political bias.] Do you have any proof to support your accusations?
    2
  961.  @hobbso8508  [Yes, TIKs video. Yes, your comments. Yes, literally every source on the subject.] Can you refer any of our claim and debunked it.
    2
  962.  @hobbso8508 an you quote the direct quote and elaborate. As TIK was using the Das Kapital definition of socialism. And I have explained where the political compass went wrong. It seems you are the actual one to distort what others was saying, while you baselessly accuse others for distorting the origin source
    2
  963.  @hobbso8508  [TIK does not use the Das Kapital definition of socialism. He quoted Marx and Wikipedia, but completely ignored half the definitions, allowing him to misrepresent the actual point. You can read the full definition on screen, and not just focus on TIKs attempts to reword or selectively highlight the definition.] The qoute of Das Kapital is in 26:00 For the wiki misrepresentation accusations,I don’t know which sentence you are referring to. But it seems you missed the following sentence “Different types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach.” The Communist States’ top down approach of Socialism is still included in the definition of Socialism. [You have failed to explain where the political compass went wrong because, as has been explained to you over and over, the Nazis privatised industry. But keep arguing against your own sources, it amuses me.] Nazi abolishment of private ownership right with the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree. Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.(wiki) Nazi suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to property. Private property didn’t existed de jure. The property seized of Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen, proven that the de facto right to property of everyone was also not guaranteed. Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.(wiki) Nazi suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to property. Private property didn’t existed de jure. The property seized of Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen, proven that the de facto right to property of everyone was also not guaranteed. All the state property that was previously privatized through selling stock was renationalized in 1937 by the 1937 corporate law, which 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)
    2
  964.  @hobbso8508  Your claimed of “all of those you still require social/common control of the means of production, ie democracy.” is just your opinion, if it is the only right interpretation of Socialism. You would exclude Authoritarian Socialism, which has been a faction of Socialism since at least the Second International, from Socialism. “It has been argued that at some point the Second International turned "into a battleground over the issue of libertarian versus authoritarian socialism. Not only did they effectively present themselves as champions of minority rights; they also provoked the German Marxists into demonstrating a dictatorial intolerance which was a factor in preventing the British labour movement from following the Marxist direction indicated by such leaders as H. M. Hyndman".[108]” Private property is a legal designation. Having something from others people doesn’t make it yours. It is not about Government have any right to take anything from anyone , it is about people have no right to own anything. Your prison metaphor is false analogy. Beside, under the wiki article of Socialism also mentioned Socialism permitted the existence of private property with mix economies. “Western countries, such as France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist".[41][42]” Private Property is never an issue of Socialism. It seems you , not TIK, are the one actually ignore the source.
    2
  965.  @hobbso8508  [I don't need to claim it, the sources TIK, and by extension you, provided claim that.] The wiki page, TIK source, didn’t claim ”Common control is control by everyone, not just the state." The wiki page and the script of TIK's video didn't even mentioned the phase "common control" once. You just distorted both TIK's statement and source to accused TIK distorting source? How desperate are you. [You're just describing state capitalism. Socialism, by definition, as you have already displayed, requires common ownership or control.] I didn’t said anything about State Capitalism, I am talking about Authoritarian Socialism. How do you suddenly draw the conclusion that they are the same thing? You need to elaborate on that. Again, [Oh good, so you're just arguing semantics.] It is not arguing semantics, that is an direct counter example to your argument. Beside your fail analogy, distorting the source, and distorting the definition of “private ownership” and fail to elaborate your argument? How many more unsound arguments can you provide?
    2
  966. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508  [Yes, TIK ignores half the quote, specifically the point on common control. He doesn't say state control, he says common control. Common control is control by everyone, not just the state.] Both the wiki page and the script of TIK's video didn't even mention the term "common control" once. How can you accused TIK distorted or ignored anything about "common control" from the source meterial? [Again, you are just describing state capitalism.] I didn’t describe any property of “Authoritarian Socialism”. What is you meaning of "you are just describing state capitalism". [Nope, it's a semantic argument. It does nothing to argue the actual point. Private property still exists, with or without the legally enshrined right. And not only did it still exist, it grew. The new laws that allowed the state to take private property were only used to move property from one private individual to another. In truth, state owned property reduced under Nazi Germany.] As the provided source implied that, Mix Economies Socialism is still considered as Socialism, the ratio or amount of private property is irrelevant to the socialistic nature of a state. “Western countries, such as France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist".[41][42]”
    2
  967. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508  Das Kapital said “their (socialist man) Common Control” not everyone common control. 26:13 We surely over that again and again. Beside, You just claimed TIK never quote Das Kapital, then where the common control came from. Saying someone unfamiliar with something is not and explanation, please elaborate why “authoritarian socialism” is “state capitalism”?
    2
  968. ​ @hobbso8508  Das Kapital never claimed, "In socialism, everyone is socialist, so yes, it means everyone." That is merely your own opinion. You, not TIK, are the one who actively changed the meaning of the quote. Please elaborate on why “authoritarian socialism” is “state capitalism”?
    2
  969.  @hobbso8508  Your statement is irrelevant to the Das Kapital quote as that quote didn’t even mention “socialist” once. Even if everyone is socialists in socialist state, the “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature;” It is the “socialised man” not “socialist”.
    2
  970.  @hobbso8508  I don't know, it could be the people who rule the state, the economist, the proletariat or some proletariat with waken class consciousness. Still, it could not be everyone because it would contradict the principles of the “dictatorship of proletarian,” which would be the ruling mechanism before the class differences are abolished which would be achieved in a communist society. Regardless what is the meaning of Socialised Man, claiming that Socialist State can only exist when there is common control of means of production for everyone (everyone is socicalist) is contradicted by the following quote from “Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring” by Engels “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 formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production.
    2
  971.  @hobbso8508  Classic or not, there is no ruling power among any class other than proletarian, which would only be everyone in the stateless communist society, as the revolutionary measures in the Manifesto didn't include confiscating the property of all property owners. It seems you missed the "Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution." from Engels's quote, the formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production.
    2
  972. ⁠ @hobbso8508 Under Marxism, Poleteriat is never the only class in Socialist State. Socialist State is the intermediate stage between Capitalist State and Communist Stateless Society, which Poleteriat is the only class, or in other words, abolishing class differences.
    2
  973. ​ @hobbso8508  Every pre-existed class. Here is the quote from Manifesto stating that class differences would be abolished after the establishment of Communist society. "Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other."
    2
  974.  @hobbso8508  The other classes could be Aristocracy (the ruling proletarian if it is the “dictatorship of proletarian"), the Property Owner, Lumpenproletariat and the proletarian.
    2
  975.  @hobbso8508  The class of individuals changed with their social function; you are the aristocracy once you are the ruler; I will change it to the ruling class to prevent misunderstanding. Both owners of property and owners of businesses would not be confiscated in the "dictatorship of proletarian" according to revolutionary measures in the Manifesto. Lumpenproletariat is a subclass of the Proletariat. You think it is not the same class is fine. The point is there is not just Proletariat in a socialist state. Remember the "Socialism" wiki page also stated that "Western countries, such as France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist." [41][42]” Do you think everyone in France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom is just Proletariat and no owner of businesses?
    2
  976.  @hobbso8508  Don't forget the "Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution." from “Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring” by Engels. The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production. Regardless, what Marxism believes, private owned businesses would not be eliminated before the establishment of the Communist Stateless Society as the quote from Manifesto stated "Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." Therefore, owner of businesses can co-exist with proletariat, and ruling class in a socialist state, under Marxism or the Socialism Theory that "democratic socialist" based on.
    2
  977. ​ @hobbso8508  You always ignore "Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution." from “Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring” by Engels. The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production. __________________________ [Running the state is based on democratic processes. Capitalist ownership of businesses is not. Comparing the two is idiotic.] The class of individual changes with his/her socioeconomic status. Once the socioeconomic status of an individual changes, his/her class changes with it, regardless of the mean of change. If Democratic processes are able to stop people from becoming the ruling class, how can you explain the cases of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump? __________________________ [No, there is no private ownership of businesses under Marxist.] I have provided you the source that Marxists would not confiscate any property from the cooperative bourgeoisie from the revolutionary measures of the Manifesto. There is no private ownership of businesses only under the Marxist Communist Society. "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." Even if you believe there is no private ownership of businesses under Marxist, the class difference still exists in Socialist State because it would only be eliminated in a Communist society. "Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." Thus, under the "dictatorship of the proletariat," not everyone would have control of the mean of production. __________________________ Either way, socialism can exist in other socialist theories, like the "Western countries, such as France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist." [41][42]” from the "Socialism" wiki page. So regardless of your opinions on Marxism, you still didn't change the fact that business owners can co-exist with the proletariat and the ruling class in a socialist state.
    2
  978. ​ @hobbso8508  [That's not what he was saying at all. He was saying that society naturally becomes more socialist over time, and he was right.] I don’t know how you learn your English; it said: “Whilst it (capitalist mode of production) forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production socialized into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution.” The more mean of production socialized into state property and more forced on of capitalist mode of production show the way of revolution. The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production. [What you're really complaining about is money in politics, which is just crony capitalism, and is a massive issue with US "democracy".] They should be in prison, if they don’t have their ruling class privilege. You answered the question; democracy cannot stop the accumulation of capitial within the rulers through their ruling privilege in the USA. Then why do you think a ruling class would not form within the rulers with their ruling privilege under democratic processes? [Again, you are confused because you think the world is black and white.] Yes, it is a gradually changing system. You are the one who is making the black-and-white statement that there must be no bourgeoisie within a socialist state. At the same time, Karl Marx said that class differences would only finally be eliminated in the communist society, the stage after the socialist state. [Yes they will, through democracy. Have you learned nothing.] Class differences still exist in socialist state, why would non-proletariat would have vote in "dictatorship of the proletariat" even in your definition of socialist state under Marxism? If not everyone have the right to vote, why would everyone have the freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature? ___________________________________ [Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. If the populous has no control of the means of production either directly or indirectly through elected representation then it's not socialism.] Your definition of Socialism is just wrong even in Marxism or Liberal Socialism, as long as private ownership existed, which both Marxism and Liberal Socialism permitted, populace has no control of the means of production either directly or indirectly. Beside under Marxism, the socialised man no would not have the freedom to bring interchange with Nature under their common control, because it would just lead the interchange with Nature being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature. ______________________ Therefore, freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. different to Making the populace no different from the socialized man will just directly contradict the following quote. “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
    2
  979. ​ @hobbso8508  [Again, you're using black and white language to describe a graduate process. You also seem confused about who is electing these people that are socialising the economy. Maybe English isn't you first language.] A gradual process includes both the ending stage and starting stage of Socialism, where the Socialist State is still run by capitalistic mode of production, where the proletariat has not yet seized political power. [Again, you're complaining about corruption in a country with a flawed democracy. A very capitalistic one at that.] Even the USA's Democracy is flawed? Which country's Democracy isn't flawed, then? [You're confusing economic class with bourgeoisie and aristocracy. There will still be those with more and those with less, however those gaps will greatly reduce.] Those are privileges that money cannot buy. Their special treatments were due to the presidency of Trump and Biden. [You still seem confused and you continue to treat this as an on off switch.] According to Marxism, total class difference abolishment can only be archived in Communist Society, not Socialist State. Thus there must be different classes (i.e., bourgeoisie) within Socialist State under Marxism.
    2
  980.  @hobbso8508  [But again, there is no "starting stage" as it isn't an on off switch. You are contradicting yourself in your first 9 words.] (Sorry I missread your "graduate process" with "gradual process". Next time please uses "immediate process" instead of "graduate process", "graduate process" is not a common phase.) A gradual process includes everything from the starting stage to the ending stage of Socialism. In the starting stage, Socialist State is still run by capitalistic mode of production, where the proletariat has not yet seized political power. What do you mean there is no starting stage in a gradual process? Every process start from somewhere and end in somewhere. [Norway is the most democratic nation on the planet. Conincidentally it is also the least corrupt.] A ruling classes still formed within the Norwegian rulers, they would still use or misused the system to further their own interest, the Norwegian Housing Scandal was a good example, Members of Parliament exploited generous state benefits to live free at taxpayer expense and evade taxes. [Not sure what you are whining about.] Both of them should be in jail years ago, when their incidents were first uncovered. [You are continuing to ignore that this is a graduated process, even though you already admitted as much. Does the concept of something not being an absolute offend you somehow? Do you truely believe that socialism is some sort of on-off switch?] There must be different classes (i.e., bourgeoisie) within Socialist State under Marxism. Because according to Marxism, private owned businesses would not be eliminated before the establishment of the Communist Stateless Society as the quote from Manifesto stated "Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." While Karl Marx claimed that abolishing class differences on the other can only be archived in the Communist Stateless Society (the stage after Socialist State), you claimed there must be no different classes (i.e., bourgeoisie) within Socialist State according to Marxism. For a person using English as the first language, can't you see the contradiction between two statement?
    2
  981. ​ @hobbso8508  [Why would I say that, it's NOT an immediate process? Are you okay Oscar?] You are the one who first used the term "graduate process" to describe something you think is acting like an "on-off switch", happened immediately. [So according to you a socialist state is when capitalism….] You are not wrong. Socialist States begin from capitalist states. According to Manifesto (Reactionary) Socialism can mean when governments do stuff "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." (2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party). Furthermore, the definition of socialization under Marxism does not necessarily mean common control. Otherwise, this quote would not exist in "Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring" "But all this changed, as soon as the means of production became socialised and concentrated in the hands of capitalists." [Except the fact that it was a scandal is proof that it is actually a poor example.] The scandal is not proof. The law behind the scandal was the proof. Members of Parliament have the privilege to legally live free at taxpayer expense with tax exemptions if live more than 40km from Oslo. That policy is already an example of the ruling class creating their privilege to use the populace's money for their benefit regardless of the democratic process. [Oh, so lets just throw away due process shall we. Honestly Oscar.] They should be detained in jails until a trial or sentencing hearing will take place. What do you think I want? [There is no contradiction. Again, as it becomes MORE socialist class differences and separate classes altogether become LESS. It's a scale, not an absolute.] The Communist Society in Marxism has some very clear boundaries. Until a society can archive, "money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain", ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith') that society is still a Socialist State, not a Communist Society. Remember the principle of "the dictatorship of the proletariat. If there are still separate classes, there must be some people who don't have the right to vote (the common control to rationally regulate their interchange with Nature). How does your definition of the Socialist State, in which the populace has common control on rationally regulating the means of production interchange with Nature either directly or indirectly, fit into the Socialist State under the Marxist narrative?
    2
  982.  @hobbso8508  [Again, I'm not the one calling this an on-oof switch, you are.] That is a new low even for you. Did you deny that you are the one who used the term "graduate process" and "on-off switch" to describe/distort my statement? [Again, you are treating this like an on-off switch. You have also eroded the meaning of socialism so much you think that capitalism is a socialist state.] That is not my word; that was the description of Bourgeoisie Socialism in the Communist Manifesto. Besides, the "Socialism" wiki page also suggested that Socialism can exist in Capitalist States, like the "Western countries, such as France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist." [41][42]". [Yes, it does mean common control. Literally everything in Marxism is about common control. Socialisation as a concept is about making things socialist. Your comment however did not say socialisation, because that term didn't even exist in Marx's day, instead it says socialised, which is not the same thing.] Engels used socialisation in Anti-Dühring. It also didn't contain any meaning of the common control for everyone involved. "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. " "Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring" [Those are second homes that allow politicians to attend parliament as needed. They are in fact removing financial barriers to being a politician, giving anyone elected the means to serve, moving further away from a ruling class, not closer.] Without income checks, it will just become resource misallocation, at the end it is just a tool to make the rich richer. How dare you call yourself a socialist, if you are not even able to point that out? [Yes, communism, but not socialism. Communism is an absolute, socialism is a sliding scale. And again, the society has elements of socialism, is moving more towards socialism, but is not some absolute socialist state. That is not how those terms work.] In Marxism, the Communism Society is the only correct ascension of the Socialist State. Real Socialist State is determined to evolve into the Communism Society, and then the class difference would finally be eliminated. In other socialist theories, like "democratic socialist," ownership of private property is always permitted. Your definition of the Socialist State, in which the populace has common control on rationally regulating the means of production interchange with Nature either directly or indirectly, is not the only definition of Socialist State among all Socialist ideologies. [Nope. Universal suffrage is literally the dirst step in socialism. Engels said so himself. They are the same thing.] Maybe for you and Engels, but not even for the Socialisms (i.e., Bourgeoisie Socialism )Karl Marx recognized in the Manifesto.
    2
  983.  @hobbso8508  Karl Marx acknowledge Bourgeoisie Socialism which is Socialism exist in Capitalist States Here is the direct quote from Karl Marx "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) "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.” (Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring) "Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution." (Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring) With the quote of Manifesto and the Anti-Dühring, I have already shown you that under Marxism, “socialism”, “socialised” and “socialisation”, all didn’t necessarily contained the meaning of common control by everyone in the “society”. While you are just keep repeated your debunked claim that socialism must include the common control by everyone in the “society” without any support, other than your own opinion what more you can contributed to this conversation?
    2
  984.  @hobbso8508  The whole chapter didn’t even mentioned “democracy” or “democratic” once. You changed and misrepresented sources once again. My definition of socialism is basically just social ownership of mean of production without the necessity of common control of mean of production for everyone in that society.
    2
  985.  @hobbso8508  Source? Social ownership of mean of production is the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society as a whole. (Wiki) The Common Control Right of each populace would mostly be fulfilled though receiving the surplus product, instead of controlling the appropriation. That is why social ownership doesn't necessarily require democracy, and why Karl Marx recognised Bourgeoisie Socialism as Socialism, despite 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.” (the Communist Manifesto) Even in Marxism, there is not populace common control over the social ownership of mean of production. Only the socialised man have the freedom to “rationally regulating” the products exchange, and bring the economic activity under their common control, instead of letting it blindly under the market-led influence; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature. “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
    2
  986.  @hobbso8508  Source from Engels? Btw, can’t you see irrelevance between democracy and Socialism? Under Marxism, no matter universal suffrage or not, The way to appropriate the surplus products of society, would never be common controlled by the populace. The appropriation of the product surplus would always under the common controlled of the socialised man. “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
    2
  987. @hobbso8508 ["Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy...] This definition excluded Democratic Socialism. The most basic definition of Socialism is just the Social ownership of the mean of production, which is just "the appropriation of the surplus product produced by means of production, or the wealth that comes from it to society as a whole." That's why total control of the economy is not required in this kind of Socialism, therefore this socialism can exist within capitalist state. This is why Karl Marx recognized Feudal Socialism and Bourgeois Socialism as Socialism in the Manifesto. Democratic Socialism is also included in this group of Socialism. The other type of Socialism required both criteria of Social ownership of the mean of production and total control of the economy. Owen Utopia Socialism, which has no democracy but still being regarded as Socialism by Karl Marx in The Manifesto, and the Marxist State Socialism/Communism( regardless if it is democratic as a promise or not) are in this group of Socialism. Regardless of Democracy or not, populace would have common control over the public property even under Capitalist State. While populace common control over Socialism ("the appropriation of the surplus product produced by means of production") can exist wothout democracy, if you are running a small scale society, like 5 people. Democracy would not guarantee the populace would have common control over Socialism ("the appropriation of the surplus product produced by means of production". Karl Marx claimed his Socialsim would be democratic, as per your sources. However, he also claimed that only the socialised man, the associated producers, have the freedom to “rationally regulating” the products exchange, and bring the product intersection under their common control. No matter how democratic the election could be, only the associated producer, which can be produce by any mean, have the control over the Socialism ("the appropriation of the surplus product produced by means of production"). “Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) My definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production without the necessity of populace common control over Socialism ("the appropriation of the surplus product produced by means of production") Your definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, which must have populace common control over Socialism ("the appropriation of the surplus product produced by means of production") My definition can fit all socialisms that Karl Marx recognized in the Manifesto. In contrast, yours cannot fit Utopia Socialism, Feudal Socialism, and Bourgeois Socialism, which Karl Marx recognized them as Socialisms in the Manifesto.
    2
  988.  @israelcontreras5332  Again, stating Socialism is just mean State ownership of means of production ignored the existence of other liberal socialism like Anarchism, Orthodox Marxism and Fabianism, which define Socialism as people, public, commune, common or any other socialised entity other than the state ownership of means of production. Without acknowledging that, you are excluding all other Socialism except Marxism from your definition of Socialism. As TIK has already said that National Socialism was not Marxism (8:14), you and TIK just eventually came to the same conclusion. You just used the term “Socialism” to describe Marxism.
    2
  989. ​ @colebehnke7767  The hierarchical society in which different groups of people had different roles based on their perceived racial or national identity is from "Brave New World" not Nazi Germany.
    2
  990.  @colebehnke7767  different groups of people had different roles is based on the class system of "The Brave New World". Nazi Germany didn't really assign different roles based on their perceived racial or national identity, French collaborator and USSR collaborator were both doing the same job. The hierarchical society that based on different race was actually happened in Yuan Dynasty, the policy called "Four-Class System".
    2
  991. ​ @coldpizzaslut  Terribly Sorry, I auto-neglected all the accusations other communist states also committed. Please kindly be more specific. Just a timestamp and a brief description would be most appreciated. But if you are talking about the "old bosses" can still keep their position, that is not a very relevant indicator that NAZI was not running the country socialistically. As the economic relations between firms and the workers were still 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 without DAF approved. 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 by the Corporation Law of 1937. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms. Buchheims described here that the Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly. According to Das Kapital V3, what the Nazis did was the socialist way to run a society. "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.) Even though there was a deterioration in the working condition and longer working hours, it was not the capitalist, but the state/Nazi/DAF exploiting the workers. If he was talking about the Nazi privatization from Against the mainstream. Nazi scammed the buyer who brought the “privatised assets” 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)
    2
  992.  @coldpizzaslut  Stating that Jews and Communists were the targets of the fire decree doesn't make TIK's claim, the fire decree abolished private property rights, wrong. Those two narratives are still not mutually exclusive. Both narratives can be right at the same time. The real argument against the claimed that Nazi stripped the private property rights of all citizen was started from 15:00, which I have already commented in the previous comment. And any accusations of cronyism and dirigisme also not very good proof of being capitalistic, as communist countries also have those problems. Those two would be very strong arguments in 1950s. However as the Communist States introduced more and more capitalistic features into their economic policies, the economy system of those Communist/Socialist State in late Cold War era just became nearly identical to that of Nazism and Fascism, plus all the similar atrocities done by them before 1991. It is quite impossible to shack Nazism and Fascism out of Socialism by what they did in real life.
    2
  993. TIK was saying the ideology of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism are all socialism (socialist ideologies) as they all have the aim/advocate the socialization of the means of production. TIK is not talking about the Communist, Nazi, and Fascist countries' economic systems are all Socialism. ( Which doesn’t even make sense as a statement as economic system is not ideology)
    2
  994. ​ @ReversedPolarity  Fascist is not a movement that promotes the idea of a forcibly monolithic, regimented nation under the control of an autocratic ruler. On the contrary, it is an egalitarian ideology (theoretically) that evolved from Marxist Class Socialism. Its ideological end goal is to achieve 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). Fascism was a very idealistic ideology for every class, not just for proletarians; that is why they won the leftist struggle against the communist in Italy. 1/ Despite being scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" also illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideology. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) 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)
    2
  995.  @ReversedPolarity  2/ The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only the 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)
    2
  996. ​ @ReversedPolarity  Regarding [Socialism never implies a forcible means of implementation] Never implies doesn't mean never allow. At least Karl Marx permit a forcible means of implementation. "If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." ("Manifesto of the Communist Party", p.27)
    2
  997.  @ReversedPolarity  Regarding Democracy. Karl Marx was also not pro-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."
    2
  998. [Many of those systems disregarded the ethic fundamentalism behind Marxism in favor of reshaping the theory to match their political needs and the difficulties of the period.]?? What kind of ethical fundamentalism behind the man who said, "the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848). Under that ethic, every atrocities Communist ever committed can be justified, as they are just eliminating the element of old society. And that quote also brings up the question. Never Imply Forcible means of implementation were exclusively in Marxism fundamentalism. So is the previous statement also excluded Marxism from Marxism fundamentalism？ By your standard of Economics, what you are saying is still just the Economic side of Marxism. Class Struggle and historical progress are all just economic. Your two very long paragraphs still cannot illustrate what is the political "value" of Socialism. May you please elaborate the political "value" of Socialism? Karl Marx's "worry about" democracy. Don't distort the meaning of valueless if democracy cannot achieve Socialism into worrying Socialism cannot be achieved by democracy. The second statement recognized the value of democracy, while the first one didn't. What he wrote is definitely not pro-democracy. Especially from a man who also wrote: "If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." (The Communist Manifesto)
    2
  999.  @ReversedPolarity  In theory, in Fascism, the interest of should not be separated from the People of Nation; while the interest should not be separated from the Race in Nazism. Fascism and Nazism also have their political fictions of justification. Fascism justification was born from the scientific observation of decades of failed Marxist movements, while Nazism believed Aryan is the chosen race. (35:39) All three ideologies want to save their people (society) from the “Evil” Capitalism and create a society of equality. (38:07 Nazi classless Utopia) Although they all eventually become the justification of totalitarian regimes. In theory they are all ideologies for the interest of the people (proletarians, people in the nation, and the Aryan Race) in its society. Despite the Nazi’s justification is more ridiculous than the others,but it doesn’t change the fact that it is an ideology for the people (theoretically) .
    2
  1000. ​ @ReversedPolarity  Firstly, I don't need to twist that narrative because the "Death of the Author (literally), "twisting of narrative," is just a term to discredit other peoples' claims. Besides, from the Communists' narrative though out about 200 years and what they did when they got power, it seems people are looking at that quote quite literally. Bakunin, a socialist who lived in the same era as Karl Marx, criticized Karl Marx. "You can see quite well that behind all the democratic and socialistic phrases and promises of Marx's program, there is to be found in his State all that constitutes the true despotic and brutal nature of all States, whatever may be the form of their government and that in the final reckoning, the People's State so strongly commended by Marx, and the aristocratic-monarchic State, maintained with as much cleverness as power by Bismarck, are completely identical by the nature of their objective at home as well as in foreign affairs. In foreign affairs it is the same deployment of military force that is to say, conquest; and in home affairs it is the same employment of this armed force, the last argument of all threatened political powers against the masses, who, tired of believing, hoping, submitting and obeying always, rise in revolt." (Marxism, Freedom and the State, Ch.3) "Living for very nearly thirty years, almost exclusively among German workers, refugees like himself and surrounded by more or less intelligent friends and disciples belonging by birth and relationship to the bourgeois world, Marx naturally has managed to form a Communist school, or a sort of little Communist Church, composed of fervent adepts and spread all over Germany. This Church, restricted though it may be on the score of numbers, is skillfully organised, and thanks to its numerous connections with working-class organizations in all the principal places in Germany, it has already become a power. Karl Marx naturally enjoys an almost supreme authority in this Church, and to do him justice, it must be admitted that he knows how to govern this little army of fanatical adherents in such way as always to enhance his prestige and power over the imagination of the workers of Germany." (Marxism, Freedom and the State, Ch.3) In regard to Karl Marx's narrative, I believe Bakunin is more trust worthy than yours. So as you claimed regarding the last paragraph, it seems you are trying to whitewash him too hard. You even use alt-history to push your narrative. The narrative you are using was basically the narrative communists use to justify their consolidation of power and committing atrocities. At least the US didn't kill millions of their own people in the name of democracy, and very few people would use democracy to justify and condone the atrocities US did in the name of democracy, unlike what you just and all the tankies did to justify and condone the atrocities Communists did in the name of communism. Regarding [political value in Socialism], with your high standard of "political" that neglected all the socioeconomic theory and the socialist policy's political factors of Fascism and Nazism. "The working-class and overthrowing the bourgeoisie by giving power to the proletariat, abolishing private property." none of what you said there is "political."
    2
  1001.  @ReversedPolarity  In reality so as every communism regime ever existed. And what you said in the last paragraph is just class socialism created by Karl Marx. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory?
    2
  1002.  @ReversedPolarity  That is not generalizing; those totalitarian parts are the hidden contract clause of Marxist Communism. The same ideology you are defending was used to justify the suppressive regime and its atrocities that killed millions. Those Communism regimes despised humanistic values on the level of Fascism and Nazism. Besides, Marxism is a materialistic ideology; he never advocated bourgeoisie to treat the proletariat more humanely; he advocated the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie establishment. Every welfare/wage increase was strived from class struggle, not given by the bourgeoisie. Proletariat under Marxism was determined to overthrow the bourgeoisie if they had the power to do so. How Humanistic is that? Maybe next time you throw yourself into some ideology because you believe that ideology would achieve some goal, you might want to read the ideology further to know if that ideology contradicts your goal first.
    2
  1003.  @ReversedPolarity  The living standards of the regular people did increase. 17:10 For the second paragraph, you are just saying the same action with different vocabularies. Unifying a group of people against another group of people.
    2
  1004.  @ReversedPolarity  The whole section you quoted is not relevant to your conclusion. How is the”Nationalist” not the “Socialist” part caused that problem? The inefficient of productivity and putting large amounts of resources in rearming is caused by and the decisions of state control of the mean of production, which is the definition of Socialism ( made by Karl Marx). Soviet Union during Cold War also spent alot of resources on Military expansion instead of citizen living qualities. All of that was the result of Socialist system. If they had free market, neither Hitler or the Soviet leader can lavage that large ratio of national income to military expansions. The following time stamp show the Nazism goal, that required starting the Eastern front to achieve, to benefit the Aryan Race. 27:41 30:52 32:41 33:52 35:39
    2
  1005.  @ReversedPolarity  Nope it was not political driven. The following time stamp show the Nazism economic goal (for the Aryan as a whole), that required starting the Eastern front to achieve, to benefit the Aryan Race. 27:41 30:52 32:41 33:52 35:39 Hitler able to started the war in 1939, it is due to the state control of mean of production allow him to allocate Gross income to arm expansion , Hitler need to start a war in 1939, also because of the economic disaster caused by state control of mean of production
    2
  1006. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @ReversedPolarity  1. Mein Kampf and the second books are Hitler’s books on his own ideologies. What is the problem using that to understand Nazism as an ideology? "His people" didn't get better conditions under him because he lose the war and failed the Socialist system didn't work as intended like all Communist, Facsist and other Socialist System did in real life. If a person can only be a socialist if they succeed, and able to run a Socialist System, even Karl Marx was unable to qualify as a Socailist. "Living for very nearly thirty years, almost exclusively among German workers, refugees like himself and surrounded by more or less intelligent friends and disciples belonging by birth and relationship to the bourgeois world, Marx naturally has managed to form a Communist school, or a sort of little Communist Church, composed of fervent adepts and spread all over Germany. This Church, restricted though it may be on the score of numbers, is skillfully organised, and thanks to its numerous connections with working-class organizations in all the principal places in Germany, it has already become a power. Karl Marx naturally enjoys an almost supreme authority in this Church, and to do him justice, it must be admitted that he knows how to govern this little army of fanatical adherents in such way as always to enhance his prestige and power over the imagination of the workers of Germany." (Marxism, Freedom and the State, Ch.3) 2. All those policy listed in this video were implemented before 1939, non of those socialists policy were just wartime policy.
    2
  1007. ​ @ReversedPolarity  [ call them out as atrocities without any further context ??] The context is Marxism is not really about democracy and freedom. Marxism in practice ids very similar to Nazism. [hypothetically speaking, if you had an imperialist system ruling over you, I guess you're either defenseless against it because nothing can be done for humanity or you become a proponent of more liberal approaches to capitalism? ] Straw man fallacy here, I would not support the Communist/Socailist faction Resistance for sure.
    2
  1008.  @ReversedPolarity  Coerced is just a negative word of control and ragulate. The socialism Hitler operated is just socialism that socialist (maybe even the operator) doesn't want to admit.
    2
  1009.  @ReversedPolarity  A Communist/Socialist system never implied the government know what the people really need. Government never know what the people really need, that is the main reason Communist/Socialist (under Karl Marx definition) always failed in the past. Did Hitler tried to find out what people really need? Yes. 11:27 Was it sucessful? No The socialism you are mention is the Marxist class socialism, while the one Hitler running is a race socialism. There are different, but they are both socialism.
    2
  1010.  @ReversedPolarity  They use the good will to gain popularity, can any see the totalitarian nature within Marxism when Karl Marx was alive, yes. Did Marx or Engels tried to minimise that nature? No. No according to history, my living quality gradually increase after 1840s. And I will very likely become a middle class. That is the main reason why Marxism didn’t replace capitalism in Western Europe in 1800s.
    2
  1011.  @ReversedPolarity  No one said that all soicalism are the same. It is a strawman you created to argue, and use that to distort the definition of Socialism (which Karl Marx made) from Social (State) ownership of mean of production into somthing that can even include social democrat that allow private ownership of means of production, but unable to include totalitarian system which have full control of mean of production within the society .
    2
  1012.  @ReversedPolarity  Sorry I just skimmed your comments. Haven’t notice your part about Social Democrat. So you are just shifting the definition of Socialism from the Social ownership of the mean of production into societal equality repeatedly. And tried to politically exclude Nazism and fascism from Socialism, while keeping Marxism within the definition. There is no base to say although Nazism and Fascism and Communism are all economic socialism, however politically only Communism is socialism as only it has a good intentions to pursue social equity. A Fascist (theoretically) as an opposition party can also just act like a normal social Democratic Party. While a Nazi as an opposition party would just like a normal worker’s party. Nazi Party hidden the Reichstag for at least a decade. As again in theory, Fascism and Nazism are equally pursuing social equality within their societies, as Marxism does. All three ideologies started from a good intentions of destroying capitalism, but ended in totalitarianism. And killed millions of people IRL for Nazism and Communism. Therefore, saying any Marxists in the parliament seat can be democratic liberal Marxist is just like blindly believing a man would not shoot and rob you once they got a gun in their hands, while he previously made a manifesto to announce he will shot and rob you once he take the gun. As there were already tons of Karl Marx's literatures claiming that Comunists will erase the old establishment once they got the power no-matter the mean and consequence necessary. Then abolishing bourgeoisie democracy and private property and rationally regulated the economy. By the definition of Socialism and totalitarianism, I can quite sure that totalitarian state must be a socialist state. As, Totalitarianism in definition is to control every aspect of the state, hence by definition, Totalitarian State must have the social ownership of the meaning of productions, hence it must be a socialist state. If a totalitarianism state isn’t a socialist, that’s mean, that totalitarianism state do not have the control of social ownership, hence it must not be a Totalitarian State. I never know authoritarianism is totally equivalent to totalitarianism.
    2
  1013.  @ReversedPolarity  As per my first reply, socialism as a theory and a political system are two different concepts. As even Stalin could not fully collectivize all means of production in USSR. Theoretically, both Nazi and Communists want to do that, but none of those nations can do that in real life. Therefore the definition of the Socialistic system IRL (Socialism that you first refer to) is a very blurry term to describe countries practicing Socialism. The boundary of the Socialistic system IRL expanded and became more tolerable every time any Socialist Country did an economic reform, upon a point that the country's socialist status was universally challenged, like China after 1989. In the second part, the case of implementation of capitalistic incentive into state control economic you describe can also be applied to most of the Socialist States since the 1970s and contemporary Cuba( the privatised Tourism industry). If they can still be referred to as Socialist State, Nazi Germany should also able to be referred to as one. The problem is after the Communists won the elections. The Proletarian Dictatorship Governing System Karl Marx described is definitely not democratic in the modern sense. No balance of power, advocate infringement of human rights (right of owning private property), advocate the elimination of opposition ( bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois). If this is pro-democracy, then North Korea is also a democratic country. I didn’t reply the last question because authoritarian is not equal to totalitarian. In wiki, authoritarian capitalism can be even used to describe Singapore, a country with just flawed democracy rating in the Democracy Index.
    2
  1014. Oh no there is no need for a battle of definitions. It is the fact that Proudhon, Bakunin, Sterner, Dühring, Mao, Lenin and Marx all being classified as socialists widened the spectrum of Socialists and made Nazism sit comfortably within the definition of Socialism. If the definition of Socialists and Socialism only covered either Liberal Socialists or Authoritarian Socialists and their ideology, Nazis could never be classified as Socialists due to their totalitarian and atrocities committed or their comparatively liberal economic policies.
    2
  1015. Your point is valid until then birth of Liberal Socialist and Democratic Socialist. Nazis Germany and Fascist Italy were neither running a Totalitarian Communist Economy nor a Democracy Socialist Economy. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were 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 and and Fascist economic system set right in the middle of the Socialist economic Spectrum.
    2
  1016. You mean the Communist or Jews? Both seems used (the defeat of or the victimhood of) NSDAP’s racism to justify their own unwavering form of supremacy. Is the Supremacy you are saying is the creation of Israel, or the ascending of USSR as a superpower. Other than these two groups, I cannot see who gain any supremacy after 1945.
    2
  1017. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist. As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism or third way.
    2
  1018. ​ @Happycoreftw  "This is the problem with your whole argument buddy you claim all these things are "left" by definition but you make up those definitions to fit your conclusions." "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes. That definition is directly from wiki. "Socialism is when the means of production are held by the proletariat." How about utopia Socialism? "nazi Germany ramped up privatization with a little of market guidance." "The u.s did the same in the war. With seizing the reigns of many industries." They did it before the war. Here is the quote if the time stamped video is too much for your attention "Hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and their customers are forced to violate the law daily, and a whole army of policemen has been mobilized to catch these lawbreakers. Die Deutsche Polizei, the organ of the S.S., issued the following appeal which graphically shows the relations between the State and shopkeepers in Germany today: "Businessmen who are ignorant [ of the new legislation ] must be reminded of the price restrictions; they must know the prescribed prices .... Police, making their regular visits, are informed by the retailers that they were just about to put price tags on or that the goods had just arrived. As a matter of principle, this kind of excuse cannot be condoned any longer. Fixed maximum prices are ignored; shrewd businessmen mark the prescribed maximum price on one side of the price tag, and a higher price on the other side. Even when official prices are quoted, forbidden price increases must be looked for. ... Special attention must be paid to the firm's books." (The Vampire Economy.pdf, p.101) "Why were socialists and communists among the first to be sent to what would become the first concentration camps? If they were so leftist? " Lenin and Stalin also killed and sent thousands of Communist and leftist into concentration camp before Hitler when they first got into the power
    2
  1019.  @urielpolak9949 So which part of Hitler's race-based egalitarian (just for Aryan people) ideal Utopia do you think he didn’t believe in?
    2
  1020.  @urielpolak9949 Are you suggesting Hitler was not actually anti-Semitic? As all your skepticism here is questioning his origin of anti-semitism, not his socialist intention.
    2
  1021. Consider or not doesn’t matter, as TIK was saying Hitler is a socialist ideology believer and put though Socialist politics into Nazi Germany, not Nazi Germany is a Socialist States.
    2
  1022.  @localkauf If Soviets cannot represent real Marxism, Nazi Germany cannot represent real Nazism too. It would be double standards if you just neglect Soviets, not Nazi Germany, while you are comparing the ideologies of Marxism and Nazism in terms of the definition of Socialism.
    2
  1023.  @rickglorie  Your definition of Socialism is actually closer to Fascism (in theory) than Marxism (in theory). Marxism might not be includeed in your definition of Socialism. I don't think it would be a very popular definition.
    2
  1024.  @doomwreckertelevision3527  Can you see it now? As long as Ford didn't fund Nazi Party for their Campaign in 1933 (which he didn't AFAIK). Ford was not activily supporting Nazi the party or the ideology. What happened before 1939 was just doing business or keeping their business in the Germany Market, what happened after 1939 was beyond Ford’s control, as Fordwerke has already been controlled by the Nazi government appointed manager. What can be sure is no matter how Ford protested, there cannot closed down the Fordwerks German factor, or stopped it using slave labor.
    2
  1025. Natioanal socialism did call for public (State/Part) control of property and natural resource to achieve a more equal society of Aryan. Here are the relevant quote from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15) (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, "Behemoth," p306. Overy, "Nazi Economic Recovery," p31. Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," p71.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." 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) subsidised by the State.(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) Nazi did care about the workers
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
    2
  1026. ⁠ @corn.3892  1. The head of DAF Robert Ley was a food chemist of IG Farben, a former industry worker. 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." If you are specifically looking racial discrimination and elimination, there were National operations of the NKVD, holodomor, and mass deportation of Tatars and Cossacks. Not to even mention Pol Pot, a Marxist Socialist and a Cambodian purist who orchestrated the Cambodian genocide against ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and other minorities within Cambodia.
    2
  1027.  @corn.3892  1. Robert Ley was a Reichsleiter, the second-highest political rank in the Nazi Party (NSDAP), subordinate only to the office of Führer. What insignificant are you talking about? 2. That is why I brought up Labor Zionism, which is Socialism for the God choice people, the Jews, in Israel, the holy land.
    2
  1028.  @corn.3892  1. Your origin statement is [No high ranking NSDAP members were former industry workers]. Robert Ley, a Reichsleiter, the second highest rank in Nazi Party, was a former industry worker. How much power or significance you think Robert Ley had is irrelevant to your origin statement. 2. Even Marxism, in Marx's own words, is about the equality of proletarians; the bourgeoisie would not be treated equally. 3. Again the Zionism of Labour Zionism belief that Jews are chosen, that God promised them the land of Israel. God chosen people vs non-chosen people. How does that not constituted a belief of a natural inequality?
    2
  1029.  @corn.3892  1.1 Nazi Germany had workers hierarchy. 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.) 1.2 Contrary to the theory always happened in the practice of Communist State. Workers in USSR didn’t receive better treatment than their capitalist counterparts. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the bad working conditions in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. 2.Yet, communism in practice did remove the Capitalist through extermination and believe that they are naturally inferior human. Millions Capitalist were eliminated in Dekulakization of the USSR, and the Land Reform Movement of PRC. For the classes bloodline discrimination. In PRC, Commissioners considered themselves upper class, and the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral class of Five Red Categories compared to the lower classes of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories had already been stripped. Members of the Black Classes were systematically discriminated against, as one's classification could affect employment opportunities and career prospects and even marriage opportunities. This could also be passed onto their children. Over time this resulted in a victimized underclass that was treated as if it were still composed of powerful and dominant people. 3. I don't think you can dismiss what happened in Isreal-Palistain since 1948 just with that emphasis from “Tora”. It seems that you would only use the actual practice of Nazis to refute Nazi Gremany and Nazism from Socialist State and Socialism respectively, but you would just just turn a blind eyo on their actual practices and just focus on their theories when it comes to other Communist and Socialist States.
    2
  1030.  @corn.3892  1. Then, the worker hierarchy would be totally irrelevant. No socialist state is ever actually ruled by workers. Even in ideologically, Communist States like China or Vietnam are ruled by a national/racial hierarchy, not a worker hierarchy. 2. Are you trying to suggest signing up the hanging order, rounding up people, sending them to the gulag, and executing by shooting or passing and implementing class discriminatory policies were unintentional? With this new standard, the Nürnberger Rssengesetze would also be completely irrelevant to the ideology of Nazism. 3. Labour Zionism is social democracy/militant socialism for the Jewish Race and their Jewish State. Labour Zionist parties had a plurality of seats in Israel from 1948 to 1977. The actions of the Isreal State during that period were a direct reflection of the practice of Labor Zionism.
    2
  1031. ⁠ @corn.3892 ​​⁠ 1. Again, even ideologically, Communist States like China or Vietnam are ruled by a national/racial hierarchy, not a worker hierarchy by any intention. 2. Well then Hitler’s ultimate goal of establishing a racially pure “national community” (Volksgemeinschaft) which serves the interests of the individual, which is able to satisfy popular demands in the 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) Nazism ideology did intend to establish an ethico-nation egalitarian society of the Aryan. 3. Right, then what makes the egalitarian worldview within Nazism dismissible again? "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi' Twenty-Five Points', declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community." (10:10) In Mein Kampf Hitler also wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that 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 Kampf)
    2
  1032. [Tik is just dumbing socialism down to when the government does stuff pretending that in capitalist nations the government has no control over the economy.] [In many of his videos he is constantly crying about how those poor weak and defenseless land owners who owned slaves and were running dictatorships were killed by the evil workers who dare to steal his work of course ignoring the fact that it's the workers who build everything.] The Marxist definition of socialization is the "process of transforming the act of producing and distributing goods and services from a solitary to a social relationship and collective endeavour. In a capitalistic society, the means of production tends to socialize to the capitalists who own the capital, which forms monopoly and causes exploitation." Engels stated that in Anti-Dühring, in the end state of capitalism, the Capitalist Society would transform into a socialist society, where vast means of production would socialize into state property, and transform the majority of the population into proletarian. In that time, the proletariat will seize political power and turn the means of production in the first instance into state property. Those State Property will be controlled by the socialized man, the associated producers, who will "rationally regulate their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature." (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) TIKs has more than once expressed that these kinds of Socialist monopolies are as bad as the capitalist monopolist those Socialist vow to fight against. ______________________________________________________________________ [According to tik "They" don't want you to know the real history of Marxism. Who is they tik? Do capitalist imperialist nations somehow want to protect Marxism despite spending decades fighting it before and after ww2? Committing genocides all over the world because a third world country dared to have a revolution? Toppling democratically elected governments and installing their own dictators to prevent communist rise? Those guys now all of a sudden care to protect Marxism? Who is they? Is it the jews tik?] TIK have yet to make any video regarding those US-funded Latin dictators. While Marxists and Communist States have every intention to associate Nazism with Capitalism to distance their dictatorship from the Nazi Dictatorship, every mult-races Nation (like the USA and the UK and French before and after their colonial Empire was disbanded) and every Western Nation that benefited from Foreign worker would have every intention to just focus on the racist perspective of Nazism.Besides, it would be idiotic for any nation to associate public health care, stricter company and bank regulations, nationalization, and privatization with Nazism. Doing so will just discredit every governmental function. Under Marxist definition, all those imperialist atrocities you mentioned were committed by socialized entities (every State Army, every East India Company and Leopold II of Belgium). TIKs also stated multiple times that Socialist monopoly is as bad as the capitalist monopolist those Socialist vows to fight against. [Another video from Mr I take nazi propaganda at face value guy.] [Another great thing that tik does is literally believe what Hitler and the nazis said about themselves and communism obviously ignoring the fact that they were literally liars who had a ministry of propaganda for this exact purpose. In an older video of his, he compared workers taking over the means of production against tyrannical land owners, to the "German people taking their country back from the jews" the German people never rose up like tik said but that's what the nazi propagandists said which tik takes as a fact. And the elephant in the room is that it's not even the same, first of all the jews didn't control industry like nazis claimed] Those nazi propagandists are not the proof of what happened. It is just a narrative that reflects Nazi ideological, the mindset behind their action. The narrative itself is the proof that demonstrates the socialistic ideology within Nazism. Just like the Soviet Union and PRC used "proletarian taking their country back from the capitalist", although the capitalist didn't control the means of production like the Communists claimed, because both Russia in 1918 and China in 1949 had not yet completed their transition from Feudal mode of production to Capitalist mode of production, according to the same Communists leader before the revolution. Those narratives were not true, but they demonstrated the socialistic ideology within Marxist Leninism and Maoism. [ while the workers did indeed rise up against their oppressors in many socialist revolutions.] Besides, socialism regimes can also get their power through elections, coup de ta, just like Salvador Allende and Lenin did. It is not a point at all. [Socialism is when the means of production are publicly owned, it is the abolition of private property. The term privatization was created after the policies of nazi Germany who privatized key industries, that's quite literally the opposite of socialism. Hitler took the term socialist and twisted it to serve his purpose as a means of propaganda. Back then socialism and workers parties were popular that's why he stole that name, fascism historically has coopted revolutionary language for their own means. Fascists historically are anti union, anti worker, pro big business and pro Privatization which his antithetical to Marxism.] Historically, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade union—nationalization. Nazi nationalized all Labor Union into DAF like Cuba nationalized all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions. Use the CTC of Cuba as an example. They 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 recognized in law. "(2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) Furthermore, Privatization in the 1930s was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalized all the state property previously sold to the 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)
    2
  1033.  @moisuomi  Where is your source of you claim regarding the Nazi approach to woman? Any additional law to systematically discriminate woman like discriminating the Jews? Any proof for woman was actually treated as tools? Regarding participation, there were also tons of records of female Concentration Camp guards you can found online. Holocaust Encyclopaedia claimed that German women “served as welfare workers, teachers, secretaries, nurses, auxiliaries in the armed forces and police, and in many other occupations including as guards in concentration camps.” Where is your source for your Soviet LGBT right? Here is one source from wiki claimed the Soviet LGBT was criminalise during the Stalin period. “In 1933, the Soviet government under Stalin recriminalised sex between men. On 7 March 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code for the entire Soviet Union that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labour in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding sex between women. During the Soviet regime, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121.[37] Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism[38] and that Article 121 may have a simple political tool to use against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexual orientation and to solidify Russian opposition to Nazi Germany, who had broken its treaty with Russia.[39] In a famous article in Pravda on 23 May 1934, Maxim Gorky said: "There is already a sarcastic saying: Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear."[40] “
    2
  1034. That is Marxist class Socialism. Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism, which is a Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class theory? The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    2
  1035.  @ATHFShakeZulah  For the latter points in the article, they were debunked by TIK in this video.
    2
  1036.  @ATHFShakeZulah  Hitler is a race socialist.
    2
  1037.  @ATHFShakeZulah  Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06. The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 Nazi was not dumb enough to eliminate completion between firms like the soviet did when the rises to power. The only parts having competition in Nazi Economic system were between the firms. The firms can't cut cost from the workers by firing them or reducing their salary. Even when the firm went bankrupt , or being forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the workers would still have their jobs and wage.
    2
  1038.  @hobbso8508  See the missing point here, workers (not society as there is one society) work together to provide for each other through the hands of the nation. As all capital, all production, and all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation. It is still state ownership.
    2
  1039.  @PantheraKitty  Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Without owning private property, how could bourgeoisie exist, how could different class exist, they were just people in the same class with different job position.
    2
  1040.  @PantheraKitty  The firms owner no longer owned those firms anymore. They became the “leader”(administrators) of those firms. Their decision would be control and monitored by the Daf and the party. Nazi was not dumb enough to eliminate completion between firms like the soviet did when they rised to power. The only parts having competition in the Nazi Economic system were between the firms. 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 workers would still have their jobs and wage. To the Industrialist Hitler tolerated those industrialist didn't mean he can't legally strip private property from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) To the workers 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.)
    2
  1041. What is your definition of fascism? Fascism hate the late stage Capitalism as much as communism did in their ideology. If Fascist was Protestant in 16th to 18th Centuries, bourgeoisie would be the Satan, and Communist would be the Catholic. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell ,despite scattered, illustrated the the Socialist origin of Fascist economical and political ideology. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) The economical aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    2
  1042. The reply did make me look like I am defending fascism. I might need to put an disclaimer here, what people want to achieve didn’t really reflect what they can achieve. Even with good intentions, allowing an entity(not just government) to control everything/ too much things in society would very likely cause disaster.
    2
  1043.  @tg4678 Sure a meaningless term to trick people to think that the communists would only take the property that can only use as means of production. But in fact, everything can use as means of production.
    2
  1044.  @nicknolte8671  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 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
    2
  1045. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671  Hitler was the chancellor and his cabinet was formed in 30/1/1933, and since 11/1932 Nazi Party was still the largest party in Reichstag. Those funding was too late to help the Nazi party get into the system. The only election those funding might have . Besides, just by the fact that the Nazi endorsing capitalists when they rising to power was also not enough to refute Nazi from being Socoalist, otherwise you would also need to refuted Mao’s PRC from Socialist State. Before around 1951, National Capitalists were well respected by the CCP, they were even representing one of the little four stars on the PRC flag.
    2
  1046.  @nicknolte8671  Then Hitler established an race centric communist hating totalitarian system that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by the State (10:15) (11:27) and to workers by DAF (17:15, 17:31). 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) Hitler can lie to get what he wanted, just like every politician ever existed. If you want any communist counter example, go look at what Mao promised said before they raised to power. He promised “New Democracy” and it went nowhere since the founding of the PRC.
    2
  1047. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671 Seems historical data cannot support your narrative. Wiki has German federal election result by District maps for 7/1932, 11/1932 and 3/1933 German federal elections. All of them indicated there Nazi Party had plenty of Urban supporters, which used to be the ground of SPD during 9/1930 elections.
    2
  1048. ⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671  What is wrong with the pre-existing property and income distribution? It was inherited from the SPD. If that distribution system is not good enough, are you going to also refute SPD from Socialist? The rise of Nazi did actually caused significant change in classes, the new classes of Nazis members. But regardless, assume it didn’t, the requirement of significant shift in class relations would also refute most liberal Socialism from Socialism. Besides, Nazi Germany did reach the lower stage of Socialist Mode 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 the State (10:15) (11:27) and to workers by DAF (17:15, 17:31). 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)
    2
  1049.  @nicknolte8671  What word jumble here? That is precisely the “Orthodox Marxism” way to archive the Stateless Classless Communist Society. Karl Kautsky, the founder of “Orthodox Marxism”, was the leading theorist of the SPD during the Weimar era. SPD Weimar government was the most undistorted Orthodox Marxist regime in the world. If you refute them as socialist, you are also denying “Orthodox Marxism” from socialism.
    2
  1050.  @nicknolte8671  It seems that none of the points you provide can refute Nazis from practising Socialism. 1. Businesses thriving under an Authoritarian atmosphere is something even the socialists want. It means you have more capital to appropriate. The shrinking of economic activities, despite characterising every Communist State, every Communist wants the direct opposite as it is the final step of reaching a Communist Society. Businesses thriving didn't necessarily mean things got more privatised. It can also mean many businesses getting purged, and the remaining subordinated firms fill the gap. 2. Compare the data of 1933 with 1929, which was taking things out of context. According to “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”, the German workers' real wages hit their lowest point in 1932, not 1929. Show the wage one year after the lowest point and the first year Nazi Party raised to power was lower than that in the first year of the Great Depression is not a concrete proof of anything. 3. Despite promises being broken, what Socialist Policies Nazi Germany had retained was more than enough to let the Nazi economic system escape the Capitalist mode of production, just like the Communists breaking the promise that they would need to implement democracy and internationalism. 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 their income from exploiting 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 that 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) subsidised by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) 4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage labour 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 is 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 labour because work was guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.). 5. That just proved Nazi was good at scamming. Did they take money from their citizen's income? Yes. But they didn’t need to do it in that obvious way. With party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," Chapter 2.), national investment policy like Geräuschlose Kriegsfinanzierung (forcing banks to "invest" war bonds with the customer saving) and Eisernes Sparen ( Provident fund but for the war effort, involuntary if you were Civil servants, state employees, employees of the NSDAP and their organisations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car) and "Privatisation", citizens had already been unknowingly "taxed" even before they get their wage. As a result, "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) 6. 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. This "directed market economy," as it was called, had not yet been introduced because of the war. Therefore, a way to characterise 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 hands by the Nazis, 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 wages. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms. 7. Yet the Nazi state still worked against the interests of those Companies by closing the international markets and going to war. Capitalists being scammed by the State should be the greatest victory of Socialism. Besides, Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers also had business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively. Did it also prove the USSR was also not a Socialist State in those years? 9. Which Authoritarian Socialist State didn’t implement their social programs in the most brutal possible way? Collectivisation and the Great Leap Forward were social programs that caused millions of people to die of starvation. 10. Yet it doesn't change the fact that social welfare still works under the Nazi Party, which also controls the state. A State practising Socialism doesn't mean it will provide better social welfare. I think the Soviet Union was already a very good example.
    2
  1051.  @nicknolte8671 Again, that just proved Nazis were good at scamming. Did they take money from their citizen's income? Yes. But they didn’t need to do it in that obvious way. With party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," Chapter 2.), national investment policy like Geräuschlose Kriegsfinanzierung (forcing banks to "invest" war bonds with the customer saving) and Eisernes Sparen ( Provident fund but for the war effort, involuntary if you were Civil servants, state employees, employees of the NSDAP and their organisations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car) and "Privatisation", citizens had already been unknowingly "taxed" even before they get their wage. As a result, "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)
    2
  1052. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671 The income from capital and business rising much more steeply when compared to wages and salary, can result from the huge increase in profit tax. Isn’t taxing from cooperation instead of the workers something the leftists always advocate for? "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)
    2
  1053. ⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671  USSR was constantly preparing for war in Cold War Era, 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. Abortion was first legalised in Germany by Nazi in 1935. On the other hand, was banned by Stalin in 1936. Women's studies were even promoted from 1938 onwards. During WWII the number of female students increased considerably and proportionally, setting new records in 1943; of the 25,000 students, 50% were women. This ratio was not realized again until 1995. Even in natural science classes the majority of the students were women. (Claudia Huerkamp: Bildungsbürgerinnen. Frauen im Studium und in akademischen Berufen 1900–1945. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.)
    2
  1054. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671  Regarding shareholder's profit, if we are talking about socialist theory, why would limiting distribution of profit to shareholders would be a rightist capitalistic policy, the profit was the fruit of the labor. Companies is an organ of the state. By most socialist theories, it is very hard to justify the action of companies distributing profit to shareholders. Most prodomain example would be under Marxist theory, the stock market is a mechanism through which capitalists accumulate profits at the expense of the working class, who receive only a fraction of the value they produce. Marxists argue that the stock market perpetuates inequality and serves the interests of the ruling class. Saying the regulations is for the cooperation profit also does make sense, if companies want to keep all their profits, they could choose to not distribute profit to shareholders at all. This regulation would be a redundant one, if its goal is to allow companies to keep their profits. Given that the demand and supply were regulated, and the employment and wage were also regulated. Together with the fact that Nazi would redistribute cooperation profits to the worker ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF "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) Don’t you think it is more probable that limiting distribution of profit to shareholders was for the benefit of economy planner and the insuring the operation fund of DAF under each company, instead of ensuring the profit of the capitalists?
    2
  1055.  @nicknolte8671  That was not the whole picture. The average Worker's real wage per hour had dropped from 100.7( different accounting method) to 99.8 in 1933, but it has been gradually increasing from 99.8 in 1933 to 101.6 in 1937, exceeding the level of 1932, and 104.7 in 1938, the same level of 1929. (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). ______________ Nazis still didn’t ban [women from institutions of higher learning] or [abortion and birth control]. Nazis tried to implement a limit the women's higher education quota to 10%. After the number of students decreased dramatically due to the urgent need to expand the German Armed Forces, which led to a shortage of young academics, they promoted Women's studies from 1938 onwards. Regarding abortion Yet, Nazi Germany did first amend its eugenics law in 1935 to promote abortion for women with hereditary disorders. The law allowed abortion if a woman gave her permission and if the fetus was not yet viable, and for purposes of so-called racial hygiene. Before that, abortion was illegal in Germany, despite being decriminalised in 1927, but regardless, Stalin banned abortion in 1936, so abortion was not a criterion to determine whether someone was socialist or not. _______________________ Anti-vaccine or not is not relevant to any socialism theory at all. But let's have a look at your Nazi Germany Anti-Vax theory here. Yes, some Nazis, like Julius Streicher, were anti-Vax Yes, Nazi did converted the vaccine policy from compulsory to volunteer. However, Nazi also claimed Vaccination was promoted as a task for the“national community, and used Social pressure “The social pressure was further increased by the close networking of all those involved. Doctors and medical officials, teachers and Red Cross nurses, party functionaries, police officers, journalists, and mayors put themselves at the service of the publicity. In such cooperations, a {united defensive front of all relevant authorities} was formed (Gundel 1936, 44), as a doctor in Westphalia observed.”(Security, Society, and the State: Vaccination Campaigns in 19th and 20th Century Germany. Historical Social, Thießen, Malte) and even appeal to fear “Where social pressure was not enough, fears were supposed to increase the vaccination rate. When the diphtheria vaccination was introduced, Germans could read terrible press reports. When a diphtheria epidemic broke out in Brandenburg in the mid-1930s, the German Medical Gazette spoke of the failure of all protective measures and warned of an uncontrolled rampage of the epidemic: {All measures could not put a stop to diphtheria. It continued to rage and claimed its victims especially among the youth. Of the 42 deaths recorded so far in 1934/35, 41 occurred in children up to the age of 14; 17 of these children were in the tender age of six or less!}”(Security, Society, and the State: Vaccination Campaigns in 19th and 20th Century Germany. Historical Social, Thießen, Malte) To promote vaccination. ————————— As shown in "The Vampire Economy", Dr. Ley, a Nazi, promised to the employer was a lie. The ‘master in the house’ was the Nazi member instead of the employer. Do I need to requote everything again? Once you judged me, "Why are you uncritically looking at the words of fascists and taking them at their face value?" Now I would like to ask you the same question. If they were not honest to the worker, why would you think they must be honest to the employer? The Nazi member were the new class, not the capitalists, not the workers, just like what happened in the Soviet Union and any other Communist States.
    2
  1056. ​ @nicknolte8671  Curtailed access to birth control by shutting down birth control centres doesn't mean they banned abortion. Restricting and banning are two things. They make illegal abortion punishable by death, but that doesn't mean people cannot have abortions legally. But regardless, Stalin banned abortion in 1936, so abortion was not a criterion to determine whether someone was socialist or not. The point is they didn't ban it, and what you said was just wrong. Regarding the vax, it doesn't matter as it is not relevant to any socialism theory at all. The appropriate was totally different here. The modern right-wing Vaccine denialism is about protecting themself from the harm of Vaccine, while the Nazis were fully aware of the benefit of vaccines and denied access to Vaccine from the undesired people as a mean of elimination. The context is different. How can you compare apples with oranges?
    2
  1057.  @nicknolte8671  Regarding all the quotes you provided. Hugo Stinnes died in 1924 Bernhard Dernburg was not even a Nazi member Fritz Thyssen was anti-war and stripped of his property in 1940 by Nazi Germany. How can they represent the ideology of Nazism?
    2
  1058. The Economist probably don't know who were those property selling to when they call name that as privatization. . As 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the statesprivatization
    2
  1059.  @the1beard  Can you give us any quote or reference from Karl Marx book to show your point? This is at least what TIK does in his video.
    2
  1060. ​ @the1beard  A credible video still need to illustrate its point based on actual fact.
    2
  1061. Ironically Nazi Germany had a much stricter economic system compared to Modern China, if China can be classified as Actual Socialist, Nazi Germany must able to classify as one. I would not stated that CCP has focused on improving the welfare. The adjusting and rising rate of minimum wages in China has been reduced since 2015. The minimum wage of most Chinese provinces was below 2000 RMB, despite the China has the one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world. “自2015年起，各省最低工资调整趋于停滞，上调频率下降，增长率降低。一方面，调整最低工资标准的频率已由原来的至少两年一次，变为至少三年一次，甚至在疫情期间全面停滞。另一方面，最低工资的年均增长率也大幅下降，平均增长率由2013年的约14%左右降到2022年仅有5%左右。此外，最低工资增长率也在2017年后开始低于人均GDP增长率，经济增长成果无法被基层劳动者共享。 过去数十年，中国经济始终保持高速增长。虽然近年受到疫情影响，但2021年GDP增长率仍达到8%，2023年预估增长率也在5%左右，仍然是全世界经济增长最快的国家之一。过往这些年，甚至有月薪过万越来越普遍的说法在白领、中产圈子中传播。 但现实中的2023年，大部分省市的最低工资仍不到每月2000元，无法满足基本的日常生活所需。为最大程度降低用工成本，许多企业都仍按照最低标准给基层劳动者发放工资底薪。大部分蓝领工作，包括工厂和各类服务业中的打工人，只能指望微薄的最低工资标准为自己的生活兜底。” (数据显示中国最低工资近年来增长停滞，增长率仅10年前的一半, 苦海女神龙)
    2
  1062. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @thedualtransition6070  They are doing very well if you neglected all those evidences proving the existence of the concentration camps. They are not saying the Chinese Dream as the Truth of the Universe. They are saying the faith is the soul of Chinese Dream and the faith is the Truth of the Universe. That faith is Communism. The term “Truth of the Universe” is originated from “敌人只能砍下我们的头颅，决不能动摇我们的信仰！因为我们信仰的主义，乃是宇宙的真理！为着共产主义牺牲，为着苏维埃流血，那是我们十分情愿的啊！” in 《死！——共产主义的殉道者的记述》 by 方志敏 There is another article called 共产党员要永葆对信仰的绝对忠诚 posted in 人民网-中国共产党新闻网 to illustrate why Communist Party members should always be absolutely loyal to their faith.
    2
  1063. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @nucleja  Soviet Union before 1922 and after 1980, Vietnam after 1988, PRC before 1956 and after 1980 and Cube after 2000 had all allowed the existence of private firms to run within their state regulated markets, the same state capitalism system people accused Nazi was running instead of Socialism. Not to mention the contemporary Liberal Socialist which tolerated free market? Does those ideologies not count as Socialism any more? If they can still be classified as socialist state and practicing socialism. The same standard should too apply to Nazi German and Nazism.
    2
  1064. So as Lenin, Stalin and Mao 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.
    2
  1065. Nazi still puts out a lot of socialistic left politics after they get the power. (Basically the whole video) Beside the killing of Rohm or “the Representation the death of the NSDAP’s left wing”, didn’t really implying anything. As, killing anyone on the same political spectrum often happened within socialists leadership, like Lenin and Stalin did to Mensheviks and Trotskyist, thus cannot really support your narrative.
    2
  1066.  @alexmood6407  The definition of Socialism is the social ownership of the mean of production. The socialized entity can be race, class, or even gender. 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. Nazi and Communist are more like Christian and Muslim (without any particular order), they are different religions, but they are both religions.
    2
  1067.  @rickglorie  Female in the third Reich were involved in both economic activities and atrocities. According to Holocaust Encyclopaedia “German women played a vital role in the Nazi movement, one which far exceeded the Nazi Party’s propaganda that a woman’s place was strictly in the home as mothers and child-bearers. Of the estimated forty million German women in the Reich, some thirteen million were active in Nazi Party organizations that furthered the regime’s goals of racial purity, imperial conquest, and global war.  They served as welfare workers, teachers, secretaries, nurses, auxiliaries in the armed forces and police, and in many other occupations including as guards in concentration camps. “ Maybe you should provide more sources, you are playing a very dangerous to protect your beliefs by denying the involvement of the female in the third Reich in Holocaust.
    2
  1068.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  No he was not. Quote any of Marx literature that about respecting human individual right, freedom of expression or hold an election ( the normal democratic components) after or during the stage of the dictatorship of proletarian.
    2
  1069. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    2
  1070.  @HottieDudeish  The party members were only the extension of the state when the party was equal to the states and as long as the party members needed to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state mentioned in the video since 5:06. So when Krupp and Messerschmitt became NSDAP members or coalition partners of NSDAP in 1933, both Companies were nationalized. After, Hitler abolished the right of private property in 1933. 3:00 If the firm leader fails or refuses to comply with the party’s or state's order. They could be seized from their property as Professor Junker 4:20 and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. 20:55 So yes, Hitler and the Nazi party nationalized the Germany Economy.  Hitler's Socialism is race socialism which 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), so he also hated them as Class socialism hates capitalism.
    2
  1071.  @HottieDudeish  It seems you making stuff up, Nazi also nationalised stock too. The right and power entities by the stock to the property or company were also abolished by the Nazi. “Correspondingly, when the Nazis turned their attention to corporate law, culminating in the enactment of a new corporate law in 1937, managerial authority was expanded at shareholders’ expense (Levy, 1950: 215). While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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).”(Burhop, Carsten & Chambers, David & Cheffins, Brian. (2018). The Rise and Fall of the German IPO Market, 1870-1938. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte / Economic History Yearbook. 59. 9-37. 10.1515/jbwg-2018-0002. )
    2
  1072.  @lucca3113  It is the socialized "entity", not "entities". There can only be one entity representing society to own the means of production. If the current Society is really bourgeoisie ownership of mean of production, there will be no business competition anymore as all the mean of production is own by one class of bourgeoisie as a whole. Even under "workers ownership of the mean of production," the definition leftist usually use, it doesn't mean every worker owns a piece of a means of production that they have a full range of control like selling as private property. The ownership belongs to workers as a whole, not equally distributed to and privately owned by each worker.
    2
  1073.  @lucca3113  If the current Society is really bourgeoisie ownership of mean of production in one entity not entities, there will be no business competition anymore as all the mean of production is own by one class of bourgeoisie as a whole. Btw where is your source of Socialism equal to workers ownership of mean of production? The definition of socialism he used in this video here 25:28 That definition of Socialism there was based on Das Kapital V3 of Karl Marx.
    2
  1074.  @lucca3113  Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Without owning private property, how could bourgeoisie exist, how could different class exist, they were just people in the same class with different position. That was how it worked in Soviet Union, that was how it worked in Nazi Germany. Beside abolition private ownership doesn’t mean the ex-capitalist need to be got shot. The class of those capitalists were already changed to proletarian after their private property has been stripped. Can you classify people with race or nationality? If yes those terms have the same characteristics as class, a term to categorise people, if class can be used as to socialised a group of people into a society, so as other race, nationality and ethnicity. And there is tons of examples for that. China town is a society socialised by race. Veteran community is a society socialised by their previous occupation, trade union is a society socialised by worker so and so on.
    2
  1075. Hitler can meet the criteria of Socialist because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2. Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4. Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) Which part of Thatcher’s ideology or policies come close to that of Hitler’s
    2
  1076. Historically, if you believe dictatorship is a better governing system, you are a socialist/fascist, depending on whether your country is siding with the USSR or the USA. If you believe democracy would be a better governing system, you are a social democrat.
    2
  1077.  @Idontknowwhatswaitingforme Both North Korean “democracy” and Liberal democracy are within the definition of democracy. Yet we can still differentiate North Korean democracy from Liberal Democracy under a clean-cut definition. We are so lucky that liberal democracy is so widespread in the West that people can omit the term liberal and still know the democracy we are mainly talking about is liberal democracy, not North Korean Democracy. On the other hand, do we have any Socialism that is popular enough to monopolize the definition of Socialism? As the definition of socialism requires to include Marxism and its variants, including the genocidal variations ( Maoism/Leninism), the pre-Marxist non-class based Socialism, and that class base socialism which doesn’t require achieving the communist Classless Stateless Society, it is pretty impossible to exclude Nazism and Fascism from Socialism with a clear definition.
    2
  1078.  @Idontknowwhatswaitingforme  Socialism didn't need to include Nazism to be scary. The atrocities done by every Marxist Communist State were horrifying enough. It is very understandable for people with a basic understanding of modern history to fear Socialism. As long as Socialists still have that perpetual progression and "old"(pre-exist) society (everything from old culture, old currency, old language, old concept, old system and etc.) overthrowing mentalities, anyone who has something to lose is rightfully afraid of socialism, as history told us that letting some entity run a country with those mentalities can lead to disaster beyond our imagination, regardless how good the intention is. According to what Hitler wrote in his books, it is highly possible that his political goal was to build an Aryan Socialist Nation where every member of the Nation would put the interest of the race/nation before their own self-interest. So Hitler's Socialist political goals molded his economic policy into a socialist one.
    2
  1079.  @Idontknowwhatswaitingforme  Socialism is not when governments do stuff. If it is, there is no capitalist state ever exists in this world. The definition of Socialism is social (including state) ownership of means of production. Just the social benefits you mentioned above were insufficient to make a country fit into the definition of a socialist state or practicing socialism.
    2
  1080.  @Idontknowwhatswaitingforme  You are right. Just like there is no true socialist state, Nazi Germany was not a full socialist state, it was just as Socialistic as every Communist (Socialist) State, which is also not a fully socialist country, ever existed. TIK also never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State. 36:18. TIK just claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy in 26:29.
    2
  1081.  @hobbso8508  Where is your source? Where TIK said or implied "he believes North Korea is a democracy"?
    2
  1082.  @hobbso8508  You drastically took TIK's words out of the context. [@TheImperatorKnight 3 months ago Yes, we all know you've bought into the propaganda image of what a democracy is. But listing all the things you think a democracy should be in the ideal propaganda sense, doesn't mean that that's what democracy is. Democracy is nothing other than "people power" (State Power).]
    2
  1083.  @hobbso8508  That comment was from the same threads where he further elaborated his point. He said democracy was the state itself is from the the people within the state. Hence state power is the representation of people power. That is the raw definition of democracy, which can basically represent every non-monarch or feudal state ,that doesn’t require any religion or royal political fiction as the proof of their legitimacy, ever exist. The “TIK believes more totalitarian equals more democratic” is just words you put into his mouth.
    2
  1084.  @hobbso8508  As said, State power legitimacy of Monarchs is come from the family heritage and their political fictions. Yes he thinks North Korean is democratic, I am saying you removed all his reasoning and context and presenting the half truth.
    2
  1085.  @hobbso8508  You stripped the reasoning and logic behind his statement. That is over generalisation, thus the half truth.
    2
  1086. ⁠ @hobbso8508 Sham election is just a word you put into TIKs mouth. TIK never said democracy equal to any election. TIK claimed the definition of “Democracy” is just “people power”, regardless how a state get that representation of people, as long as the state claim that its ruling legitimacy is come from people instead of some Royal or Religious political fiction, they are democratic according to the definition of the word democracy. That is the why East German and North Korea and most of the authoritarian countries self proclaim they are democratically created, and that is why democracy index exists.
    2
  1087.  @hobbso8508  Again, you don't even need to have an election mechanism to claim your system to be democratic by using the definition of the word "democracy." The term democracy wasn't invented with the creation of The Democracy Index in 2006. The index is just an indicator indicating how close is one democratic system to Full Democracy (Liberal Democracy) Standard. The word Democracy has always been an abstract term and has always been used as a justification for authoritarianism since the Jacobins in French Revolution or maybe even earlier. Currently, only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Afghanistan, and the Vatican do not claim to be a democracy. Without acknowledging the fact that the usage of the word Democracy can range from the Norway to the Myanmar system, how well can you grasp what does “Democracy” referring to when someone says their Democracy.
    2
  1088.  @hobbso8508  People don’t need to decide who is in charge to be represented by the State. People can still be unwilling represented and their power being utilised by the state they lived in though law enforcement and taxation. A ruling system can be both Authoritarian and Democratic, for example France was an authoritarian-democratic state during the ruling of Jacobin from 1793 to 1974. My argument is coherent enough. You just need some example to realise the your problem. For example, you still believe Karl Marx’s Democracy can still fulfil the requirements of “Full Democracy” or “Partial Democracy” requirements in The Democracy Index, while Karl Marx particularly claim that it would be “a dictatorship of proletarian” (no universal suffrage), which would “abolish all private property”( against human right of private ownership ). Furthermore, you cannot even realise the democracy in your own version of Socialism is also not a democracy under the Democracy Index, as the law does not protect the private property right of individual against the vote of majority, the property owners will be forced to sell their properties to the state, when the people vote for a socialist system.
    2
  1089.  @hobbso8508  A country being democratic is irrelevant to how much right and power it’s citizen had. Even in your democracy, the power of owning private property is stripped from the people. Individual Right of individuals only matter for liberal democracy, which doesn’t include yours, North Korean, and Marx’s democracy. Authoritarian democracy and illiberal democracy are actual political term. Yes, authoritarian ruling can exist in a democratic system. North Korea also have universal suffrage, if Marx’s Democracy is democracy under your definition solely because he described universal suffrage, the North Korean democracy would also be democracy under your definition. Right to own property is one of Civil liberties which is one of the main 5 categories factors to produce the democracy index.
    2
  1090.  @hobbso8508  North Korean democracy is not a liberal democracy, which the Democracy Index is actually measuring. But it is in one of the categories of democracy that yours and Marx’s democracy belong to ——“not liberal democracy.” Authoritarianism is diametrically opposed to liberal democracy, not democracy itself. That is why Singapore and Russia can run an authoritarian regime in a democratic system. North Korea has universal suffrage, even mandatory suffrage. According to the North Korean Constitution, suffrage is guaranteed to all citizens aged 17 and over. Abstaining or voting ‘no’ are believed to be acts of treason. Property, including private property and estate, is Property. Suppose the lacking of the right to own property would make a system non-democratic in your definition. In that case, your, Marx’s, and North Korean democracy are not democratic under your own definition.
    2
  1091.  @hobbso8508  Again, we reach the point that you are unable to articulate any meaningful statement with any example or argument, but just saying something like “no, it is not.” I just shown you that according to the North Korean Constitution, suffrage is guaranteed to all citizens aged 17 and over. Every adult citizen has the right to vote, that is the definition of universal suffrage, regardless is the election system shammed or not. Just like losing your left foot make you a disable person, doesn’t mean that disability will also make you armless. You and Marx said abolishing private property. Adding new rules banning business activities would not invalidate your and Marx’s previous statement, it will just make your socialism less civil liberal, hence less democratic under your definition. But under my definition, your, Marx’s, or North Korean “sham democracy” are still democracy none the less, they are just not liberal democracy.
    2
  1092.  @hobbso8508  Even the Democracy Index report admitted that their definition of democracy is not the one and only definition. The definition of democracy in The Democracy Index is just the Economist Intelligence Unit’s definition, which is the common definition of liberal democracy, though comparing the context of the two definitions. “There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject. “ (Democracy index 2006: a pause in democracy’s march) “Although the terms “freedom” and “democracy” are often used interchangeably, the two are not synonymous. Democracy can be seen as a set of practices and principles that institutionalize and thus ultimately protect freedom. Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive.” (Democracy index 2006: a pause in democracy’s march) What you are describing is the right to stand for election. Despite it is an essential component to a fair election,however it is not included in the definition of universal suffrage. Again losing one leg won’t make you have no arm. Property is property regardless it is private or personal. Abolishing the right to own private property still violates civil liberties, which made Marx’s and your democracy not democratic under The Democratic Index, hence not democratic under your definition. Your one ended story is incomprehensible to reflect the real-world situation. While your democracy has only one vague definition, which’s definition for each case would varied base on your liking. Other ordinary people would use 2,234 more adjectives to identify different forms of democracy, including authoritarian democracy and illiberal democracy. “Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting,[1][6] no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy.[13] Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is simply, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people, and that the people have a right to rule."[14] Kofi Annan states that "there are as many different forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in the world."[15] One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.[16]”
    2
  1093.  @hobbso8508  I didn't change their definition, I am just pointing out they admitted their definition of democracy is just one of the definitions of democracy, which I would use to describe a liberal democratic system, but not every democratic system. Just not abolishing personal property is not enough, private property is still property that people should have right to own in a democratic system under The Democracy Index Standard, thus in your definition of democracy. Again, you don’t even need voting to be democracatic by the definition of the word democracy. North Korean had a shammed election, no one denying that, but that doesn't change the fact that it still has universal suffrage, which is every adult citizen has the right to vote. You cannot just said accuse a man holding an orange doesn’t have an orange for not having an Apple. Stealing thing won’t make you a muderer. This is how human language work, and how a man or a party deceived a whole country in the past. Those that failed to recognize that would doom to repeat the history. You can not just deny the existence of something just because it beyond your comprehension.
    2
  1094.  @hobbso8508  Liberal Democracy is an actual term invented to distinguish Western Democracy from other democracies, some of which are still used to legitimize Authoritarian regimes. I didn’t invent, any terms in my arguments, and I am also not the one invented all the arguments I used in this comment section. It is a subject opinion for any individual to think what is or is not democracy, or what is the boundary of suffrage. But objectively I can say, under your own definition of democracy, which is the scoring standard of The Democracy Index, the core ideology of abolishing private property within Marxism or your Socialism has already make both ideologies impossible to be democratic. Therefore, claiming that Marxism or your Socialism are inherently democratic is contradictory to your definition of democracy.
    2
  1095.  @hobbso8508  The legitimacy of the Royal family owning the state is sought from their heritage. While their legitimacy of representing the will/power of people originated from democracy, specifically Liberal Democracy. You can use both political fiction and democracy (People’s Power which include sham, fair election or even no election) to legitimize the existence of the regime. Iran is the authoritarian counterpart of UK, it use both the authoritarian democracy and the Muslim political fiction to ligitimise the ruling of the regime.
    2
  1096. ⁠ @hobbso8508  If the concept of Illiberal Democracy is not included in the concept of democracy, why is it required to use the term “Democracy” to describe this concept, while the definition of “Illiberal” doesn't mean not/negative/anti/no? A system that sought to legitimize through people power in an undemocratic (not liberal democracy) way is still a kind of democracies that opposes the concept of liberal democracy. That is why people created the term ”Illiberal Democracy” to describe this democratic (people power) system.
    2
  1097.  @hobbso8508  Then why does the term “Authoritarian democracy” exist?
    2
  1098. ⁠ @hobbso8508 Constitutionally, the right of rule is ultimately granted by the Monarchy to the government, in reality any legislation still require royal assent for validation, regardless is it just a formality or not. Until the UK Monarchy lost their constitutional power, you cannot really prove otherwise objectively, because the “right of rule” of a country is just a subjective narrative to explain why a state is/was ruling its land.
    2
  1099.  @hobbso8508 Your definition of Illiberal Democracy is just one of the definition of Illiberal Democracy. What make your definition of “Illiberal Democracy” is the one and only definition? {There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.[2] According to jurist András Sajó, illiberal democracy should be counted as a type of democracy because it is "democratic in a plebiscitarian sense",[6] while political scientist Ulrich Wagrandl argues that "illiberal democracy is actually more true to democracy’s roots".[7] Other theorists say that classifying illiberal democracy as democratic is overly sympathetic to the illiberal regimes[8] and therefore prefer terms such as electoral authoritarianism,[9] competitive authoritarianism,[10] or soft authoritarianism.[11][12]}
    2
  1100. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508  UK constitution de facto exist {Although the British constitution is not codified, the Supreme Court recognises constitutional principles,[9] and constitutional statutes,[10] which shape the use of political power.} Although your definition of right of rule is based on social contract between people is objectively wrong, because it cannot explain the right of rule of North Korea and Afghanistan. If a regime can exist without right of rule, then “right of rule” would just a redundant narrative tool in your own subjective narrative. However, even under your social contract narrative, Crown Appointments Act 1661, Royal prerogative, and the Royal assent are the Social Contract.
    2
  1101.  @hobbso8508  If the ruling of those two regimes were consented to by their people, then nearly everything a regime done to its people would be consented to by its people. Holocaust, Holodomor, and every atrocity North Korea and suppression of women's rights in Afghanistan are/were all consented to by the people, including the victims. In that case, every authoritarian totalitarian regime and even feudal state that existed was established under the consent of everyone the regime ruled. Thus, under the social contract theory, regardless of how the state legitimizes itself, its existence is already proof of approval from every ruling subject. Every state represents its people( including their power) by default under the subject consent, every state is democratic (people power) by default, or else it would not even exist in the first place.
    2
  1102. ⁠ @hobbso8508 Just like the Stateless Society in Marxism, a stateless entity with all the functions of the state will replace the state and rule everyone. If you cannot comprehend the concept of de facto, then I would use “Constitutionality” to be more enabling. If your social contract theory can explain the existence of North Korea. There must be a “social contract” between Kim Jong-un and everyone in North Korea, proven by the actual existence of North Korea. In that case, yes, Royal assent, Royal prerogative, and every “constitutional” power and right of the UK Monarch have already been supported and consented to by every UK citizen. There must be countless anonymous social contracts in everyday life through using every Royal Service and transaction with the currency with the Monarch's symbol to consent to the Monarch's power. Otherwise, your social contract theory would be invalidated. Your social contract theory is another subjective interpretation that does not actually exist. Your narrative of the right of rule by the people is objectively less correct than the right of rule by the monarch through the traditional practice of royal assent, as at least royal assent is an actual practice. You cannot prove otherwise with a counter-example.
    2
  1103.  @hobbso8508  You are the one who confused, you are the one who tried use a state legitimacy theory created a Monarchist to disprove the ruling legitimacy of the UK Monarchy. What is your education qualifications? A sociologist cannot be that unfamiliar to the subject matter. The certain system already existed, there must be social contract backing up its “right of rule” from the people to the ruler. Contract is always about consent, if individual surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. The representation of individuals power by the state can also be interpreted as a consent, thus making the state democratic (people power). If North Korea have the right of rule because of its existence, should would the UK monarch have the right of rule to the UK because of the legal position there already have in UK law (“constitution”). You cannot objectively prove my claim wrong, because it is just interpretation of interpretation.
    2
  1104.  @hobbso8508  No legislation in UK can be validated without Royal Assert. The king is still the C-in-C of all UK Military. Until the day they lost that legal (constitutional) power, they are still the source of legitimacy and the entity being consented with the “right to rule” by the UK citizen. It seems you still cannot see the contradiction in your approach to your social contract theory. To be more enabling just answer me few questions. In your social contract theory, what make North Korea has the consent of right of rule by the people while the UK monarch doesn’t? In your social contract theory, if the North Korea have the people consent of the right of rule, what make them doesn’t have the people consent of representation of their own individual power? In your social contract theory, why can’t people consent to be represented by the state out of fear allow to consent the right of rule to the state out of fear? What education qualification you actually have?
    2
  1105.  @hobbso8508  How do you get consent with the whole without the consent of individuals, you may need to elaborate your definition of “whole” and “individual” here, are you also said that people give consent to North Korea ruling is out of the submission of fear. Fear is an emotion that only able to be experienced as a human not a group, how come the consent is given as a whole instead of individual. The concept of consent of people is the main component of Social Contract Theory, a country would never exist without the people consent. It is impossible to claim the UK Monarch have no right of rule with Social Contract Theory. As Social Contract Theory is a theory of tautology. If a regime existed, it must de facto have the consent of the people. It is a theory that give default legitimacy to every existing establishment. You are basically using Monarchist theory to make an anti-monarchy argument. Furthermore, either you permit regime to use whatever means to get people to consent the regime ruling, the democracy that the state is being legitimised by the constant of people(not liberal democracy btw), to explain the existence of North Korea, or your Social Contract Theory is inadequate to interpret the the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. No legislation in UK can be validated without Royal Assert. The King is still the C-in-C of all UK Military. As long as UK citizen having their daily lives while the Monarchy still having and practising their legal(constitutional) power, they are still the source of legitimacy and the entity being consented to with the “right to rule” from the UK citizen, under your social contract theory.
    2
  1106.  @hobbso8508  [There is no British monarch regime.] The King is the Commander in Chief of the UK military. The King can stop laws from being enacted with Royal assent. Even the appointment of the prime minister needs to go through the King. Almost every public service in the UK still have a crown on it. All the example I list above are objective facts, not some subjective theory in your mind. The UK citizen sought the legitimacy of the Nation from the Monarch, while the Monarch granted UK citizens autonomy. That is the social contract between the Monarch and the UK citizens. [Again, not democracy. You need to learn what democracy is kid.] Maybe you are the one who really needs to de-platform from your comfort zone. Even your democratic socialism, which would abolish the right to own private property, contradicts your definition of democracy (the liberal democracy defined by The Democracy Index, which even ensures the right to own private property). Besides, your definition of democracy is not the only definition people use. {Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting,[1][6] no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy.[13] Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is simply, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people, and that the people have a right to rule."[14] Kofi Annan states that "there are as many different forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in the world."[15] One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.[16]}
    2
  1107.  @hobbso8508  All the things I said is objectively exist. The king is the commander in chief, Monarch's agreement is still required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament, you can see the crown in almost every public service. If you are insist to claim the Monarch’s Regime doesn’t exist. Where is your evidence. Where is your proof that the Monarch have no sovereignty over the UK. You are the one who suggested a democratic system that contradicted with the definition of democracy which democracy index suggested. You are the one with the issue of inconsistency here.
    2
  1108. Marxism is all about social (state) ownership of means of production, not workers run co-operation with voting. Are you suggesting Marxism is not Socialism? “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “ …These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. … 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. … 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    2
  1109.  @tg4678  Are you saying Marxism is not socialism?
    2
  1110. The tribal part of Nazi was actually the tolerable part. The Socialism part was really the main reason they killed millions of people. Just like all the Communist State, 100 millions of people died because they mix Marxist , a noble end goal, with Socialism. Socialism is the idea on economy, Socialism is the main cause of most of the atrocities happened in the last century.
    2
  1111. ⁠ @Admiral-General_Aladeen  It is the Socialistic mindset justifying and legitimising those killing. Without the Socialism Nazism is just racism, antisemitism and nationalism. Without the Socialism is just a a bunch of worker right theory . It is the mindset that certain group of people need to socialise and overthrown the established state and transform it into a nation/society of that certain group of people caused the killing.
    2
  1112.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  oops typo.
    2
  1113. Roman empire had merchants, private slave markets with 2 percent tax on the sale of slaves, free ports, wealthy landowners own estate as their privite properties ,and their economy was not planned by the central government. Also "In Roman law (today as well as in Roman times), both land and movable property could be owned absolutely by individuals. This conception of absolute ownership (dominium) is characteristically Roman, as opposed to the relative idea of ownership as the better right to possession that underlies the Germanic systems and English law."(Law that protected private property right)
    2
  1114.  @Dce-nr8fr  Don't use modern economy system term to discribe pre-industrial economic, the premise of those terms are not compatible to the foundation political and economical strucuture of feudal system.
    2
  1115.  @danielsandwhichpants1391  They were right there in this particular thread of your comments. [@oscartang4587u3 6 hours ago @danielsandwhichpants1391 Nazi .....shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101).” (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938) ..... Industrialists ..... Silesia. (Against the Main Stream) ..... West German Government.]
    2
  1116. Same as Soviet Russia and PRC, but people still consider they are socialist states just because of the theory they used.
    2
  1117.  @saucyinnit8799  The argument does not work that way, I am not playing whataboutism. This is a logic gate. If you say Nazi is not socialist because they did something horrible, but a communist country did the same horrible thing and still being considered as socialist. Then that horrible thing cannot necessarily prove that Nazi German was not practicing Socialism. 1. Soviet did that in the same way 2. Soviet did that in the same way (The whole fake democracy election thing) 3. The logic gate does work that way, even some communist countries don’t have concentration camp, doesn’t change the fact that Soviet Union and PRC has concentration camp and still considered as socialist country. 4. Mao Communist didn’t think so, before Mao’s dead , they labeled all the ex-Landlords, Rich farmers, Counter-revolutionaries, Bad influencers, Right-wingers and their whole family, including their offspring as Five Black Categories and prosecuted,stigmatised and discriminated to death or killing themselves.
    2
  1118.  @saucyinnit8799  Just because they talked like a socialist, and ruled like a socialist in that time period.
    2
  1119.  @saucyinnit8799  Sure, if you act like a capitalist talk like a capitalist, your party rules like a capitalist, no matter what your party claim they stand against or for, you are still remembered as a capitalist. Hating other communist party is a very usual trait of Communist. Soviet PRC and Vietnam all had war with or invaded other communist/socialist countries. It again cannot prove is a country or its leader capitalist or socialist. PS: Have you ever even watched the video? NSDAP taxed the rich, controlled the price(tried to) and greatly increased the social welfare of workers, with references.
    2
  1120.  @saucyinnit8799 Sorry, I thought we were talking about Hitler and it’s NSDAP after 1933. I rarely mention his name in the discussion because I don’t want to get filtered out. Strasser was not in the party in 1932 while all those socialists politically was implemented after 1933. Seems not very relevant there. I think with the account of Goebbels and Hitler(which you can find in the video and comments), even if they need to ruined German economy by nationalising industries, creating production quota, centralising the whole demand and supply chain in a very socialist manner to prevent German people from revolt; it seems that Hitler would also want to do that in his mind as those policies quite align to the ideology of their account.
    2
  1121.  @saucyinnit8799  Socialist practices is still Socialist regardless what reason you are going to put on them. Regarding the point of Hitler going for socialism because he was focusing industrial and economy on military. During the Cold War period, the portion of GDP used by Soviet on military was similar to that of Germany in 1935-1938 on military. Is Soviet Union therefore become a capitalist country. Again if Soviet Russia still being considered as a socialist state, then you cannot really used that to prove Nazi German was not practicing Socialism.
    2
  1122.  @saucyinnit8799  As you said before, otherwise Soviet People would revolt. You can at least check the wiki and a 1972 The New York Times report “Soviet Promoting Private Farm Markets”
    2
  1123.  @saucyinnit8799  search Household plot in wiki
    2
  1124.  @saucyinnit8799  I just used what you said before, not trying to distort what you said previously🙇‍♂
    2
  1125. Ops seems the 2/ is deleted by YouTube
    2
  1126.  @hobbso8508  Are you showing that you never watch the video at all. Those point were just a section of the script of the video. If you have watched the video you should come up with those point long ago. Anyway where is your source to prove it wrong. Every statement I listed here were supported by at least one reference.
    2
  1127. 2.1/ So, 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.)
    2
  1128. 2.3/ And heavy social regulations were imposed on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc. (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p71-74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.) If the “leaders” refused to cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Professor Junker of the Junkers aeroplane factory was the first to be thrown out of his own business as a result, but he wasn’t the only one. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
    2
  1129.  @hobbso8508  As his action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism or third way. Again, are you showing that you never watch the video at all. Those point were just a section of the script of the video. If you have watched the video you should come up with those point long ago. Anyway where is your source to prove it wrong. Every statement I listed here were supported by at least one reference.
    2
  1130.  @hobbso8508  The sources TIK was quoting in 32:44 is the Hitler Second Book. That is Hitler own quote there, is he disagreeing his own ideology ?
    2
  1131. I would not comment the logic of ideology of Second Thought valid or not, but I knew he would fabricate/distort evidence/ historical fact to fit his narrative. In his video “Socialism for Absolute Beginners”. In 18:21, he claimed that ”We might look is Salvador Allende's socialist Chile. Allende was a socialist who won the chilean presidential election of 1970 in his few short years as president and we'll get to why they were so short in just a minute allende brought incredible changes to chilean society. He raised wages real wages increased by around 22 percent in the first full year of his presidency. He lowered taxes 35 of chileans were no longer taxed at all he reigned in inflation lowering it by over 10 points. He funded massive housing programs building tens of thousands of affordable homes all across the country. Education also got a big boost and enrollment at all educational levels grew. Universities in particular were made free increasing enrollment by nearly 90 percent. Hospitals and other medical centers were opened across the country particularly in underserved rural and poor areas. Allende extended maternity leave doubling it from 6 to 12 weeks. Chile saw a dramatic decrease in poverty and generally speaking more people could more fully enjoy their lives and interestingly enough the bulk of this new economy was organized through Project Cybersign. A decentralized network of computers that would take anonymous self-reported, and voluntary updates from workers in productive enterprises across chile to identify areas where resources needed to be redirected. The democratic economy in Chile was highly responsive to fluctuating changes and Chileans reaped the rewards gdp grew 7 in the first year production by 13 and consumption by 11 by kicking out capitalist enterprises." However,Project Cybersyn was initialised in July 1971, after the real wage of Chilean started declining since the peak of June 1971 from the peak in of March 1971. The history facts, show that Project Cybersign cannot saved the Chilean Socialist economy, if the system was functional right when the project started, or Project Cybersign didn’t really contributed to the Chilean Socialist Economic boom in 1971, if the system was not functional when the project started. Btw how Project Cybersign was a decentralized network, all the data input was transmitted into “ an operations room (Opsroom) would provide a space where managers could see relevant economic data, formulate feasible responses to emergencies, and transmit advice and directives to enterprises and factories in alarm situations by using the telex network.”(wiki, which is also Second Thought’s reference.)
    2
  1132.  @BILISenjans  Acknowledge the fact that US government intervened Chile economic should not be relevant to pointing out Project Cybersign was impossible to contribute to the economic improvement of the first quarter of 1971. What are you trying to claim?
    2
  1133.  @mitch775  I do watch the whole video too. Would you kindly point out what the differences he didn't truly understood? The socialism definition TIK used in this video is Social/State ownership of the mean of production. (25:42) In this video, TIK claimed Nazism is a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too (38:06), Hitler also claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2. Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4. Hitler want to solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:46)
    2
  1134. ​ @jakubsirocky4787  [Hierarchy based on race and social Darwinism] There should be only one race in the Aryan Reich. Ideological Nazism is about the equality or against unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market (natural selection) competition of the Aryans as stated in (38:06). Hitler also claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. IRL, this is precisely the reason why the Nazis tried to eliminate other races except Aryan, and it is also the reason why the USSR and PRC eliminated other classes of people except the proletarian. Btw, social Darwinism is just the justification for Nazi racism. Otherwise, Hitler would not want to end class inequality within Aryan. [So in fact definition he uses means it was not Socialism because "it was not social ownership of whole society but rather of individual members or groups within it (race, party etc.). ] The "society" is defined by its Socialism (Ayran State for Nazism and Proletarian State for Communism), and the undesired outside of that society can be exploited and eliminated. That is why Nazi Germany attempted to eliminate other races except Aryan, and USSR and PRC eliminated other classes of people except the proletarian. Here is another quote from the same Wikipedia page. "Within the context of socialist economics it refers particularly to the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves." As Hilter did increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, "private sector" could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31). And DAF force redistributed the "private profit" of those private companies among the workers (to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF. Nazis did have "state ownership of means of production. Regarding Utopian Socialism is just a proof that Socialism doesn't require class theory. There are Socialisms in one State and Socialism in one race. Labor Zionism met both criteria. Because of Zionism, they still believe the Jews are the God-chosen people.
    2
  1135.  @jakubsirocky4787  [1. At 28:53 he stated Nazism is not about class.] So as Utopia Socialism, yet it is still being classified as socialism. 26:57 [2. How did Nazis centralized the economy? The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish. They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection. Fixed wages were for purpose of keeping them low, as requested by businesses as well with banning unions and collective bargaining. Private sector in hand of private citizens even nazi members is still exploiting workers (even forced labor) to make profit.] Jews are not people within the Nazi Aryan Society thus can be exploited, just like the post WWII POW in USSR as they are not a part of the Soviet Society. Hitler did attempt to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. You can find the correlated reference in the given timestamp. [3. I believe TIK sees publicly traded company as socialized entity and hence socialist, it than make sense he sees race as social entity, party is social entity, family is social entity too. Socialism is about whole society, not arbitrarily selected entity. Aristocracy is social entity, that doesn't make them socialists. I don't know about export.] I don't think he said that in this video. Would you kindly elaborate on your points with correlated timestamps where you think he made that statement? [4. So he wanted to have market economy and solve it's supply and demand problem. Not control it without market intervention through centralized government like USSR? I don't get this point. ] I don't think he said that in this video. Would you kindly elaborate on your points with correlated timestamps where you think he made that statement? [I like the video and the discussion it creates, but those conclusion are not supported by evidence or at least in academia this evidence is leading to very different conclusion] You can find the correlated reference for every second at the bottom of the video.
    2
  1136.  @jakubsirocky4787  [Killing or enslaving everyone who doesn't agree with your arbitrary created category of Aryan people (also excluding many in that group based on natural selection - so no weak, homosexual, sick or not working from that made up group) is not equality or egalitarianism. That is what Nazis did. Because what you talk about wasn't achieved at all 38:26.] So as the PRC and USSR did with many purges and Gulags/loafers' camps, yet they didn’t achieve their socialist society, they all needed to capitalised their economy in different degrees after economic turmoils. Did those facts also make Stalin and Mao not Socialists and their Socialism not Socialism? [IRL, the reason to eliminate people was their idea of racial superiority, not equality or to stop exploitation at all. USSR wanted to remove capitalists to stop exploitation of proletariat. This is not based on Race or any unchangeable characteristics. People can move from Bourgeoisie to proletariat if they want. ] No, they are not. Firstly, Holodomor Secondly, during the great purge, there were operations specifically against nationalities. “From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD. It is estimated that this would make up 34% of the total victims of the Great Purge.[5] Polish Operation of the NKVD ~111,091 killed[6] NKVD Order No. 00485 German Operation of the NKVD ~41,898 killed[7] Greek Operation of the NKVD ~20,000[8]—50,000[9] Latvian Operation of the NKVD 16,573 killed[10] Korean Operation of the NKVD ~40,000 killed[11] Chinese Operation of the NKVD Estonian Operation of the NKVD 4,672 killed[12] Finnish Operation of the NKVD 8,000–25,000 killed or disappeared[13]” Thirdly, classes were often unchangeable. For the unchangeable classes in the USSR. "Ex-kulaks, criminals, and other anti-Soviet "elements" ~386,798 killed[2] (mostly ethnic Ukrainians)" Commissioners ran every Marxist Socialist/Communist state. In PRC, Commissioners considered themselves upper class, and the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral class of Five Red Categories compared to the lower classes of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories had already been stripped. The Five Red Categories would also start struggle sessions and/or kill people they deem to represent old establishments and capitalism, like their parents, teachers, doctors, and neighbours. Fourthly, inequality has never been purged. USSR would be a great example, proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. In PRC, ​ In 1960, Maotai liquor faced a shortage of raw materials. The Guizhou government gathered 1.17 million catties of raw grain from various counties in the province to support the production. It was still not enough, so an additional 700,000 catties of raw grain were brought in from Jiangjin County, Sichuan, to ensure the production of 912 tons of Maotai liquor for that year. This single-year production record was not surpassed until 1978. In that year, Tongzi County, which contributed 100,000 catties of grain, saw 41,734 non-normal deaths in one year. Xishui County, which also contributed 100,000 catties of grain, had 42,624 deaths over three years, with 499 households wiped out. Bijie County, contributing 290,000 catties of grain, had 53,990 deaths over three years. Jinsha County saw 55,000 deaths, and the most tragic was Meitan County, which had already recorded 122,000 deaths by April 1960, accounting for about 20% of the total rural population in the county. There were 2,938 wiped-out households, 4,737 people fleeing their homes, and 4,735 orphans. Did those facts also make Stalin and Mao not Socialists and their Socialism not Socialism? [At 28:53 he stated Nazism is not about class. Hitler clearly didn't create equal society of Germans, many of them were killed and exploited. There was hierarchy based on social Darwinist ideology. Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half. What they did to end any inequality?] Again, so as Utopia Socialism, yet it is still being classified as socialism. 26:57 "About class" or not is not a necessary condition of Socialism. [The "society" is defined in the same Wikipedia page as ""Social ownership is a type of property where an asset is recognized to be in the possession of society as a whole rather than individual members or groups within it. Social ownership of the means of production is the defining characteristic of a socialist economy,". In USSR anyone could be part of the society, regardless of race, nationality or genetical traits and once private property was abolished everyone was proletariat. ] Again, Ex-kulaks were still getting purge after their private property was abolished, so as those Five Black Categories in PRC. [About the quote: "Within the context of socialist economics it refers particularly to the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves." The wealth was not redistributed to society at large or the workers at all. Workers had fixed wages so the stayed low while their working hours increased, their real wages also were reduced. Also there was no right to strike or collective bargaining. Large part of previous welfare state was abolished, welfare was again just for selected group in society.] Average workers' real wage has been gradually increased from 88.5 in 1933 to 107.5 in 1938 (Table 7.2.1 "The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany"). With the price control imposed on the German people since 1936, by 1937, the total food expenditure of Nazi households reduced to 964 RM from 1369 RM in 1927, where the average real wage per week was 92.3 compared to 103.0 in 1937(Table 1" Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany",). Besides, inequality is irrelevant to how socialistic a state is as long as they are not exploited by the “capitalists.” USSR would be a great example, proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case. Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. If this cannot refute USSR and Marxist Leninism from Socialist State and Socialism, why what happened in Nazi Germany can refute Nazism from Socialism and Nazi Germany from Socialist State? [There is huge list of private companies making profit and private owners enjoying those after Nazis. Up until 1942 even companies form USA could make profit in Germany, their assets were only confiscated after German companies assets were confiscated by USA first. ] Would you kindly provide the list of private companies making profit and private owners enjoying those after Nazis here. As 3:50 stated, Nazis would replace the manager with Nazis and their Subordinates. Used Ford as an example, according to articles "Ford and the Führer" from "The Nation" and "The Ford Motor Company and The Third Reich" from ADL. Fordwerke has already been controlled by the Nazi-appointed manager since 1939. What can be sure is no matter how Ford protested, he could not close down the Fordwerks German factory or stop it from using slave labor. [Nazis had very limited "state ownership" - opposed to no private property in USSR.] Despite the net private wealth within Nazi German reduced to amount 0.6% under Nazi Ruling. "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) You are absolutely right, Nazi 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.
    2
  1137. ​ @jakubsirocky4787  [Yes many versions of socialism doesn't require class theory (social democracy, democratic socialism etc.) Because they are about equality in society. Socialism in one Race is about excluding some people from society, those would be exploited. If what is produced by race would be used by that race as whole that would be form of socialism. If you exploit some members of your society to benefit just some group of the right people, that is not socialism. Socialism social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members] Again The "society" is defined by its Socialism (Ayran State for Nazism and Proletarian State for Communism), and the undesired outside of that society can be exploited and eliminated. That was why Nazi Germany exploited and attempted to eliminate other races except Aryan, and USSR and PRC exploited and eliminated other classes of people except the proletarian. Another example would be the Anarchist Collective of Revolutionary Catalonia. “Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise. … Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives.” (Seidman, Michael, "Agrarian Collectives during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War") The “society” of the collective only contained the members of the collective, not everyone in Catalonia, or even everyone in that legislation area.
    2
  1138. ​ @jakubsirocky4787  Let's do the obvious one first. We will discuss your others point after we agree on what Table 4 discusses and did you quoting out of context from {The Ford Motor Company and The Third Reich} first. Without common facts to base on, we won’t reach common ground. Regarding "From: Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018" It seems you misunderstood what I was quoting. I am not quoting from Table 4. I am quoting {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.} I am also aware the difference between {....reduction to amount to ...} and {...reduced the top 1% share by ...} from {Nazi taxation reduced the top 1% share by about one percentage point (Table 4).} The reduction to 0.6% in {wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth} was caused by wealth tax, while of the -0.6 pp ∆ Top 1% share caused by War taxation (business) in Table 4. They can be two totally different data. One is net private wealth another is Top 1% share. __________________________________________ About Ford 
 Regarding Jewish managers
 It seems you quoting out of context. Just one sentence before your quote from {The Ford Motor Company and The Third Reich}. It said that: 
“Foreign and Jewish members of the subsidiary's management board were removed, despite, interestingly, the strenuous opposition of Henry Ford.” [The first time that a Jewish manager was fired (in 1936), Ford himself was successfully able to reverse the decision.]
    2
  1139.  @jakubsirocky4787  Sorry to miss your first reply. I didn’t get any notifications. Table 4 is about wealth distribution as in the name “World War II and the wealth distribution”, figure 6 is about the Wealth-income ratio and the Top 1% wealth share. My quote is about net private wealth. Net private wealth is about the total among of total private wealth. Wealth-income ratio and Top 1% wealth share are about wealth concentration. Those two are totally different concepts. Again, the reduction to 0.6% in {wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth} was about NET PRIVATE WEALTH and was caused by wealth tax, while your -0.6 pp was about ∆ TOP 1% SHARE caused by WAR TAXATION (business) in Table 4. One is NET PRIVATE WEALTH another is TOP 1% SHARE. I would say your whole point regarding the wealth-income ratio or Top1% wealth share in Figure 6 would be unusable to prove anything regarding Nazi Germany. As the data points of Germany from the periods 1933 to about 1953 were absent in Figure 6a and 6b. That is also why I never use those factors to prove Nazis did socialise private wealth within Nazi Germany.
    2
  1140. ⁠ @jakubsirocky4787  1. When the government appropriates more surplus products, produced by means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large, it equals more social ownership of the means of production. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics") Nazi fixed employment, fixed wage and fixed price all involve appropriation of means of productions. 2. According to “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”, the German workers' real wages hit the lowest point in 1932, not 1927. It is expected that the wage after the Great Depression was lower than that prior to the Great Depression. That is why I compared the weekly real wages in 1938 and 1933, when the Nazi raised to power. Nazis forced the price low to make food affordable, the state would pay the cost difference, while NRA forced the price high to preserve the market. What surplus product required NRA to appropriate? 3. Again, defining nationalism and racism as far right contradicted the history and the ruling policy of Communist States and Labor Zionism. 4. Surely, Marxist Leninism was based on class instead of race, but it also held great prejudice against different races within the country. Mentioning Labor Zionism, which is a Socialism for the God choice people in Israel, is to show that socialism can be for one race and one nation. Regarding your whitewashing of Soviet Atrocities against Racial Minorities, according to historian Oleg Khlevniuk, the reason behind the National Operation was because Stalin became concerned about rearguard uprisings that were seen in the Spanish Civil War and believed that "nationalities of foreign governments" posed a threat in border regions. “(”THE NKVD MASS SECRET NATIONAL OPERATIONS (AUGUST 1937 - NOVEMBER 1938)”) Would you kindly provide any counter evidence to prove that there were no racial or national prejudices involved in the mentioned atrocities? Fallacy 1. What is the depression level? The great depression started in 1929 and hit Germany the hardest in real wages in 1932. It is totally quoted out of context to use 1927 data to represent the depression level. 3. That is why I used Labor Zionist, which ruled Israel from 1948 until 1977. (”Israel: The Road from Socialism”) They were for Israel for Jews and Socialism for Jews since 1948. 4. Oh yeah, it has, sorry I missed that article. Yet that revenue was from selling foreign War materials to Germany. It doesn't necessarily meant that they control any means of production in Nazi Germany. The subsidiary of Ford as shown in the article by ADL was actually under the control of Nazis' subordinates in Cologne on or before 1940. 5. The buyer and seller was still Nazi Germany. Their profit was from selling war material to Nazi Germany and exporting vehicles from Nazi Germany. (”Nazi Economy and U.S. Big Businesses (2)—The Case of General Motors Corporation”) And again, 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{ (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)}) had more control than the administrator of the Communist state. Still, they were much more regulated from 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. Nope, “(GM) Its activity was characterised by the fact that it was aggressive in merger and acquisition of local businesses from the beginning in parallel with the export of finished vehicles from America and local ' knock-down assembly” (Nazi Economy and U.S. Big Businesses (2)—The Case of General Motors Corporation). Other companies like? Profit? Did it necessarily indicate that they control any means of productions within Nazi Germany? Using the same logic you used in Nazi Germany, USSR would not have been a Socialist State up until and after the war as there were companies from the USA and other capitalist state made profit from doing business with the USSR (Toshiba and Kongsberg). Even if they did own and run factories or any other business or make any profit in Nazi Germany, it doesn't constitute that Nazi Germany didn't appropriate the surplus products, produced by the foreign companies' means of production, or the wealth that came from it, to society at large. Therefore, even if foreign companies did own and directly run factories or any other business in Nazi Germany, it can only prove that Nazi Germany was not running an closed economy like the USSR did, but it will not refute anyone from being socialist, otherwise you are also refuting Cuba as Socialist by the fact that they accepting foreign investment to get in. 7. I still cannot see the [Net private wealth was only reduced by taxation and levy on real estate by 3% (1% of top 1%).] The data in your statement contradicted with that in the article. According to the exact text, here are the parts that contradicted with your statement: 1. Private wealth was also reduced by changing account rules 2. What levy on real estate was never given an exact presentage. 3. Only 1% of the top 1% share was reduced by the two types of extractive Nazi taxation. 8. Figure 6 in {Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018} is about private wage concentration, not the total amount of private wealth.
    2
  1141.  @jakubsirocky4787  Regarding "TIK's definitions are wrong!" (about Socialism & Capitalism) 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. However, TIK can still be right even if he claimed “Amazon is Socialism” if we are talking about Socialism in real life. As long as PRC under Mao , North Korea and the USSR being recognise as socialists, Amazon can actually be able to meet the minimum requirement of Socialism even with those countless workers exploitation records, at least Amazon has not yet starved any of its workers to death intentionally or unintentionally like those communist States starved hundreds of thousands of their people to death. [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
  1142. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @mitch775  Maybe you should check out the Histories of Communists and see what are the lowest standards of Socialist States and Socialism in real life. What is got constantly revisioned, expanded and distorted is not what the Nazis did in the past, but the spectrum of socialism. It seems no one realised how we have always been effortlessly convinced of so many Marxism related Communist regime-supported ideologies can be classified as socialism in the past century. The dishonesty of Nazis and how they deviated from their ideology has already been accounted for when stating Nazism is Socialism. Surely Nazi German was not the nirvana Socialist or Nazist State that abolished private property and free trade or fulfilled every policy and ideology the ideology proposed. However, this situation also applied to the Soviet Union, PRC, Cuba and other communist states. Cuba actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies. PRC didn’t nationalise private firms not until the “Public-Private Partnership"(公私合营) campaign in 1956, 7 years after they took power. Vietnam abandoned Agriculture Collectivisation in 1988. Soviet permitted household plots since its foundation and officially allowed the selling of products produced by the household in private garden markets in 1971. (Soviet Promoting Private Farm Markets, Theodore Shabad, The New York Times, March 16, 1972) Stalin's gender policy was famously misogynistic. It was very common for every communist country to use ethnic (racial) and national rhetoric to unite their people. Every communist country was aggressive and constantly prepared for war during the Cold War. Roma people were openly and systematically discriminated against in Communist Czechoslovakia. All those communist states infringed all those arguments you used to refute Nazi Germany, yet they and their ideologies can still be classified as Socialists and Socialism. The double standards are just too obvious to ignore. Not to mention all those modern liberal socialists that ideologically permit to co-exist with the Free Market; nor the Arab Socialism and Labor Zionism, which are regarded as Left Wing Socialist ideologies, but both have racist, nationalist and Lebensraum mentality.
    2
  1143.  @taker68  ​​⁠Nazi Government pushed out many policies and regulations to consolidate the control of the property in the private sector to the hand of the state, after the “privatisation” Notable examples would be: 1. The corporate law in 1937 that removed 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) 2. Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) 3. The Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn” that officially nationalized the Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - in 1937
    2
  1144.  @taker68 Because the West Germany privatised them after the war. Can you named one East Germany Company that was being sued by any Holocaust Victims?
    2
  1145.  @Jenseduca Your statement is simply false, Soviet permitted farmer to have household plots to grow their own private food 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)
    2
  1146.  @Jenseduca  I surely know what the difference between industry and farming plot, but one of the common things between two is they both made their owners into Capitalist. Exploitation of people by other people for profit was prohibited in Soviet Union? Then why would Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party.
    2
  1147.  @Jenseduca  Regardless what make a capitalist Society. Privately owning the means of production of the household plot, and able to legally sell the products produced from the household for profit, made those farmer Capitalist even by your definition. If you don’t know who Fred Copeman was. Let me be more enabling. If no one can profited from exploiting others in USSR, why would Brezhnev able to live in such lavish lifestyle, instead of having the same living conditions of any workers in USSR?
    2
  1148.  @Jenseduca  Bourgeois means Capitalist, petty Bourgeois means petty capitalist, it doesn’t change the fact that petty Bourgeois is just a kind of Bourgeois, thus a kind of Capitalist. Soviet tried to solve “private ownership” but they failed, which made private property owner, capitalist still existed in USSR. It did not indicate that the USSR was practicing Capitalism. Just like 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.). Regarding Brezhnev. Russian state media said after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that Brezhnev's collection had swelled to 324 vehicles by 1980.
    2
  1149.  @Jenseduca  Regardless in what mode of production, a farmer in Egypt 3000 years ago surely was a capitalist if he owned the land, means of production. Even with your definition, they would be a capitalist if they sold the food produce from his land for money, which was the cases for those household plot owners, which were legally permitted to sell their products produced from their plot in private garden markets since 1971. And farming land was mean of production, regardless how the mean of production of industry was in the hand of the state, at long as farmers could have their household plot and they were able to sell their products produced from the household in private garden markets legally. Your statement of [Soviets got rid of the whole kapitalist class as such, it was outlawed] is simplily false. Regarding the preparation for a war argument. 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. With your logic would it also refute the economic practices of USSR from being socialistic? IG Farben, Krupp, Siemens and all the other big-corps. As you said [no one cared about private ownership what they did care was a private ownership of means of production] Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production. As the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by 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 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) Regarding Brezhnev Really, are you suggesting Russian state media would propagandize against Brezhnev?
    2
  1150.  @Jenseduca  Sure it will as capitalists is defined is defined by their ownership of means of production, not the mode of production of their society and the year they were in. As I answered your question, would you kindly elaborate why would a farmer won’t fit a definition of Capitalist if he have the means of production of a farmland in Pharaoh Egypt 3000 years ago. USA can actually be defined as Socialism State 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) Regarding money is not capital What forbidden those household plot owners to used the money they got from selling their food produce and buy seeds of more valuable plant to grow and sell to generate more profit in the future? What would stop those money becoming capital? Regarding Brezhnev car collections Brezhnev have a collection of foreign luxury cars is well known fact. It even mentioned in the Henry Kissinger’s Memorandum to the President “Leonid Brezhnev: The Man and His Style”. It is not something you can dismiss as fake propaganda.
    2
  1151. ⁠ @Jenseduca  [mockery rather than a description] I would totally agree with you that they implied all those other Socialists were not Socialism if it wasn't the fact that they put Anarchism and Utopia Socialism in the same so-call Socialism category. [working class] Accent Egypt did have the concept of wage labour. “One of the principal difficulties with this approach is that, for Polanyi, the absence of wage labour was one of the crucial criteria which distinguished the ancient economies from market economies. The simple facts of the matter are that, in one fashion or another, regardless of whether the craftsmen are viewed as the exclusive recipients of the payment, it was apparently the payment in the shabi transactions which likewise compelled them to work in the Beyond. Thus the concept of wage labour was so prevalent in Ancient Egypt that, via sales transactions in this world, it could also be extended to the Beyond. And thus one of the essential elements of the Polanyi system which had to be missing in Ancient Egypt was very much present.” (”Work and Compensation in Ancient Egypt”) [investment possibilities and alike in order to turn money (wealth) into capital.] Farmer who owns farmland can use the money they earn by selling food produced from their farmland to buy more plant to grow and even buy more land. [Brezhnev's cars is a propaganda thing. Those cars were gifts from other leaders, between 49 and 329. ] Brezhnev had many Soviet Car. Here are a few notable cases. The first Soviet car of Brezhnev in 1966 was the "Seagull" (GAZ-13). Ten years later, 1976, a new model, "Seagull" (GAZ-14), was released. The very first car that came off the assembly line was presented to Brezhnev as a present for his 70th birthday. GAZ-24-95 is a limited edition with four-wheel drive and the absence of frame. Totally only 5 copies were produced, one of which went to Brezhnev Again, it is not something you can dismiss as fake propaganda.
    2
  1152.  @torengallagher8368  Please kindly define right wing then. Because the economic policies of Fascism (intervention/collectivisation of private firm, nationalisation of certain sectors and strong social welfare) seems didn’t fit the definition of right wings and it seems that the definition of Fascism will become communism if you change the word right to left in the definition. Is there any manifesto of feudalism or tribalism in medieval Europe? Can you provide any examples of feudalism and tribalism ideologies advocated the return of those governing system with using the concept of class or classes struggle. No, as those are not ideologies, but plain terms invented to describe the status quo way of how society worked. Those terms itself doesn’t inherent any perspective, political theory or political fiction to justify or advocate their existence. Fail to understand the difference between Social Economical Political descriptive terms and ideologies make you believe those terms were overcomplicated.
    2
  1153.  @torengallagher8368  That is not overintellectualized, that is just overpropagandalize. You heard those definitions of Left and Right mostly from news and social media not professors from universities. How intellectual you think those news and social media are? If you search deeper, even wiki can give you a more clear definition. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10]
    2
  1154.  @torengallagher8368  ​ In US left right system some say the left support Palestine and the right support Isreal, but both democrats and republicans support Israel. There is no consistency in the US left right system. As you said before, do you have anymore joke? You are using a political categorical system, that has no clear definition, no clear reference and would never accept academically and said that a the ideology category with clear definition, with clear reference and easy to understand is overintellectualized to death. Then claimed the oner you didn’t used is detrimental to a general understanding of governance and politics ? Therefore, we should used your American propaganda filled social media definition instead of a well defined version? Here is one, if you self identify as left and hate Nazism, Nazism is right. If you self identify as right and hate Nazism, Nazism is left.
    2
  1155. ​ @torengallagher8368  The definition of Left and Right I use here is from wiki. "The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10]" For the claim that the economic policies of Fascism (intervention/collectivisation of private firm, nationalisation of certain sectors and strong social welfare) it is from the wiki page "Economy of fascist Italy"
    2
  1156.  @Imbalanxd  How about even before the war, every compamny in Nazi Germany were owned by the state 3:00, directed by Nazi party members 13:32, and regulated by Daf 9:13. Their only seller and buyer was the state 11:24, they cannot fired anyone 17:21 and rise or reduce the wage of the workers 16:37 without Daf permission.
    2
  1157. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    2
  1158. Maybe because fascism objectively less dangerous than communism as an interpretation of socialism.( Accounting by the number of the people they killed, the range of reasons behind it and the final goal of the ideologies itself.) If Italy didn’t join the war, as they estimate the true strength of their military power correctly. Fascism might just democratise and become another branch of social democrat.
    2
  1159. Beware the very low low bar of Socialist Country set by USSR and PRC. If NAZI Germany passed that bar, there are no reason for double standards, and invent a new term to describe NAZI Germany, because of the subjective attitudes towards Communist Socialism.
    2
  1160.  @hobbso8508  According to Marxism, Socialism is about the proletariat as a whole (not as individual) (just the proletariat, capitalist not included) having control of the mean of production. Marxism still did not fit to your definition of Socialism.
    2
  1161. ​ @hobbso8508  The Marxist Democracy result is required to be determined. "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) Is it under your definition of not democratically controlled and pseudo-democracy?
    2
  1162.  @hobbso8508  Yes. “The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations.” Can you see this part So your definition did not include Marxism then.
    2
  1163.  @hobbso8508  Yeah all for before they overthrow the old power.
    2
  1164.  @hobbso8508  [This was absolutely not syndicalism. None of the members of these "unions" had any say in anything.] Can you prove it? The account from "The Vampire Economy" said otherwise.
    2
  1165. ⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508 Revolutionary syndicalism would no need to become the leverage between the worker and the state after they overthrown the capitalist state, and become the entity equal to the state which has the power and responsibility to regulate the economic activities of operations within the state.
    2
  1166. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @hobbso8508 The DAF, SS and the NSDAP are the parts of same ruling entity, and that ruling entity has the totalitarian control over Nazi German. Robert Ley the Union Leader was a Reichsleiter ,the second highest position in the NSDAP, same rank as Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler.
    2
  1167. Saying the UK system is an example of successful socialism seems to be one of the most offensive things you can say to a British or a Socialist. https://youtu.be/b5aJ-57_YsQ?si=2QTvCmxSUgSZ75jy
    2
  1168.  @tg4678  Throughout communist history, the socialist leaders of those communist regimes also 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.
    2
  1169. Actually not here are two communist contenders: Khmer Rouge China from 1949 to 1976 The mixture of official purge, self genocide and famine.
    2
  1170. 37:04
    2
  1171.  @nicknolte8671  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/Social/Public/Worker ownership of means of production, but it is not Socialist.  The social/public entity 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/Social/Public(of the shareholder) and workers ownership. At the same time, it 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 (owned the means of production) that particular entity is.    According to [1], joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of 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
  1172.  @nicknolte8671  Ancaps like Friedrich Engels?
    2
  1173. ​ @DragonMP652  1-8 As his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of State Capitalism. 9 “However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II.” “No special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II.” Didn’t mean those parts are invalid/ false or wrong, he just said that it is not necessary to follow those measures to achieve revolution. 10 Yes, Lebensraum is just the east. “And so, we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre–War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East. At long last, we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre–War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.” (Mein Kampf) 11-12 German people were to be sacrificed for the survival of the Reich/ the Aryan. The individual must service the greater interest of the society as a whole, that is a very socialist idea. 14 Again … Nazi still put out a lot of leftist policy after they got the power. He was still very left after the death of Römm, very hard to conclude THE DEATH OF RÖMM AND THE SA REPRESENTS THE DEATH OF HIS 'LEFT WING'. Lenin also killed every Kronstadt rebels, THE DEATH OF EVERY KRONSTADT REBELS REPRESENTS THE DEATH OF LENIN’S 'LEFT WING'. But, does it make Lenin less left or anything? _____________________________ 1 Yes it is, it is his ideology, no one but him can represent his ideology. 2-3 The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. 4 At the most superficial level, Hitler's ideology hate capitalism as Karl Marx's ideology did.
    2
  1174.  @KyonXyclone  viethoangtruong54 [No, your grandfather is just an uneducated person who only knows how to follow orders and is a lowly one at that. And the fact somehow you can link your grandfather stupidity with someone's mercy toward a Nazi (which is totally wrong) is absurd. In short, you are just as stupid as your grandfather, I guess stupidity does run in the family's blood.] This is the personal insulting post I am referring to.
    2
  1175.  @rifleman4005  The communists first associated fascism with “Right Wing” in 1920s, then associate Nazism with Facism in 1930s.
    2
  1176.  @CoolDrifty  ​​⁠ “reactionary views” you stated is irrelevant to the the position of ideological in political spectrum. If far right is characterised with its association with national or racial pride. Why would Labor Zionism and Poale Zion is still placed in left and far left, although they believe the Jews, their race, is the one race chosen by god.
    2
  1177. They actually didn't historically.
    2
  1178. Then they are not equally treating all. People with the classes of Monarch and bourgeoisie would be treated differently until they become proletarian, which is no different from saying everyone would be treated equally, as everyone we treated differently no longer existed.
    2
  1179.  @hobbso8508  The action of forcing people in other classes to becoming poleteriat itself is already a differential treatment. Reducing the number of people in one class to 0 by extermination , exile, re-education or any other means, still make people in that class(treated differently) no longer existed.
    2
  1180.  @hobbso8508  Again the action of forcing people in other classes to becoming poleteriat itself is already a differential treatment. What happened after people changing their class (private property being stripped) is irrelevant. As they were already treated differently.
    2
  1181. ​ @hobbso8508  Are you suggesting, people in class different from poleteriat in a Communist ruling Society are no different from prosecuted criminals? That surly isn't equal treatment. Monarchs being treated the same like the time communists executed the Romanovs in 1918? I never know everyone would got executed in a Communist ruling Society.
    2
  1182.  @hobbso8508  “give” what a good nice alternative word of expropriate. Forcefully seized become a voluntary given. Using the same language, there is no robbery as every victim just give their possessions to the robbers. No wonder TIK need to point out North Korea is actually “democracy” in certain point of view, it is because there always be people like you propagating half truth by playing words game to further their own goal. Beside no one here suggesting Monarchy is an equal to all system, only someone in this thread claimed Marxist Socialist is an equal to all system.
    2
  1183.  @hobbso8508 Someone claiming something doesn’t make it true. Monarchs is not an all equal system doesn’t make Marxist socialism an all equal system.
    2
  1184. [Also when a state seizes companys & takes them over, its not socialism, its state capitalism. What you described is the nazis taking over the role of managers/bosses in companys wich is far from socialism, when the soviet union did so, lenin himself called it "state capitalism" insted of "socialism".] Lenin called NEP “State Capitalism”. NEP was a policy to step back from centralisation and open up markets to a greater degree of free trade, hoping to motivate the population to increase production. After Lenin's death, Stalin ended the NEP and resumed seizing companies, taking over the role of managers/bosses from companies with Communists to centralise the USSR. [Hitlers whole idiology was almost opposite of becoming a democratic socialist state, insted he created a dictatorship wich killed its own people either by sending them to war or to concentration camps, basic opposite of democracy & socialism] If Lenin is too “State Capitalism” for you. Stalin also did all those things you mentioned, yet he and his ideology were still regarded as Socialist and Socialism, respectively.
    2
  1185.  @Karkafs-Desiderium  I think you missed the point: destroying managers/bosses and replacing bosses/managers with their own people is not "State Capitalism" in Marxist Leninism. According to Marxist Leninism, unable to control every means of production of the State is "State Capitalism." That is why, according to Maoism and Marxist Leninism, the USSR and PRC were running "State Socialism" after Stalin's and Mao's deaths, when both nations started stepping away from centrally planned economy.
    2
  1186.  @hobbso8508  Yet, Marxist totally permited and even advocated using force to force out the Revolution of proletariat, maybe Marxist is not socialism in your definition.
    2
  1187.  @hobbso8508  Not only when democracy is not allowed, it is "by the force of circumstances” So if Marxist failed to do a democratic proletarian revolution democratically, even they can't get collective consensus, they forcing people to do things. Does this action or approach contradicted to your Definition of Socialism?
    2
  1188.  @hobbso8508  The Marxism would then be excluded from you definition of Socialism, I don't believe there will be any need for further discussion. Your definition of Socialism is just Utopia Socialism under your interpretation of Marxism.
    2
  1189.  @hobbso8508  Surely you know Marxism better than Lenin or Rosa Luxemburg. Historically, Marxists did exactly what I said, the one who didn't was classed as revisionist.
    2
  1190.  @hobbso8508  Again which part of the Communist Manifesto Lenin has infringed?
    2
  1191.  @hobbso8508  He was following the following quote in the Communist Manifesto "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." How can Vanguard become another class if class is a concept of ownership and economic positions as you said before. It seems you have some contradictions within your own class theory.
    2
  1192.  @hobbso8508  Owning what? And do you have any sources to support such practice?
    2
  1193.  @hobbso8508  Is it a sources?
    2
  1194.  @hobbso8508  Do you have any proof that can show the Communist in the following quote "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." work in a way different from those Vanguard? And yes I am totally clueless to your subjective narrative of Communism, please kindly provide evidence to support your claim.
    2
  1195.  @hobbso8508  Again any source you can provide to supports such claim, and any proof that the Communists within The Manifesto of Communism would work in a different way?
    2
  1196.  @hobbso8508  I cannot find the correlation between Rosa Luxemboug ,the practise of vanguardism, and the different between Vangards and Communists within that quote in The Manifesto of Communism. Can you provide any source that can supports such claim, and any proof that the Communists within The Manifesto of Communism would work in a different way?
    2
  1197.  @hobbso8508 Show me the quote then. Why is it that hard for you to quote the relevant part?
    2
  1198.  @hobbso8508  Did that quote criticised how the practice Vanguard deviated from Communism? If yes, or it is related to this topic please post it here and elaborate.
    2
  1199.  @hobbso8508  Then post the quotation that can support your argument here and elaborate your point. Why would that be that hard?
    2
  1200. Short answer Lenin and Stalin did the same thing and still being called socialist/communist. Why there are double standards here?
    2
  1201.  @brandonmorel2658  What you stated was just some glorified BS Lenin used to legitimise his consolidation of power, which Hitler had his own version. In Mein Kampf Hitler also wanted to end class inequality with a national community of labour and in the trades and professions, he claimed that 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.”(Mein Kampf) ———————————————- Assume what you stated is correct regarding repealing the banned of opposition party, those people were still going to be purged by Stalin during the great purge, where much more leftists were killed than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. While in Nazi German: “Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000. In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
 “[Hitler] rejected from the outset the  idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden”  [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them  integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. ) “By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. ) The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
    2
  1202.  @brandonmorel2658  No one, not even TIK claimed that Nazism is a Marxist ideology. He deliberately said that “Hitler was not a Marxist” 28:51 . Hitler was a race socialist who 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. If socialism is just about proletarian, you are excluding all other Socialism except Marxism from your definition of Socialism. Hitler can compared to Lenin/Stalin in terms of their atrocities against different categories of people, and their egalitarian excuse to consolidate their power and nationalisation, but not in terms of ideology. The reason I show you how Hitler legitimatise his consolidation of power via establishing a national worker union is to demonstrate Nazis just like Communists would use some “for the greater good” BS to justify and explain their actions.
    2
  1203.  @brandonmorel2658  Are you excluding racial Socialism ( AfrioSocialism, Labor Zionism), gender Socialism (Socialist feminism ), and Religion (Islamic Socialism, Clerical Socialism) from the definition of Socialism? Not even Karl Marx excluded the Clerical Socialism from socialism in his Communist Manifesto. Eugen Dühring from “Anti-Dühring” was an ethical communist, yet he was still being regarded as a Socialist.
    2
  1204.  @brandonmorel2658  Just chauvinist? If chauvinist is excluded from Socialism, why Stalinism and Stalin were still being regarded as Socialism and Socialist? Did starving Ukraine, force relocating minority, purging Jewish Doctors and using New Soviet man and Russianisation to remove and oppressed minorities culture and historical and linguistic identity constitute Social Justices instead of Chauvinism? How about the many concubines of Mao, the Nationalism within Maoism and the Tibetan ethnic cleansing during 1950-1960. Does it also constitute social progression instead of Chauvinism within Maoism? Beside, what make you determine Nazi was patriarchy? They were still very progressive in their time. According to Holocaust Encyclopaedia German women played a vital role in the Nazi movement, one which far exceeded the Nazi Party’s propaganda that a woman’s place was strictly in the home as mothers and child-bearers. Of the estimated forty million German women in the Reich, some thirteen million were active in Nazi Party organizations that furthered the regime’s goals of racial purity, imperial conquest, and global war.  They served as welfare workers, teachers, secretaries, nurses, auxiliaries in the armed forces and police, and in many other occupations including as guards in concentration camps.
    2
  1205. The company become public when it initiated an initial public offering. (Publicly Selling company share)
    2
  1206. The point this propaganda can mostly reuse for an anti-communist propaganda.
    2
  1207.  @ElfainDeLeon  What is their definition of left and right?
    2
  1208.  @ElfainDeLeon  Hitler and his party also focused on public resources and social services too.(10:08 to 12:26). So is Hitler left in that definition?
    2
  1209.  @plv.d.4079  Violent conflict did also play a central part within Marxism. “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party') “the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
    2
  1210.  @plv.d.4079  USSR annexed the Baltic States, started the Winter War and invaded Poland twice. Communist States did actually seek violent conflict. Furthermore, from which Nazism literature land you to the conclusion that Violent Conflict was central to Nazism ideology? There are tons of Mao's quotes I can use to prove that Violent conflict did play a central part in Maoist Marxism: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." (“Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan” (March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 28.) "The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds well universally, for China and for all other countries." (“Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 219.)
    2
  1211.  @plv.d.4079 ​​⁠Can you even provide any reference to support your statement regarding [the nazis saw violent conflict as the greatest thing the “volk” could be engaged in.] Nazism ideology did intend to establish an ethico-nation egalitarian society of the Aryan. Hitler’s ultimate goal of establishing a racially pure “national community” (Volksgemeinschaft) which 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” (Minecraft) Minecraft also stated that Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that as one of the "obligations on our shoulders" : "(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."(Minecraft) PS: The origin name of his book seems to be censored
    2
  1212. ​ @cyanpunch6140  How about utopian socialism that preceded Marxist Socialism?Utopian socialism was not about workers owning and controlling the means of production.
    2
  1213.  @cyanpunch6140  definition itself is necessary to include every sub concept it mean to describe, as long as utopian socialism is part of socialism. The definition of socialism must not contradict to the meaning of utopian socialism. Regarding Workers having control over their live. In theory, National Socialist (what Hitler said) and Marxist (what Karl Marx said) social ownership were both on the hand of the people (the proletarian / the German Race.) But in practice the right of both USSR and NAZI Germany worker were strictly in the hand of the state.
    2
  1214.  @cyanpunch6140  I have learnt socialism theory and history, and live under communism long enough to know what your believing in can just twist into political fiction serving authoritarians regime IRL.
    2
  1215. Socialism worked well enough when it mixed with checks and balances of power. Still, it would be a total disaster when you implement it with the “enemy removal” and determinism mentality of Marxism. The lesson of accepting the socialist part of National socialism is acknowledging that extreme socialism can rise again not only with class but also with other socializing entities like gender or religion. Letting people know that blindly believing in great political promises and blaming all the problems on certain people can lead to humanitarian disasters should be better than treating it as a mass hysteria that would never happen again.
    2
  1216.  @horatiopelagius8703  Base on how many socialist/communist theory were from or lead to the birth of those communist countries, I don’t think it is moral to separate them from socialism.
    2
  1217.  @horatiopelagius8703  As people will still teaching those Marxist theories that from and formed those countries. Every Marxist socialist country ever formed at best ruined their own economy in good will, to kill their own people in famine in good will, or at worst intentionally kill their own people. If you want to morally separate those socialists country from socialists, you must also need to separate those socialists form by or from those countries. Including Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and other theories from those fail socialist countries. Which is impossible as they are the foundations of most of the socialist theory. Detaching those countries from socialism without detaching those theories is just like teaching people the theory the greatest scammer used to scam , and the word from the greatest scammer instead of telling them how many live those scammer has ruined, you tell those people this is the future of humanity and the only way to fixed all the problems. This is the reason I think that it is immoral to separate them from socialism.
    2
  1218.  @horatiopelagius8703  You are not the world, your definition does not represent other people definitions. People would be using “pseudo-socialism” (under your definition) like Marxist, Maoism or even recreating Nazism(without even realising it) to ruined peoples lives in the future .Not Until the day your “Pelagius’ Socialism” dominates and dictates the direction of Socialism, I don’t think it will be moral to separate all those fall socialist( including NS) and their theories from socialism.
    2
  1219.  @horatiopelagius8703  BTW I believe ruined its economy, is the main reason why the “second fastest growing economy of the entire 20th century” cannot outlast 20th century.
    2
  1220.  @horatiopelagius8703  No your definition is just wrong, Carl Marx didn’t used “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably.
    2
  1221.  @horatiopelagius8703  May you kindly tell me what happened to Soviet Union in 1991?
    2
  1222.  @horatiopelagius8703  Soviet Russia still collapsed under its economic stagnation and collapse. There is no contradiction between its initial growth and its collapse due to its unsustainable economic policies. The suddenly collapsed of the whole economical system (not just the regimes) in 70 years surely show the power of it Communist Plan Economy System when compared to the at least 300 years of the worst old corrupted Feudal System that Communist suppose to replace. The Communist Socialist System is truly the first step toward reaching Marxist communism utopia. Now, may we discuss the mental gymnastics you did while trying to substitute the definition of Socialism? Your main goal of this discussion is to try to detach theoretical Marxism from all the socialist （including national socialist) regimes by playing the there was no real "socialist" though substituting the definitions of Socialism 2 times. In this discussion thread, you first agreed to TIK Socialism definition, which is "Socialism is just social ownership of the means of production. It doesn't need to benefit the designated "social group" in order to be classed as Socialism, it just requires that the economy is operated via a social hierarchy." Then you remarked, "this is why socialism by its very definition requires a democracy.…" Under this definition, NSDAP, Communist Party of Soviet Union, PRC, or other Communist Regimes met the requirements of Socialism, as they were/are all produced by at least one (could be rigged) democratic election. Then you substitute the definition of Socialism with that of Marxist Communism. Tried to play the "there was no "real" socialism "card and detached the theoretical Marxism from all the socialist （including national socialist) regimes by claiming "Marx used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably and defined it as a classless, moneyless and stateless system. The Soviet Union had all three of those things." So in this definition, at best, you can say that non of those Socialist Regimes are Marist Socialists/Communists. But you cannot use that to claim that they are not socialists under TIK definitions. As under TIK definition, Marist Socialists is just a subset of Socialism. Then you stated, "my definition of socialism is the mainstream definition. Even Tik used the same definition as me. Everybody is in agreement about this definition." multiple times and attempted to hide the fact that you tried to substitute the definition of Socialism with the definition of Marxist Communism and played the "there was no "real" socialism "card. Now, would you kindly tell me in the "definition of socialism is the mainstream definition. Even Tik used the same definition as me. Everybody is in agreement about this definition." definition under what merit Communist Party of Soviet Union and PRC before Mao's death were not Socialist?
    2
  1223.  @horatiopelagius8703  Why just focus on the policy on 50 but neglecting the policy from 60-80? They were the product from the same socialist regime. All those socialist regime had their democratic elements. They have their own election per their unit, Stalin was actually elected layer by layer. Their problem is without the separation of power, check and balance and rule of law. The leadership can just easily do anything(even killing a bunch of people)change every whenever law/constitution they want.
    2
  1224.  @horatiopelagius8703  My point was every Marxist socialist country will lead to horrible things range from ruining their own economy to killing their own people, and you just played a straw man and substitute what I said to the implementation of central planning of Soviet Russia leading to its collapse. Despite playing straw man like that you still cannot land yourself in a better position. Are you suggesting that Soviet Russia wasn’t implementing central planning from 1970-1991 or Soviet Russia didn’t have an economic collapse prior to the collapse of Soviet Russia? Your first definition of Socialism was just “requires a democracy”. Now it suddenly become requiring “representative democracy”? How many time you are going to substitute the definition of Socialism? Yet, it seems you didn’t understand the problem is not the lack of”representative democracy”. Many Socialist regimes like Soviet Union was founded from representative democracy. It was the disregard of the separation of power, check of power and rule of law due to their “bourgeois morality” nature under Marxist definition, enabling those Socialist regime to did those atrocities.
    2
  1225.  @horatiopelagius8703  Another definition of socialism? If the standard of mechanism didn’t matter as you said. There will be no rigged mechanism, as that mechanism would always work as intended as long as it effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community. Now with your own socialist definition can you proof that Soviet Union mechanism is not effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community (the state) with evidence? The evidence I can provide to prove Soviet can effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community is their party approval rate and election voter turnout were always higher than 90%. With this definition you cannot even disprove North Korean is still a socialist country.
    2
  1226.  @horatiopelagius8703  I am just using your definition, as long as mechanism would always work as intended as long as it effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community, the standard of mechanism didn’t matter. In this case, there will be no rigged mechanism, as that mechanism would always work as intended as long as it effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community. So the indicator of a socialist state a “real” socialist or not is “ do they have a mechanism that can effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community.” As you are the one claiming that Soviet Union is not a Socialist state, can you provide any evidence to proof that its system unable to “effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community.”
    2
  1227.  @horatiopelagius8703  The origin explanation is they just did that to save other part of the community (remember Ukraine is just part of the USSR community). Sacrificing the minority of the community to save the whole community can be effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community. That is the problem of socialism, even in your definition there is no mention regarding the human right or the wish of minority. Just always the community as a whole. They still got approval rate and election voter turnout were always higher than 90%. Is also another good indicator the people in the community approve that decision.
    2
  1228.  @horatiopelagius8703  Despite how ridiculous it is, can you show me any evidence that can prove the rest of the Soviet Union( as a whole not individual) oppose to genocide the Ukrainian to not get hungry or any opposition to the Communist Party after this genocide?
    2
  1229.  @horatiopelagius8703  Save from their poor planing, even in your definition it doesn’t said that socialism promised not ruin their own economy. As told before. Soviet Communist Party still got approval rate and election voter turnout higher than 90% after the genocide. Those are very quantifiable data showing that the community didn’t oppose what they did for your references. I don’t think under your own definition of “the standard of mechanism didn’t matter” you can say that those election were rigged without proofing that the mechanism was not effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community. In the same time, it seems under your definition. It is impossible to disprove any claim that any Socialist Regime have the mechanism that effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community, no matter how ridicules a claim is. As there is no quantifiable data you can use to show that the socialism government kept doing something the community (not individual) didn’t wish or opposed, plz proof me wrong if you may. Regarding killing, even in your definition of Socialism, there is nothing regarding protecting the right/interests/wish of the minorities. So I believe a socialist state can do whatever they want (including killing) to minority in the name of the wish/interests of the community and still being considered as real Socialist. Regarding ownership, voiding ownership from owner is the foundation of property redistribution, even Karl Marx agreed doing that from the capitalist, thus the action of voiding is permitted in achieving communism in Marxist theory. The question you are concerned should be from whom here. But even in your definition, there is no forbidden of killing, voiding ownership, or internal redistribution of property . So is a real socialist cannot redistribute property now?
    2
  1230.  @horatiopelagius8703  Sorry I just double check my previous reply there was some typo. It should be “It is impossible to disprove any claim that any Socialist Regime have the mechanism that effective ….” Not “It is impossible to disprove any claim that any Socialist Regime didn’t have the mechanism that effective ….” Sorry again. Btw If a socialist community do as the majority of the community wish to sacrifice some part of the community to achieve something, is it still considered as real Socialism in your definition?
    2
  1231.  @horatiopelagius8703  Wait are you using Marxist theory to explain what is Socialism? Isn’t you said “Marx used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably and defined it as a classless, moneyless and stateless system.“ before? The socialism you are describing had none of of those things. May you tell me the difference between this Marxism explained socialism with the true Marxist Socialism/Communism.
    2
  1232.  @horatiopelagius8703  Then why would you use Marxism term like class and class consciousness to define to definition of (General) Socialism again? Are you trying to monopolise the definition of (General) Socialism with Marxist theory? As you said Marxist is a subset of Socialism, The definition of the subset(Marxism) must based on the main set (Socialism) by definition, and the definition of the main set must not based on subset. (General) Socialism must not be defined with any Marxist concept.
    2
  1233.  @horatiopelagius8703  Then that become “Marxist” Socialism instead of Socialism as General. The is not based on any subjective opinion but just the logic of set and subset. If Plant is Socialism, Orange is Marxism and taste like orange is “class consciousness” and other Marxist theories. The way you define Socialism is just like putting tests like orange into the definition of Plant. In the definition you are doing to (General Socialism), Utopian socialism cannot fit into the definition of Socialism. Maybe that why you are so struggled to understand why race can become the mean of socialise.
    2
  1234.  @horatiopelagius8703  So what National Socialism contradicts with the basic definition of Socialism again? While socialising by class is not a necessary component in the definition of Socialism now.
    2
  1235.  @horatiopelagius8703  Btw it seems you distorted the definition of Marxist Socialism too, as the only definition of socialism is just the transitional state between capitalism and communism. That mean the definition of socialism must be different from communism. With such loose definitions, the definition of socialism should be ranged from the infinitely close to the worst form of capitalism to infinitely close to actual communism. The only necessary criteria here is appropriate to Communism. Similar to your mechanism that can effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community, it is undebunkable once a country stated itself to be. (As there is no quantifiable mean to disprove set statement) Claiming that it is under chargeable should just be a way to read and understand Marxism but not the official definition of Marxist Socialism.
    2
  1236.  @horatiopelagius8703  have you even watched the video at all?
    2
  1237.  @horatiopelagius8703  Regarding your definition, I believe you are supposed to talk about “neo-socialism” that aims to distant Socialism and Marxist theory from those Communist Regime, yet your definition of that “neo-socialism” cannot even stand a chance against Cold War Tankies Mindset to exclude Communism regimes from “neo-socialism” by definition, unless you can really prove that their mechanism was not effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community with evidence, which is impossible as I mentioned previously. No matter you like it or not, your definition of your “Neo-Socialist” theory cannot rule out the socialist that the wish of “community” monopoly represented by oligarchy. They already made up enough socialist theory to worked around your “neo-socialist” definition, that supposedly to rule them out from socialism, even before you were born, do you think that you are the only socialist think that they were not practising socialist? Regarding, your Nazi crossing the socialism baseline comments. That was called claiming the mean of production while respecting the ownership and not killing the owners, which Marxist would just void the owner ownership and killed the owner. National Socialist is actually much more respecting the human right of the capitalist then Communist, Communist in the future should really learn from National Socialism when centralising the supply chain. And the corruption part it is just a must of any Socialist state no different from other communist countries.
    2
  1238.  @masterdisciple6542 Worse Is Socialism= Good Socialism in practice = Failed and killed billions Therefore, Socialism in practice is not practising Socialism
    2
  1239.  @horatiopelagius8703  As the “old” Socialist will acknowledge the existence of those communist regimes as Socialist. Which I already did with evidence , their approval rate and voting turnout are always higher than%. Because of your definition of socialism, I did not need to prove that the election is not rigged, as long as you cannot prove that their mechanism was not effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community with evidence. Until you can do so, those communist countries should still be considered as Socialists in this discussion. I am already very kind to let you changed the definition of socialism at least 4 times in this discussion. And yes, Nazism in practice is objectively way more civilised than socialism in practice. Do you know how cruel Soviet and Chinese communist( yes I agree with your definition of Marxist Socialism, Communist Regime is not Marxist Socialist/Communist they are just “bad” Socialists) treat capitalist when reclaiming their properties? Seriously Holodomor was both the mean and product of Soviet Collectivization and how many people die in Chinese Land Reform Movements. Your ignorant and arrogant is actually quite irritating. Socialists in history born for equality but always ruined more people lives when they get the power. Did you ever learn any communist history while learning anything about Socialist theory? Every atrocities they did was in the name of Socialism, Marxism and it’s variants. Without learning those history and their relation to socialist theory, how better than Mao and Stalin you think you can be when you actually get the power?
    2
  1240.  @horatiopelagius8703  btw So under your latest Marxist Socialism definition, all Communist Regimes were Marxist Socialists then even if they truly were oligarchy collectivist, as they were calming to be approaching Communist Society. And it is impossible to deny that as there is no true communist state yet, thus it is impossible to know they were going to the right path or not.
    2
  1241.  @horatiopelagius8703  So USSR was Socialist under Marxism-Leninism during they are industrialising from 1920-1950. The time it did most of the atrocities and kill billions of people? Even after 1950, Soviet Union failed in its Marxism-Leninism ( which is a subset of Marxist) way and unable to become Communist state. As long as they still claiming they are trying to achieve communism, isn’t it that they still consider as Socialist under Marxism? As they were just abandoned the path of Marxist-Leninism not Marxism as a whole, right?
    2
  1242.  @horatiopelagius8703  Wait isn’t you said that “all worker-owners and are to be respected as such. They are united by their class without concern for their race or anything like that.” after the class consciousness awaken ? As party itself is the representation of interest of identity(their race or anything like that) .If opposed party exist, isn’t mean that the community unable to be united by their class and didn’t have class consciousness. Therefore, that community cannot not be socialist. So is it mean that under your definition any community cannot be considered as socialist with or without opposition party?
    2
  1243.  @horatiopelagius8703  The problem you have is your meaning of “Social Ownership” or “Socialism” are based on unqualifiable things and open for interpretation. How can you measure “mechanism works and it ensures the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community.” If one party in a community did such a good job that can “ensures the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community” and have no opposition party. Does that one party community successfully achieve social ownership of the mean of production ? How can you prove that party unable to do so and it’s actually an “oligarchy collectivist”?
    2
  1244.  @horatiopelagius8703  How about Soviet Union in the Stalin Collectivization period? Is that a socialist country under ideology, they are on the road of achieving Real Communism under both Leninism and Marxist and kill billions. Can you use your own definition of Socialism and “Social Ownership” to prove that Marxist is wrong by proofing that Soviet Union then did not have the mechanisms that can “ensures the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community” thus “unable to achieve social ownership of the mean of production”?
    2
  1245.  @horatiopelagius8703  If workers “are all of the same class and therefore share the same class interests. They have similar economic interests.” What difference they could have that can incentivise to form another party? At most they should just be independent candidates or competing within the party just like Soviet Union did. So either Marxism contradicted to Socialism, or it is still possible to achieve true social ownership of production mean without an opposing party.
    2
  1246.  @horatiopelagius8703  So this is the merit of you deciding Communist Regime is not socialist because you don’t consider they can represent the community?? As those Communist were able to play the word game, and pertaining themselves into a democratic entity before. Therefore yes I would consider those “tyrannical, murderous state” can easily pass your simple“democracy” one word checker within your socialism definition. They were the products of Marxist’s Socialism. It is irresponsible to excluded them from socialist, once they were not acting in a socialist way. It just like parent disowning their kids once they committed crime. Therefore, you need to prove Communist Regime cannot represent the community under your definition of Socialism to prove it is not Socialist. North Korea is democratic, as they have election. Now I believe you can prove me wrong quite easily by stating that their election is rigged with the definition of democracy by UN. Now, I claim that the Soviet Union was true representation of society that own the mean of production as it run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community. The most significant prove of its ability to represent the whole society is it got more than 70% approve rate in every legislative election. With using the same definition of Democracy from UN, I think you can very easily prove me wrong by proving the election is rigged. However, under your definition of Socialism. “That mechanism for the owner to express this ownership doesn't matter, as long as the mechanism works and it ensures the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community.” So as there is no form or standard requirement for that mechanism, you can no longer able disprove my argument by claiming the election is rigged, as long as the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community. Therefore, you can only disprove my argument by proving “the organisation is not run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community” Can you give me any quantifiable evidence that there is something that was disapproved by the majority of Soviet Union, but Soviet Union did that thing anyway? If you can’t, you are unable to prove Soviet Union was not achieving Social ownership of the mean of production, and stated that it should not be considered as Socialist under YOUR definition.
    2
  1247.  @horatiopelagius8703  Regarding my Tankies devil advocate against your socialism definition. If your socialist belief cannot exclude these Communist/Social Nationalists regimes against those Tankies reasoning from it (your socialist belief) definition, while denying those regimes were socialist. You effectively deny the fact that your socialist belief caused those crimes against humanity done by those respective socialist regimes. In that case, I believe you would be as immoral as a Nazi or a Racist, because you are knowing believing and promoting an ideology that can be easily interpreted into one that caused crimes against humanity in the scale equal or even greater than that caused by Nazism and Racism.
    2
  1248.  @horatiopelagius8703  Wait, with the logic of dismiss murderous Socialist entities from Marxist’s Socialism theory as they did not act in a socialist way. National Socialist can argue Nazi Germany is not real National Socialist, because they cannot achieve true social ownership of production mean and is a murderous regime. The base concept is National Socialism is the (society) community itself was socialised the by race. The detail theory part is just what Hitler written and speech, if you really watched the 5 hours video I think you would quite familiar with that. By it name, National Socialism is a subset of Socialism and must be able to achieve true social ownership of mean of production with a mechanism that the owner can express this ownership. The mechanism doesn't matter. What matters is if the mechanism works and it ensures the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community. A true National Socialist would never do Holocaust, despite the theory of National Socialism encouraged remove Jews with violent mean, just like Marxism encouraged violent class struggle and property redistribution.
    2
  1249.  @horatiopelagius8703  NAZI Germany is not real National Socialist in the way Communist Regime not real socialist in you logic. Can you tell me why real National Socialism is not socialism by it theory not what NAZi German did.
    2
  1250.  @horatiopelagius8703  NAZI Germany is not real National Socialist in the way Communist Regime not real socialist in you logic. Can you tell me why real National Socialism is not socialism by it theory not what NAZI German did. Isn’t deny Communist Regime from Socialism also pushing your political agenda that would lead to equally horrible thing? I never worry Nation Socialist rise again from capitalism but from socialism
    2
  1251.  @horatiopelagius8703  By democracy of course. Hitler also believes in democracy in his national socialism theory
    2
  1252.  @horatiopelagius8703  Sure Hitler included democracy in his National Socialism theory. Have you watched Hitler's Democracy? WHAT!? from TIK? Remember NAZI Germany is not real National Socialist in the way Communist Regime not real socialist in you logic.
    2
  1253.  @horatiopelagius8703  I has not making any claim on Hitler himself. My claim is Hitler included “democracy” that is “able to become a mechanism that the owner can express this ownership which can lead to achieving true social ownership of mean of production” in his Nation Socialism. If you cannot prove that the concept of “democracy” in Nation Socialism is contradicted to your concept of “ the mechanism that the owner can express this ownership which can lead to achieving true social ownership of mean of production”. Then you cannot claim “true” National Socialism is not Socialism. Remember NAZI Germany is not real National Socialist in the way Communist Regime not Real Socialist in you logic. PS: I actually don’t even need to prove National Socialism have a theory regarding the “a mechanism that the owner can express this ownership which can lead to achieving true social ownership of mean of production” . As long as you cannot provide me your Marxism’s class Socialism version of that theory.
    2
  1254.  @horatiopelagius8703  Don’t put your word into my mouth. What I am saying is the National Socialism theory he created is under yours definition of socialism and the mental gymnastics that you can just excluding fail socialist example from the definition of socialism once those example failed to run in the way you wished to.
    2
  1255.  @horatiopelagius8703  NAZI Germany and Hitler are as Socialist as Lenin and USSR are. The National Socialisms theory is as Socialism as Marxism–Leninism is. This is the translation I got. “Already at that time I took up my stand on those important fundamental questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a whole. I opposed these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or for hatred, and I was ready to face the fight. The National Socialist German Labour Party ought not to be the beadle but rather the master of public opinion. It must not serve the masses but rather dominate them. “ (translated by James Murphy) Becoming the master of public opinion and dominate the direction of masses(community) for me is not an oppose to the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community. As it just mean influencing the wish of the community. The organisation can then run as it wish and in a way as to honour the influenced wish of the community. But it is fine if it is not within YOUR definition of Socialism. As if it is true, even Marxism–Leninism theory, which believed that the working class by itself could only achieve "trade union consciousness" and thus needed a vanguard party of intellectuals outside the class to bring class consciousness to it.” is excluded from your Socialism definition. Both of the socialism are going to shape the wish( mastering the public opinion / bring class consciousness to it) of people in the masses and controlling the state in the way the people are indoctrinated to wish to. (It must not serve the masses but rather dominate them / to establish the dictatorship of proletarian ). I don’t think in many socialist agreed that a definition of socialism that excluding Marxism–Leninism theory theory is a main stream definition of socialism.
    2
  1256.  @horatiopelagius8703  Are you suggesting Lenin- Vanguardism theory honor the wish of the community? It is just literally what you quoted from mein kampf in different wording. Remind you that NAZI Germany is not real National Socialist in the way Communist Regime not real socialist in you logic. They cannot represent True National Socialist like Communists Regime represent true Socialist.
    2
  1257.  @horatiopelagius8703  where in your quote in Mein Kampf said that control by indoctrination? Are you mirroring what NAZI Germany did then? Then I can mirroring Leninism with Soviet that time to dismiss Leninism theory from the definition of Socialism.
    2
  1258.  @horatiopelagius8703  where the quote mein Kempf use the word brainwash? If In theory, the revolutionary class consciousness is just “meant to be the most politically aware and class conscious members of the proletariat. Lenin himself said it was meant to be completely transparent and completely democratic. Any member of proletariat could join and take part and as the public watch this they will find who they want to elect to positions of leadership.” In your logic Hitler is just showing the masses where public opinion went wrong. “Already at that time I took up my stand on those important fundamental questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a whole. I opposed these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or for hatred, and I was ready to face the fight.”
    2
  1259.  @horatiopelagius8703  I know there is different between 2 theory, as long as both theory would encourage force idea indoctrination people to achieve artificial supporting dominance within the population. “….a vanguard capable of countering the inevitable petty bourgeois waverings of this mass, of countering the traditions of, and inevitable backsliding to, a narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all aspects of the proletarian movement or, , in other words, all the labouring masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is unthinkable.”(On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party)(16/3/1921) Any ideology other than proletariat class consciousness would be countered by vanguard. Isn’t it kind of mastering the public opinion, dominating the masses. The manipulation of the wish of community should not consider as honouring the wish of the community as you said. They should either both include in your definition of Socialism, or both exclude from your definition of Socialism. Remember No moral augment against the definition. That is your rule.
    2
  1260.  @horatiopelagius8703  Btw after abolishing party in Soviet Union at Eight Congress of the R.C.P.(B.).(Some say Lenin opposed that idea, I would let it pass as not a part of Leninism). Lenin vocally against end factionalism in the conclusion of his opening speech of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.). Entirely removed the possibility of opposite party in Soviet Union, which you previously argued that it must exist in the democracy of real socialists. (Although I still disagree) How would you still including Marxism-Leninism in your definition of Socialism?
    2
  1261.  @horatiopelagius8703  PS: As per the line between IRL and theory. I believe it should draw at writing and public speech. So I cannot say Leninism support the Red Terror as long as he have not publicly admit it
    2
  1262.  @horatiopelagius8703  “The trade unions must collaborate closely and constantly with the government, all the political and economic activities of which are guided by the class-conscious vanguard of the working class—the Communist Party.”(Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy) All the quote I found were written by or Spoken by Lenin publicly, and can easily found in public domain. They literally publish the plan of how to Lenin and his party going to control public opinions, and being the master of the community as a propaganda of Marxism–Leninism. How can you still able the claim Marxism–Leninism theory can run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community and included in your Socialist definition. If Marxism–Leninism is included in your Socialist definition, National Socialism surly able to.
    2
  1263.  @horatiopelagius8703  They are all from “Lenin Collected Works” published by Soviet Union.
    2
  1264.  @horatiopelagius8703  I was using first hand writing and speech transcript from Lenin himself found on Google by myself. Are you suggesting that it is better to use second hand sources instead of Lenin first hand sources to understand Lenin ideology?
    2
  1265.  @horatiopelagius8703  the same theory can apply to DfA and NSDAP too theoretically. Where is the opposite Party here? It seems it becoming less and less democratic and more centralising power of me. Where is the honouring community wish here. Those theory just plainly tell you how are they going to centralisation the state. The theoretical Leninism at most was just Soviet Union with no corruption , no killing, better self constrain. But still one party control, same democratic system, and will still force indoctrination of real “class consciousness”.
    2
  1266.  @horatiopelagius8703  no moral argument for basic definition, that is your rule. You are just saying that one theory have a better will then the other. While pushed over all the definitions you set for socialism and said Marxism-Leninism therefore hence is socialism while National Socialism is not.
    2
  1267.  @horatiopelagius8703  What are you defending? I don’t understand why you can just deny any other variation of Communist theory from YOUR definition of Socialism, but just defend Marxism-Leninism like a Tanky? Is it because this is the only one you learn and never learn anything about other Communist theories?
    2
  1268.  @horatiopelagius8703  Do you just neglect the part any ideology but true “class consciousness” in the community would be countered by Vanguard party? Let me remind you: “….a vanguard capable of countering the inevitable petty bourgeois waverings of this mass, of countering the traditions of, and inevitable backsliding to, a narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all aspects of the proletarian movement or, , in other words, all the labouring masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is unthinkable.”(On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party)(16/3/1921)
    2
  1269.  @horatiopelagius8703  I learnt Socialist theory since I was a child. My last name just basically tell you why. I don’t need TIK to poison my mind to know Marxism-Leninism is the corner stone theory to legitimise the one party system.
    2
  1270.  @horatiopelagius8703  wait, do you mean that one party system theory work democratically because it said so in the theory. What suddenly make it need to have opposition party in practice? Is your definition of democracy changed here?
    2
  1271.  @horatiopelagius8703  Here are two Lenin quoted I have used in this discussion. 1 “….a vanguard capable of countering the inevitable petty bourgeois waverings of this mass, of countering the traditions of, and inevitable backsliding to, a narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all aspects of the proletarian movement or,in other words, all the labouring masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is unthinkable.”(On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party) 2 “The trade unions must collaborate closely and constantly with the government, all the political and economic activities of which are guided by the class-conscious vanguard of the working class—the Communist Party.”(Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy) My interpretation are 1 … vanguard party need to remove (counter) all the petty bourgeois (capitalist) within the masses ( the population) and the beliefs and the growing of other socialist believe (…narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices) among the proletariat, and control/ regulate (guiding) all aspects of the proletarian movement or,in other words, all the labouring masses. Or else the result of the the centralised democratic election (dictatorship of the proletariat) can not be control/rigged/predefined （unthinkable). Remark: Unthinkable not impossible, that mean dictatorship of the proletariat can still happen with all those capitalist and other socialist ideologies in the masses. But the result may not be the communist state that predetermined by Carl Marx. 2 Trade Unions must subordinate (collaborate closely and constantly) to the government. All the political and economic activities are control/ regulate (guided) by his party (the class-conscious vanguard of the working class—the Communist Party.). By his party not the Soviet Union, not the masses, not the proletarian. Trade Unions, political and economic activities are all eventually controlled by the Communist Party, Lenin’s party. I wish to know what interpretation of which quote you can made that can lead to the conclusion that Lenin was implying “Soviet Union should be democratic and guided by its people”?
    2
  1272.  @horatiopelagius8703  That is “War is Peace” level mental Gymnastics. What is the context you are basing on your own fantasy? I am now quite curious, where your socialism learn from. You are not defending Lenin you are defending yourself and your belief from what Lenin said, written and common English understanding. With your level of vocabulary meaning distortion, I can interpret Lenin as a National Socialist and Hitler as a Marxism-Leninism. The meaning of “communist party” is not his Communist Party, is not the proletariat, is actually National Socialist German Workers' Party. Proletariat means German (race) , Bourgeoisie means Jews. Vanguard Party mean SS. Although even with this kind of distortion, I think I can still proof that Marxism-Leninism theory is implying his party is going to dictate the direction of social development of that community and eliminating any opposition thought, but it will just become another mud wrestling, which I enable you to stay in discussion by allowing you the change the definition and logic once again. I never know that the Western Socialism is a Tautological Religion before. The Eastern one I studied was more sincere and honest. I am so sorry I offended your religion, Marxist Socialism is good National Socialism is bad. You were right and I was wrong.
    2
  1273. 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. “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) Use the CTC of Cuba as an example. Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba) “There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba) _______________________ Regarding arresting leftist opposition: More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). 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.
    2
  1274.  @captain-chair  Socialism is not really about what who is the enemy, whose property needed to be stripped or what is the end stage of society, it’s definition is social(state) ownership of mean of production. Both ideologies suggested to use the same economical/governing policy to achieve their goals. And that why they are both Socialism.
    2
  1275.  @captain-chair  Do not be tricked by Marxism. Marxism in theory is the most totalitarian ideology among all ideologies you mentioned here. The state power required to create a new identity(class) to label certain people and remove those people from the existence of society and reconstruct the whole society into commune , is even greater than that removing certain people with label(race) that already existed from society plus other things Hitler did to Germany. A country trying to practice Marxism would required more control on its people than apartheid South Africa, and to NAZI German.
    2
  1276.  @captain-chair  Sorry for letting you see the deleting comment. I deleted that because it is not really relevant to your concern. But I will still answer that. It just can, I am not a psychologist, I cannot explain you how. I can just tell you it can happened. Anti-Semitism was a norm in 1800s. So it quite make sense actually. Jews mean Jews that is how languages work. It should not mean anything too different , if the words in one sentence can provide a coherent meaning. They did that by accent or culture only even in WWII, German still cannot tell who is Jews and who is not Maybe it just the cult of the ideology went to big that it’s believer need to revision what he said to match what they believed? The problem is with that level of distortion Mein Kampf can become a book of praising god.
    2
  1277.  @captain-chair  Communists is democratic until they lost the first election. After they lost, they would become consolidated the power to prevent the society “counter-revolution” back to the old stage . For the hard facts, Just read books or wiki, stating that much fact on YouTube comments are quite impossible. But by your wording, it seems you live well enough to be able to classified as bourgeoisie already. If you are in a Communist state during the centralisation period, you are probably dead already. Real poor people would not have time to consider class struggle at all. Would this make you have another thought for it.
    2
  1278.  @captain-chair  Marx
    2
  1279. Sadly, “Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is.” was the OG Marxist definition of Socialism in "Das Kapital." 26:00
    2
  1280. Soviet Union at least met 5 out of 6 of the social values you listed here with the first glance.
    2
  1281.  @SandfordSmythe  You are the one who said that they are social values.
    2
  1282.  @SandfordSmythe  So, are you saying that when Germany is obsessed with those things you mentioned, it is social value, but when Communist Countries like the Soviet Union are obsessed with it, those things become political reality? Isn’t that just double standards saying out loud?
    2
  1283.  @victorhiggins2118  Yeah under the control of the Party member, the extension of the state as the party itself is the state.
    2
  1284.  @ben5154  But National Socialism is not fascism
    2
  1285.  @victorhiggins2118  His goal is in 35:55
    2
  1286.  @hobbso8508  What happened to the Capitalists after the proletarian get a state power in Soviet Union. They got purged. Socialism don’t need to represent all existence segment of society, as long as long as they eliminate the undesired one.
    2
  1287.  @hobbso8508  So you are now going to deny the Soviet Purges of 1920s to protect your faith ?
    2
  1288.  @hobbso8508  [ Hobbso @OscarTang No, they had their capital removed. They were still alive and still voting people, just not capitalists. It represented everyone.] What you are typing here is just defending the Soviet with total lie instead of denying Soviet as Communist. And what the Soviet did is totally a part of Karl Marx writing “the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
    2
  1289.  @hobbso8508  stop putting Bourgeoisie in charge with the murderous death agonies of the old society, simplified and concentrated. Karl Marx still advocated for violence.
    2
  1290. ⁠ @GGNH1234  There were Arab Socialism and African socialism for the race socialism. For the Gender one, I really don’t know can it form a economic system because of a very important problem call reproduction, but it can be done in theory.
    2
  1291.  @hobbso8508  ok even you are right there, Marx was still advocate to use Revolutionary terrorism for revolution, it is still an advocation of violence.
    2
  1292. When a country is monopolising the supply and demand chain and using cartel way (violence means) to taking property from citizens to the state, just like in Soviet Union or PRC before Mao death, it seems that there would be quite no room to allow organisations that could monopolise or practice cartel capitalism to exist.
    2
  1293.  @slaterslater5944  As you are saying vast majority of industry were in private hands under Nazi,then, there is no monopoly in the market? If you are saying those industries were in the hands of Nazi, then they were not in private hands and not controlled by “cartel” organisation as those Nazi were the extension of the ruling government.
    2
  1294. @Slater Slater Your reply seems got filtered out
    2
  1295.  @blodlord  Those industries were only in party members hand. As the Party is the state, those industries were still under state control.
    2
  1296.  @blodlord  11:28 There was price, rant, and centralised distribution good and production Quote in Nazi Germany which Chinese does not have now.
    2
  1297.  @blodlord  Germany started those central control policy way before the war not during the war
    2
  1298.  @blodlord  The price controls were (tried and failed to) placed in every aspects.
    2
  1299.  @blodlord  "Hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and their customers are forced to violate the law daily, and a whole army of policemen has been mobilized to catch these lawbreakers. Die Deutsche Polizei, the organ of the S.S., issued the following appeal which graphically shows the relations between the State and shopkeepers in Germany today: "Businessmen who are ignorant [ of the new legislation ] must be reminded of the price restrictions; they must know the prescribed prices .... Police, making their regular visits, are informed by the retailers that they were just about to put price tags on or that the goods had just arrived. As a matter of principle, this kind of excuse cannot be condoned any longer. Fixed maximum prices are ignored; shrewd businessmen mark the prescribed maximum price on one side of the price tag, and a higher price on the other side. Even when official prices are quoted, forbidden price increases must be looked for. ... Special attention must be paid to the firm's books." (The Vampire Economy.pdf, p.101)
    2
  1300. ​ @blodlord  Sure the direct quote I quote from "the vampire economy" was from [Theo Loehr, in Die Deutsche Polizei, January 10, 1939] Another quote "Under National-Socialist economic policy, the State determines to what extent the increased profits of industry, resulting largely, directly or indirectly, from State orders, should be used for increase of wages or dividends. " from "the vampire economy" is from [U. S. Department of Commerce, Economic Review of Foreign Countries, 1937, p. 20 ff.]
    2
  1301.  @blodlord  I think that is your problem to deal with then, if you want to discredit a historian (Günter Reimann) or his first handed account from 1939, and prove something he said was wrong, you need to do your digging yourself. For me I would treat that as an first to second hand historical sources. Yeah I am showing you how NAZI influence the market with US sources. As long as his action was aim to serve its socialsed entity the race (32:41) instead of maximising profit , the state can still consider as Sociallist state instead of state Capitalism or third way.
    2
  1302.  @nicknolte8671  TIK never claimed that Chile wasn't capitalist under Pinochet because they didn't privatize everything. He said "Yes, he supposedly ‘privatized’ parts of the economy - but since ‘privatization’ can still mean that the State is in control of the economy somehow (like in Hitler’s regime), I highly doubt he did any actual ‘privatization’ at all. He never created a gold standard. The world central banks lent vast sums of currency to his regime, and the corporations blossomed… None of that is capitalism." His claim is still far from thinking [everything is socialism].
    2
  1303.  @nicknolte8671  That is the original quote from TIK. When did TIK claim that [everything is socialism] or [Chile wasn't capitalist under Pinochet because they didn't privatize everything.]?
    2
  1304. What your are mentioning has no contradiction with any other Socialist state in practice at all. It is always about someone on the top in front and everyone else is beneath them under some political fiction. Lenin did that, Stalin did that, Mao also did that. That is a common problem of any government system without any check and balance of power.
    2
  1305.  @rickglorie  Which literature written that Socialism requires check and balances of power, Marxist despite those political systems with that concepts and claimed they are bourgeoisie democracy only for the processing classes. Lenin in State and Revolution: "this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners... ...break the resistance of the capitalist exploiters.”
    2
  1306.  @rickglorie  "Socializing the menas of production means everybody is a stakeholder, which implies democratic principles as opposed to totalitarian/authoritarian systems like monarchies, dictator etc." Karl Marx view on democracy did not seems meet the criteria of democratic principles as opposed to totalitarian/authoritarian systems like monarchies, dictator etc. "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
    2
  1307.  @rickglorie  Maybe you can quote me an direct quote of Karl Marx literature to show that Karl Marx indeed look for a more tame democratic revolution with Check and Balances in his later life.
    2
  1308.  @rickglorie  Is that Karl Marx own word? Or does it change the fact that the practice of pure Marxism required Totalitarian, yet Marxism as a whole is still considered as Socialism. In the sense of idea itself is not a bad idea, even Nazism and Fascism can be not a bad idea too.
    2
  1309.  @rickglorie  The totalitarian is in the abolition of private property free market and the implementation of collective industrial and agriculture sectors. I don’t think the Lite Communism in your previous quote would fully included those policy. If they are, totalitarian would still need to be to keep those policies to wrk as they they are intended. You are just wrong and being a racist here by just claiming USSR was being totalitarian is because they were Russian, Tsar Russian were never and no need to be a Totalitarian State. As they don’t need to mind every citizens ideology and banned local free market. For saying Nazism and Fascism just attracts to desperate people? They were just common man from all walks of lives. 33.3% of German people voted for NSDAP, were they all desperate. You are just stigmatising what ideology you hated here.
    2
  1310.  @rickglorie  How can you control the private market and abolition of private property without control the private, plan economy without regulation the production of commue and regulate the consumption of individual? Totalitarianism mean exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life, not a bunch of evil adjectives sticking together. To achieve total regulation of state's economic, Totalitarian would be required by definition.
    2
  1311.  @rickglorie  Sure, but does the existence of Social Democracy within Socialism exclude Marxism (with all his own words) from Socialism. If not what make the concept of totalitarian opposed to socialism?
    2
  1312.  @rickglorie  Are you just excluding the Communist Manifesto from Marxism? If you can’t include the old classic Marxism by Karl Marx own work it is fine, but excluding some ideologies from socialism not by any valid reason but just it will make Socialism look bad is not acceptable.
    2
  1313.  @rickglorie  What are you talking about, Marxism was the main cause of those totalitarian regimes. Again, excluding some ideologies from socialism not by any valid reason but just it will make Socialism look bad is not acceptable.
    2
  1314.  @rickglorie  Totalitarian that controlling every aspect of livelihood started by Marxist Communists State, no prior ideology or governing structure required the control of private activities of every citizen. It is also physically impossible for any country prior to Industrial Revolution for have such ability of totalitarian. Saying that totalitarian is a backward is Chronological untrue. As you said, if the Communism with Totalitarianism is still Socialism. Then so as Fascism and NS, dead or not they are still Socialism ideology that practicing totalitarian. "No, not at all. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have always existed, they are the default, and not the monopoly of some political idea. Kingdoms, empires, dictatorships, the tirans of early greek democracies. They are backwards. Nazism/Fascism is capitalism in decline. Just because some strands of socialism ended up as totalitarian failures doesn't mean the whole of socialism is invalid, not at all. Go read The Manifesto, it still stands, only you don't have to start a revolt, just vote in your own interest. Russian communism, that's dead alright. But so are absolute monarchies, fascism and nazism. The cat is out of the bag."
    2
  1315.  @rickglorie  Have you ever head about Utopia Socialism , with is an Socialism predated Marxism and didn’t use class struggle theory.
    2
  1316.  @rickglorie  National Socialism , also "claimed they would socilize production and socializes consumption. Historically it aimed to improve society (which stems from the same root!) For the betterment of all in their society." Yet to socialise production and consumption (control production and consumption under society, aka state), the implementation of Totalitarian would be require for National Socialism, Communism or any other ideology. As it is impossible to reinforce that goal without Totalitarian control.
    2
  1317.  @hobbso8508  Other than unable to achieve an overall increase of productivity and resources flow more abundantly which the Communist Manifesto said what those revolutionary measures would lead to. What have USSR done in Lenin and Stalin era contradicted to the Manifesto of Communism?
    2
  1318.  @hobbso8508  Soviet Russia had voting, the one which can " immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
    2
  1319.  @hobbso8508  " True, and they did actually improve conditions for ordinary people overall. They did however take many steps away from their goals, and quickly stopped being socialist." The time seems not right here you said Lenin was not a Socialist, USSR should not be a Socialist State after Lenin took the power, when did they actually improve conditions for ordinary people overall and when they took many steps away from their goals, and quickly stopped being socialist?
    2
  1320.  @hobbso8508  What reasons have you previously outlined and when the fail attempt took place?
    2
  1321. ⁠ @hobbso8508  The “Democracy” of North Korea is just the “Democracy” under Communism Fascism and Nazism definition. There is nothing wrong to state out their internal logic, and show people how those central control ideology scammed people into the system with the word democracy.
    2
  1322.  @themusicalstrings412  It is not about what to focus here, but what is the definition. If Marxist stretch the definition to the point that NS can enter, NS can be classified as Socialism then. Beside Nazi also focusing more on race struggle more than state control too. State control is just the way people accuse Nazism as capitalistic, but not also not the focus of Nazism too.
    2
  1323.  @skummelkatt  Nazism's ideology and practice were well within the definition spectrum of Socialism. Nazism is socialism because it met the necessary criteria to be classified as socialism, not just because [they called themselves socialist].
    2
  1324.  @skummelkatt  Many socialists and their Socialism were hostile against each other. Regardless of how many National Socialist or Socialist Parties Hitler purged, those facts are not able to disprove Hitler being a Socialist due to the very low standard set up by other famous Socialists like Lenin, who purged the Anarchists and Revolutionary Socialists, Stalin, who purged the Mensheviks and Trotskyists.
    2
  1325.  @skummelkatt  1/ Fascism is also Socialism. 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)
    2
  1326. The facts mentioned in both videos were mostly valid except for the secret funding circle part from the Second Thoughts video, but it does not matter because PRC also won the civil war with the help and collaboration of landlords, businessmen and industrialists. The privatisation was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to the private sector as stock since 1933 with corporate law in 1937 by removing the shareholders “right to vote on dividend policy and 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.), For the other accusations in the Second Thought videos. Every Communist State ever existed had committed at least one of those accusations (including killing socialise in mass or send them to concentration camps) that Second thoughts were used to refute Nazi German and Nazism from Socialist state and Socialist ideology. Therefore, if we are using the same standard to judge Communist States and their Communism, those Communist States and their Marxism should also be refuted by Socialism. The only thing Communist Countries did that the Nazi didn’t that I can think of was the mass killing of ex-bourgeois and land owners including those who previously help the CCP rise to power after expropriating their private properties. However, social democrats also didn’t kill those people in mass, through using this standard to refute Nazi and Nazism from Socialist and Socialism, you will also refute social democrat and other Socialist and their ideology from Socialism.
    2
  1327.  @opanike87  Fascism is one of the socialism doesn’t mean equaling fascism to (all) socialism, just like you can not equaling communism to (all) socialism, even without including fascism and Nazism, utopia Socialism also didn’t use class theory into its ideology. Secondly, theory and practice are different, look at what Pol Pot did can you say the ideology of Marxism including all people wearing glasses is bourgeois because what Poi Pot did in Cambodia? Beside, where is your claim came from, do you have any sources to proof that there was Oligarchs had private jets and 10 mansions in Fascist Italy?
    2
  1328.  @mihailhirvonen553  If Germany is profit incentive, they would not increase worker welfare 11:17, rearming themselves to bankrupt , start the war, and killing a purging a large sum of working force (Jews) during war and not surrender since 1943.
    2
  1329. Regarding Nationalised Trade Union: Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation, which all eventually “left worker with less power”. 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 live that governmentalised labour union unsurprisingly failed to improve the working conditions of workers in USSR as illustrated by the following case: Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to the USSR in 1938. On his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party. The same thing happened to the labour union in other Communist State, like the CTC of Cuba for 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) If nationalize just trade union itself can refute Nazi Germany and Nazism from Socialist State and Socialism, every Communist States, their Socialist Leader and their Marxist Leninism variations must also be refuted from Socialist State, Socialist and Socialism respectively. This is not a whataboutism, as the main subject here is the minimum requirement of practicing Socialism, which is set by the worst recognised socialist state example in real life.
    2
  1330.  @michelbuckley5532  Yet Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27, which is the opposite of conservatives
    2
  1331. When the government act like a gang and controlled everything the regimes become centralised. If you put some socialist ideology into a centralised government it becomes socialist government.
    2
  1332.  @Alte.Kameraden  Actually, do it in an organise crime way is just the mean of centralising property within the state, communist would usually use stripping people property and prosecute the owner of the property as the mean to centralising property within the state. The other two main essence of Socialist is the willingness of centralisation, and the socialist theory behind the centralisation. When people describe the centralisation of communist socialism, they usually focus on the theory behind the centralisation. As historian hiding the theory behind the centralisation,when people are describing the national socialism as gangster , they are focus on their mean to centralisation.
    2
  1333. Socialism mix with religion is still socialism.
    2
  1334. They share the collective class of proletarians and the shared history of global revolution; those two shared features were already enough to establish a national identity. Not to mention Communist Socialism is about state ownership of means of production, which is certain to provide a common experience for the ruled people to form a nationality.
    2
  1335.  @SlavicBias  Sharing common class of proletarian, history, experience or ideology, any one of those can also constitute a nationality. North Korea and South Korean can be identified as different nation, just from the different recent history they experienced. The way Marxist to abolish nation is to run a socialist nation until the nation dies out. Before that naturally happened, the Marxist would still run the nation indefinitely. So Marxist would made a nation until the time come. “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. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    2
  1336. ​ @SlavicBias  Juche is a Marxist ideology, why did it suddenly become a religion? Are you saying the nature of Marxist ideology is a religion instead of a theory or any other thing? If Marxism is a religion, or a placeholder religion. Why can’t people form a nation under the common religion or placeholder religion of Marxism? They did not share similar culture because one was under the influence of Communist Culture since the 1950s. If the whole world become communist under one central control, won't you think all the nations would be under the influence of the same culture created by the same ruling system under the same ideology? [Genesis of nation is strictly fictional process which is to be processed by elites.] No, it is not, "a nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or society." (wiki) If everyone with common aspects lives under the same sovereignty. A nation would eventually form. Not even state, country, or nation are strictly fictional processes which are to be processed by elites unless you are trying to say that every language, history, ethnicity, culture, and society are all fictional and created by elites. Or you are saying the army, wealth the land of the elite is fictional. [Still, there are important aspects to differentiate one nation from another.] Soviet Union had 15 National Republics within it. In theory, it is an international entity, but a nation in practice. The necessary element to form a nation is not what aspect can differentiate one nation from another but what aspect can include all the different people in one nation. If everyone is controlled by one economic system, one ideology, and one central distributing system/ government, why would those people not form a common nationality, thus a nation? [Especially since Marxists consider nations as something to be coming from capitalist state of economy.] Yet, the state is still the foundational tool for implementing Marxism.
    2
  1337.  @jovicamateric7756  So as the USSR, yet they were still being regarded as Socialist State.
    2
  1338.  @yatosan3524  Workers has 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.) Please enlight me how difference Soviet Union in right or power different from the German one?
    2
  1339. Communism was originated from Germany and the Treaty of Versailles didn't artificially force any form of government to Germany. There was no CIA or any equivalent in that time period behind the formation of Weimar Republic.
    2
  1340. No they need to use double Standard in order to refute Nazi from being 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. It is the existence of both Totalitarian Communism and Liberal Socialism made the Nazi system set right in the middle of the Socialism Spectrum.
    2
  1341.  @katyn_was_based14 ​​Nazism can be defined as a socialist ideology because: 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2.Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare (11:27), workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3.Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4.Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48) ________________________ 5.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) ______________________ 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. _______________________ 7.Regarding Racial and National Socialism/Communism Socialism can cooberate with conservative nationalism and racism as proven by the history and the ideology of Arab socialism and Labor Zionism. They are both ethos-centric, leftist and considered as Socialism, while both want to cleanse the other side from the same holy land. Even Communist States in real life cooperated Nationalism with their Marxist Leninism. Milovan Đilas, who popularised the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
    2
  1342. Or the connection between Lenin and Imperial Germany. If having connections with foreign capitalists would make Hitler a capitalist, would connection with Imperial Germany made Lenin a Monarchist?
    2
  1343.  @hobbso8508  where, even if you do find some article regarding some Marxist against Lenin, how about Mao, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Rosa Luxemburg they are all believed in same kind of Social Ownership of mean of production.
    2
  1344.  @hobbso8508  She was the leader of Spartacist uprising in the democratic Weimar Republic. Democracy is not the only permitted way for Marxist Revolution.
    2
  1345. ⁠​⁠ @joeldiemoz9027  They killed German Communists with Freikorps suppressed the German Communist uprise and killed the founder German Communists with Freikorps. They were regard as “Social Fascist” by the German Communists Party. I don’t know the Social Democrat is the communist or the proto-Nazi you previously mentioned.
    2
  1346.  @B4CKWARDS_CH4RM  Just like USSR in practice, but they were still considered as Socialist country. The state is the society
    2
  1347. The boundary of Socialist state is not really about how Nazi Germany Economy policies faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state.
    2
  1348.  @poncholarpez6233 Which line of Socialism theory from any socialist really stated about how would their democracy work? The meaning of democracy was very stretch too. How do you ever know are they saying North Korea “democracy” or Western Liberal Democracy? As it seems that most of the socialism democracy from 1800s to early 1900s is using the former definition.
    2
  1349.  @poncholarpez6233  all three systems had all those welfare(not including the right to vote, bill of rights, a functioning justice system with tax payer funded representation) one way or another too. So the difference is more about what the government forbid you to do(aka your right), not what the government would do for you. Fascist system would be the milder than the Nazi and the Communist system.
    2
  1350.  @poncholarpez6233  Nope the old socialism mean to reach an equality utopia with full total socialisation, the total social ownership of mean of production and the elimination of any private ownership of mean of production. All the totalitarian policy were the measurements to reinforce that idea, and the expansionism was just a crusade to save everyone from the current society for the early Socialism, and/or just a mean to solve the economic problem. In their view the current socialism is not real socialism, as the contemporary one didn’t aim for total socialisation anymore.
    2
  1351.  @poncholarpez6233  Utopia Socialism, the whole branch of Marxism that I aware of, which including Revolutionary Socialist democracy from Rosa Luxemburg and Nazism. But not including the social democracy and revolutionary Syndicalism branch which including Fascism
    2
  1352.  @poncholarpez6233  sorry used the wrong word it should be democratic
    2
  1353.  @poncholarpez6233  And Liberalism is considered right in Europe, so it better use up and down to represent it.
    2
  1354.  @mrsentencename7334  You are right, but the OP seems think otherwise. Just like a killer is a woman doesn't make every woman killer.
    2
  1355.  @pegacorn13  [-Therefore being a Socialist means being a human but does not equal following a Racist Dictator that orchestrated a genocide of a specific group of people based on a mythical concept of "Race" but concerned themselves with class equality and the fight against imperialism or capitalism.] Here are two counter examples Stalin is an Socialist and an antisemitic Dictator that orchestrated the Holodomor agaisnt Ukrainian. Pol Pot is an Socialist and a Cambodian purist, he orchestrated the Cambodian genocide against ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and other minorities within Cambodia. _______________________________________________________________________________________ [-National Socialism is a branch of Socialism that was more concerned with race versus class. -Therefore National Socialists were/are simply National Socialists. They were not Socialists. They didn't/don't represent Socialism and they didn't/don't embrace Socialism as an ideology and didn't/ don't claim to. They identified/ identify as NATIONAL SOCIALISTS ONLY. -Take the "National" out of the phrase and they wouldn't be caught dead being left with only the "Socialist" part of the ideology.] Nazi Ideology would be pretty socialistic if you take the "National" out of the phrase. "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi' Twenty-Five Points', declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community." (10:10) In Mein Kampf Hitler also wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that 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 Kampf) ____________________________________________________________________
    2
  1356.  @slevinchannel7589  So where should I start? Hitler was not yet a Government spy ( early June 1919) before he was elected as an spokesman of the "soldiers council" or "Solder Soviet" of the Bavarian Soviet Republic (Webber, T. "Hitler's First War: Adolf Hitler, the men of the List Regiment, and the First World War." p.251, Ullrich, Volker (2016). Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939 p. 79 Samuels, L. "Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum." p. 344 Guido Knopp's documentary "Hitler A Profile : The Private Man" 12:55 https://youtu.be/6oZJyk1sDbM) and participated the funerary ceremonies for Prime Minister Kurt Eisner (26 February 1919) (Hett, B. “The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power.” p.46, Samuels, L. "Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum." p. 340, Guido Knopp's documentary "Hitler A Profile : The Private Man" 12:15 https://youtu.be/6oZJyk1sDbM) Without concrete evidence, it is not reasonable to assume the motive of a person to join an organisation is to conduct sabotage by his own before being recruited by another organisation. Or the fact that more leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and in Sufan movement of PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939). In USSR: According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge. 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.
    2
  1357. Any definition of Socialism which can include Social Democrat and Soviet authoritarian Communism must include Fascism. As Fascism is just Social authoritarianism. If the definition of Socialism also allow Socialism to be socialised with social entities other than just economic classes, then the definition of Socialism must include Nazism, as Nazism is just Race based “actually existing socialism” that Soviet ran from 1960s onward.
    2
  1358.  @monky_dust  “Social (including State/Party as USSR, PRC before Mao death and every other Communist/Socialist country ever existed did) ownership (even as limited as modern Social Democrat) of mean of production.” would be a good start
    2
  1359. The boundary of Socialist state is not really about how Nazi Germany Economy policies faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies to socialism and still being identified as socialist state. For all the NAZI private ≠ state own part. You missed the following part, “the state/party order was not an suggestion but reinforced by enforcer and precaution. The mean of production (the freedom of production) is in the hand of state/party. 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.) 6. USSR did the same, beside syndicalism is still socialism. 7. USSR did that during NEP, other example of private industry within Communist state are the Household plot of USSR and PRC and travel industry (the taxi driver) of Cuba. the Communist states surely set the bar very low, don’t blame on Goering here. 8. Don’t miss the part of political fiction in 32:44, Communist State IRL during Cold War was just State Capitalism with political fiction of socialising proletariat into Communist State. The Socialist practice of NAZI Germany was still within the range of Communist States (Yugoslavia, USSR post 1960, Czechoslovakia and Cuba). In conclusion, in theory, Nazism is a (crazy) Racial Socialist ideology, IRL, Nazi Germany was as socialist as other Cold War Communist States.
    2
  1360. As long as those factory are run by party members or state. The mean of production is state own, social ownership.
    2
  1361.  @jamesmarlow5517  That is Marxist class Socialism. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race class or even Gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Regarding the democracy part, just do the communist country test. Are those communist countries socialist? If you consider yes, then think is any communist country also did the thing that make National Socialist a capitalist, if the answer is yes. Then either both countries are socialist, or both countries are capitalist.
    2
  1362.  @jamesmarlow5517  Feudalism didn’t do price control and social welfare which NS did. Not just the supply end, NS policy also included the control of demand end.
    2
  1363. Regarding 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.
    2
  1364. In theory, proletariat despise Lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie. In practise, Commissioner running the every Marxist Socialist/Communist state. The commissioner always considers themself as upper class, the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral classes of Five Red Categories compared to the lower castle mass of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories has already been stripped. The would also start struggle session and/or killed people they deem representing old establishment and capitalism like their parents, teacher, doctors, neigbours and people wearing glasses. Beside even in Marxism, class difference can still exists in Socialist State, because it would only be eliminated in Communist society. "Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
    2
  1365.  @zenastronomy  Fire Decree of 1933, Bank Act of 1934, Corporate law of 1937 and the existance DAF forbidden anyone from owning and have full control to any firm. The demand and supply were regulated by the State ; the employment and wage were also regulated by the DAF which was a part of the party which control the state. The only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. Despite less restricted than the Soviet System, it was still an attempt to organize the economy centrally. There is no crony capitalist, those were just head administrators, the postwar private ownership of those firms of those 'crony capitalist" were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime. Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream)
    2
  1366.  @zenastronomy  Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. If Nazi suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to property. Private property didn’t existed de jure.     De facto, 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) Abolishing private ownership didn't necessarily mean the administrating system or the administrator of said property must be replaced. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race 32:44 instead of maximizing profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.) However, if the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State.
    2
  1367.  @zenastronomy  All those "Western laws" also have constitutions that guarantee the right of private ownership, which was suspended by Nazi German in 1933, which made Nazi Germany legally eliminate the private sector in the same year. Using Karl Marx's standard, most modern countries are running a (reactionary) socialist system in a free market environment ( which Karl Marx still acknowledged is a kind of Socialism). The Modern Socialist required that ambiguous definitions of Socialism to make themselves relevant. For your messed up logic comprehension skill you previously showed, I need to clarify that you don't need to be a socialist to run a socialist system. TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialist State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology, with the proof that Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler's action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race 32:44 instead of maximizing profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.) While every country is running some degree of Socialism, full Socialist has never been tried; No one country is able to fully Socialise all its means of production; even Soviet Union in the Stalin Era could only collectivize 80% of the means of production in the USSR. However, If we are using the historical definition of a Socialist State, which is mostly anchored to Communists Dictatorship regimes, Nazi German economic systems were very similar to that of the Soviet Union and PRC after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam after 2000 were/are still considered to be Socialist States. Even North Korea has abandoned the old direct-controlled economy. If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State. Putin Russia is a Socialist State under Karl Marx's definition. However, under the stricter historical definition, Putin's Russia would not be a Socialist State like USSR and Nazi Germany because the mean of production is not (mostly) controlled by the society (which can be the state or/and its ruling party) but distributed among the state and the business oligarchs.
    2
  1368.  @zenastronomy  It is you who said that "2. yes they (Marxist) do get to define what socialism is. it's their movement. You don't have a monopoly on what socialism is. What you say is irrelevant. What the entire world defines as socialism is more important, than your stupid definition. " and "if everything is a chair, a rock, the floor, w table, then nothing is a chair. that's how you lot are desperately arguing to make hitler a socialist." I first used Karl Marx's definition because of your first statement. However, because every modern country has learned from Marxism and implemented socialism into its system, I need to put up another stricter definition to fulfilled your second statement. Are you still unsatisfied even if I play under your rules? Regarding “Western law”, maybe you should read some laws first. Guaranteeing with exceptional circumstances and having no guarantee are two different concepts. No “Western law” can allow government can take private property off of people without giving any reason, having any legal permission or any other restrictions, which was allowed in Nazi Germany. Those constitutions guaranteed private ownership with exceptional circumstances were the laws Nazis suspended in the 1933 Fire Decree. I know Capitalism and Socialism IRL is a spectrum from black to white; there is no full socialist state; even Soviet Union in the Stalin Era could only collectivize 80% of the means of production in the USSR. That is why I said "if the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State." Again, TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialist State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist ideology, with the proof that Hitler attempted to centrally organize the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler's action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race 32:44 instead of maximizing profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.)
    2
  1369. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are on the left side by definition. Furthermore, how purging all pre-exist citizen with particular race is consider to be conservative or reactive idea? Their intension of racism was not anti-immigrants or reaction to the civil rights movement of certain race as in USA.
    2
  1370. Similar to Marxism, Nazism and fascism were created by proletarians to fight against capitalistic inequality(at least in theory). They opposed Marxism, not because they were ideologies created by a bourgeoisie to oppose Marxism to restore the old order. The main reason they opposed Marxism was they thought Marxism didn't work. They are not right-wing in any sense, I believe. You cannot side Nazis to the Right because of the atrocity they have done because you will also side USSR and other Communist States to the Right. If you sided Nazis to the Right because they tolerated and worked with the conservative factions, you would also side Social Democrat to the Right. You cannot side Nazis to the Right because you think racism is conservative; class theory, race theory, and nationalism came in the same period. You cannot Nazi to the Right because you think Nazi racism is reactionary, unlike American reactionary racism, which usually targets the latest immigration race (except the native); Jews lived in Europe for thousands of years. They were as native as the bourgeoisie in Europe; actively eliminating them was as revolutionary as actively eliminating the bourgeoisie. Disclaimer: What people want to achieve doesn’t really reflect what they can achieve—even with good intentions, allowing an entity(not just the government) to control everything/ too many things in society would likely cause disaster. TL;DR All three ideologies bad
    2
  1371. Private Property right was abolished in 1933. 3:00 For privitisation since 1933, Nazi scammed the buyers who brought the share of “privatised assets” 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.), Definition of Socialism 25:45 (Social ownership of mean of production) Definition of Socialism under Marxism 26:00 (The idea is that society will be centrally organised, that private property will be abolished and transferred to ‘social’ control, and that “socialised man [will] rationally regulate their interchange with Nature” (in other words - they will plan the economy rather than leave it to the free market). Nazism is not Communism but still Socialism. 28:51 TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a fully Socialism State. (36:18) TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialist (under the definition of Das Kapital and other sources) ideology, with the proof of that failed attempt to centrally organize the economy in 26:29.
    2
  1372.  @zenpapyrus  Guaranteeing with exceptional circumstances and having no guarantee are two different concepts. No “Western law” can allow government can take private property off of people without giving any reason, having any legal permission or any other restrictions, which was allowed in Nazi Germany. Those constitutions guaranteed private ownership with exceptional circumstances were the laws Nazis suspended in the 1933 Fire Decree. _________________________________________________________________________________________ What a bad metaphor. Ideology was not the xy chromosome that people are born with. I think you are trying to say that Hitler's Socialism was base on race or not based on class theory. Therefore it is a "trans-Socialsm." But Socialism doesn't need to base on class theory, Robert Owen's Utopia Socialism pre-dates every Marxist theory and has nothing to do with class struggle. Also, Race Socialism exists beyond Nazism for example, Arab Socialism and Labor Zionism.
    2
  1373. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @zenpapyrus  ”Federal civil forfeiture cases usually start with a seizure of property followed by the mailing of a notice of seizure from the seizing agency (generally the DEA or FBI) to the owner. The owner then has 35 days to file a claim with the seizing agency. The owner must file this claim to later protect his property in court. Once the claim is filed with the agency, the U.S. Attorney has 90 days to review the claim and to file a civil complaint in U.S. District Court. The owner then has 35 days to file a judicial claim in court asserting his ownership interest. Within 21 days of filing the judicial claim, the owner must also file an answer denying the allegations in the complaint. Once done, the forfeiture case is fully litigated in court.[21]” Legal permission is still required. I don’t need to twist the definition of Socialism. The Modern definition of Socialism is just “Social Ownership of Means of Production.” No Marxism, no class theory is required. If Lenin, who centralized the control of means of production to the State, and Mao, who centralized military control to the party, were Socialists under your “Modern Definition” of Socialism, then Hitler would certainly meet all the criteria of being a Socialist.
    2
  1374.  @zenpapyrus  Nazi was not selling the property right of the company. They were selling the administrative right, which they could take back anytime they wanted, of the company. Privatization was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalized all the state property that was previously sold to the 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.), Without DAF's permission, no one could fire, hire, or even change workers' wages ( 17:23). The profit gained by the company would be redistributed to the workers (to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinated to or directly under 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
  1375. Why are you using post-war Germany economy system to prove the pre war Germany economy systems was not socialism. And the war itself was not a good justification to just Generalise of Nazi Germany as just total war Economic and neglect its socialism. Soviet Union after World War II still keep spending at least 15% of the country expenditures (similar % as NAZI did pre-war) for most of the years before it collapsed. Did that “total war economy” make USSR not a socialist country in real live?
    2
  1376.  @lt4109  USSR faithfully follow the revolutionary measures in The Communist Manifasto (which didn't guarantee any contemporary Liberal not North Korean style Democratic governments at all), the problem they were facing was the implanmintation of those measures didn't lead to the increase of production and cannot reach the final goal of communist state. (State Totalitarian didn't lead to a increase of productive powers and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly.) Under Marxism definition, socialist state is a intermediary phase between capitalist state and communist state. USSR were following those revolutionary measures to eliminate capitalism, hence by definition it is a socialist state under Marxism. Therefore, by refuting USSR from Socialism in your definition, your are also refuting Marxist from Socialism.
    2
  1377. ⁠​⁠ @nicknolte8671  1. Because I know how Communism State worked IRL. Different narratives same results. As long as the practices of Communism in Communist State cannot refuted Marxist Leninism, Maoism or Communism. The practise of Nazism or Fascism should also not be able to refute their ideologies. Lenin also banned Striking, nationalised Trade Union, and established a new ruling class with Vanguardism. Yet Marxist Leninism is still being classified as Socialism. Under the same standard, Nazism can still be socialism despite of those practice. 2. Your quote regarding workbook still didn’t change the fact that worker can not be fired without the permission of the State. Surprisingly what I just learned was East Germany keep using the workbook system until 1967. The part that employers cannot employ who they what was from the following quote not the workbook. "Something had to be done, so I tried to compromise. The Party members who were on my 'Confidential Board' were given easy jobs with good pay. After that they agreed that I could dismiss some S.A. men who had ruined valuable machinery because they neither knew nor cared about learning the work.”(The Vampire Economy) 3. "leader of the enterprise" were Nazi, I think you will agree that point, it still indicated state control instead of any private control. 4.Workers can get under paid or have worsen working condition under Socialist State, isn't that also happened in Communist States. The last part also show that how Hitler didn’t want to complied with the market mechanism and raise the wage of armement industry worker just because they were in high demand. The main reason Nazi Germany can be classified as Socialist State is mainly because we now know how bad those Communist States actually was.
    2
  1378.  @nicknolte8671  The leader/employees were the Nazis member. As Leaders were forced 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.) Again, every Communist State purges its leftists. Just because the Nazis were anti-Marxist Socialists doesn’t mean they were practising Socialism. It was just the “United Front” strategy which Communist Parties often used to rise to power. If you want any counter-example, the SPD cooperated with the right-wing conservatives and crushed the Communist November Revolution. Does this fact also SPD is not socialist any more? “The Vampire Economy” also indicated that after the Nazi rose to power, Nazi was hostile against the capitalist and put great effort in controlling the industry. "Yes, I am the 'leader' in my factory; my workers are my 'followers.' But I am no longer a manager. You will remember that we fought over the right to hire and fire workers. In principle I stuck to the rule that if a worker was efficient and knew his job he had a permanent position in my factory. Certainly I never asked what party he belonged to; that was his business. Today I cannot apply this rule.” (“The Vampire Economy” p.107) "Once I was told that I was not fulfilling my duty to the Party. I was not employing enough 'old Party mem-bers.' So they sent me twenty-five 'old Party members' and S.A. men. Without exception they had had no real training and were inefficient, but I was simply forced to take them. Accidentally one of them overheard me grumbling about some new bureaucratic regulation and he immediately denounced me to the Party and to the Labor Front office. Another Party member came and told me about it and warned me that I had better be careful in the future. So it has got to the point where I cannot talk even in my own factory. Incidentally, he added that the Party secretary did not really believe I was devoted to the Fuehrer. It seems that the Party secretary once heard me answer a 'Good morning' with 'Good morning' instead of emphatically replying 'Heil Hitler.'” (“The Vampire Economy” p.109) “Although I am the 'leader,' I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory.” ( “The Vampire Economy” p.110) “There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party or Labor Trustees and replaced by 'commissars.'" ( “The Vampire Economy” p.117)
    2
  1379. 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. The actual Nazi policy was called “Gleichschaltung”. This stands for “coordination” or “synchronisation” - as in, synchronisation of the economy and society into the State. Everything was to be merged together as one, into the social state - the exact opposite of so-called “privatisation”. “Business and professional associations, sports clubs, choral societies, shooting clubs, patriotic associations, and most other forms of organised activity were taken under - or more frequently hastened to place themselves under - National Socialist control in the first months of the Third Reich. ‘There was no more social life; you couldn’t even have a bowling club’ that was not ‘coordinated’, was how one inhabitant of Northeim in Lower Saxony remembered it.” (Kershaw, “Hitler: Hubris,” p479.) “The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a person who’s sleeping.” (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107.) “Between 30 January and 14 July 1933... [the Nazis] had coordinated all social institutions, apart from the Churches and the army, into a vast and still inchoate structure run by themselves. They had purged huge swathes of culture and the arts, the universities and the education system, and almost every other area of German society, of everyone who was opposed to them.” (Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Kindle: Chapter 6 “A ‘Revolution of Destruction?’”.) Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (2:40) "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.) While “Privatisation” did happened, however it didn’t diversified the ownership of public property from the state sector to the private sector . As the “Privatisation” was just the first step of 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.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) Every public own firm that were sold to the bank during privatisation were also eventually went back to the control of the Nazi State.
    2
  1380.  @trago034  TIK has already said that the definition of Socialism after he said Socialism is not "workers do stuff", and it is not any entity do stuff". You two both said Socialism =! x do stuff. Where TIK said x=worker, while you said x=government. That is why I said your definition of Socialism aligns with TIK's, not the same as the TIK one. Or are you implying that Social ownership of means of production = [Socialism is when the government dors stuff]
    2
  1381.  @trago034  Are you implying [ownership of the mrans of production] = [dors stuff] then?
    2
  1382.  @trago034  Sorry I missed the second last sentence. May I know where do you get your initial assessment? As it seems it is not from the content of this video.
    2
  1383.  @trago034 Then where is your ["Socialism is when the government dors stuff"] come from ?
    2
  1384.  @hobbso8508  Your statement was too absolute and too vague. Anyone have the right tools in the right time would certainly have the ability to remove Hitler from the power. The possibility may be as low as removing Stalin from the power through the heavy ragged democratic centralism election system, yet people still have more than zero ability to decide who was in charged.
    2
  1385.  @andyknowles772  Companies cannot keep any profit in Socialist State? What a dim light you are casting. By your definition not even Communist Cuba and Communist Vietnam can be classified, which both allow land owners and companies to keep their profits, as Socialist States.
    2
  1386.  @hobbso8508  Who?
    2
  1387.  @epicdrill1756  ​​⁠ Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. 
Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory. 
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06.
 The consequences of failing to comply the party were property seized as Professor Junker 4:20, and/or sent to concentration camp. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
    2
  1388.  @epicdrill1756  At the point other Communist States started to do the same thing and still be regarded as Socialist States. There are two different boundaries to classify a country as a socialist state, and someone believes in Socialism. "Is Nazi Germany a Socialist State?" should be defined by the lowest boundary set up by other socialist states. On the other hand, "Is Hitler a Socialist?" should be defined by the actions and ideologies of other socialists.
    2
  1389.  @epicdrill1756  1) Fritz's properties were expropriated in 1939. 2) DAF controlled all the employment and workforce in Germany. They also controlled how firms should use their profit. DAF is a tool of control as significant as the Gestapo. DAF is part of the Nazi ruling system but not a sham union (as it has practical functions and power to control). 3)The ideological reason for the Nazi "stealing" is “Führerprinzip,” with the idea being to have companies run by a strong (Aryan) leader.
    2
  1390. Any definition of Socialism which can include Social Democrat and Soviet authoritarian Communism must include Fascism. As Fascism is just Social authoritarianism. If the definition of Socialism also allow Socialism to be socialised with social entities other than just economic classes, then the definition of Socialism must include Nazism, as Nazism is just Race based “actually existing socialism” that Soviet ran from 1960s onward.
    2
  1391.  @subsamadhi  Private Property right was abolished in 1933. 3:00 For privitisation since 1933, Nazi scammed the buyers who brought the share of “privatised assets” 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.). The demand and supply were regulated by the State (11:56 12:20); the employment and wage (17:21) were also regulated by the DAF which was a part of the party which control the state. The only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. Despite less restricted than the Soviet System, it was still an attempt to organize the economy centrally. There was no corporations making their own capital. Those were just head administrators, the postwar private ownership of those firms of those capitalist were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government, not the Nazi Regime. Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream)
    2
  1392. ⁠ @subsamadhi  Workers in Nazi Germany had their food, rent, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (10:15) Socialist State also often failed their promised too. The famines in PRC and USSR didn’t make them Capitalistic.
    2
  1393. ⁠ @subsamadhi If they just interest in profit, Workers in Nazi Germany would not had their food, rent, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (10:15)
    2
  1394. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @subsamadhi VW didn’t deliver, because Germany used them in World War Two. Nazi made those cars already, how did Nazi kept the money if they already produced those cars. Here is an example of Nazi regulating cooperation with redistributing cooperation profits to the worker ( to further 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
  1395.  fastrally  What happened to Trotsky in Maxico and everyone died in the great purge I wonder.
    2
  1396.  fastrally  Trotsky was exile to Maxico in 1938, and the Menshevik Trial was in 1931. How can an exile man or dead people rebel against the Government during Nazi Invasion in 1941?
    2
  1397.  fastrally  Sorry. Trotsky was actually being deported from the Soviet Union, in February 1929, 4 years before Nazi rises. How could a man causing trouble when the Nazi were an immense threat, while he was exiled 4 years before Nazi took the power.
    2
  1398.  fastrally  How can an exiled man in France, Norway, or Mexico spread chaos and try to overthrow the Bolsheviks in USSR? How can Nazis be an existential threat in 1940, when USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with them in 1939, while Operation Barbarossa started in 1941. You failed to deliver historic truths twice, can you provide any quotes to support your claim next time ?
    2
  1399.  fastrally  So your point is really about Stalin want to consolidate the power instead of really about Nazi invasion. If Russia know what Nazi would going to do from Mein Kempf, Trotsky should be dead when the Nazi rise to the power in 1933, no need to wait until 1940.
    2
  1400. Communist Society under Karl Marx is only able achived though state ownership of the mean of production. So even under Marxism definition of socialism mentioned in 25:59 , Hitler is still a Socialist, but not a Marxist Communist as mentioned in 28:50 of this video. “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith) “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. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    2
  1401.  @starpergaming2688  Regarding your statement [Members of ig farben ] Every member of the executive branches of ig farben was member of the Nazi Party, except the one who was a Swiss national and therefore exempt. 3:54 [without any investment from nsdap ] "The terrain(Auswitz) was sound, being level and flood-free. The necessary raw materials, coal, lime and water, were in abundant supply, the station was close at hand and supplies could be received. One other factor that may have been important to ig farben was the financial support provided by the National Socialist state within the context of the Eastern Aid programme for the foundation of factories in the Eastern regions. This aspect of the settlement of the East, directly related to the assumption of territorial rights, was thus also crucial to the choice of location. The specific measures to encourage development immensely increased the attractiveness of the place.The Eastern Fiscal Assistance Law of December 1940 guaranteed IG Farben tax exemption on their investments.”(Steinbacher, “Auswitz,” P47-48.) [ they won't have to share after the war] Share what? “From the point of view of company finance the prisoners’ work unit was not profitable even once Monowitz had been built. Although the managers agreed with the SS that the average work capacity of a prisoner was 75 per cent that of a free German worker, this prognosis soon proved to be unrealistic. In fact the capacity of the prisoners clearly fell below 50 per cent of that of a German worker, and sometimes reached only 20 per cent. Despite the minimal labour costs, IG Farben made no profit out of the prisoners’ units because productivity, given inadequate nutrition, harassment and punishments, and the physically draining and psychologically humiliating work, fell far short of expectations.” (Steinbacher, “Auswitz,” P53-56.)
    2
  1402.  @starpergaming2688  Is Russian communist Party running Russia with totalitarian system Today? And again, Hitler abolished of the right of private property in 1933 3:00. Nazi Firms were owned by the state, and co-controled by the "leader" ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50 Even if there is exploitation, the workers were exploitated for the state and for the people, not for the "leader" of the factory.
    2
  1403. ​ @starpergaming2688  Soviet Union had household plot (Подсобное хозяйство ) since it was founded, the private market for the product from household plot was legalised by the 24th party congrass in 1971. Soviet Union always had private ownership of the mean of production.
    2
  1404. ​ @starpergaming2688  [ah yes. They didn't created a profit therefore they was not profitable. Said German (?) Author? Remind me when all those capitalists were released by German government? 4 years after the trial? And how does krupp family doing? You really trust this information? Or you would accept anything just to justify that you don't living in capitalism. Rather it's all commies fault? You people unrealistically amazing species] That is how economics works. It is only profitable if it creates a profit. Furthermore, even if it created any profit, how can you prove those profits and the firms themselves were the private property of those industrialists but not state properties right before the Nazi regime ended. The industrialists' private ownership right to those firms after the war was rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government, not the Nazi Regime.
    2
  1405.  @starpergaming2688  With your definition of private property , Nazi German also had no private property too. What factual and legal difference make Nazi had private property, while USSR didn’t? Household plot is not any capitalist revisionist product, they existed even before the foundation of USSR in 1922. Lenin, Stalin and every leader after them, no one able to erase them. Don’t blame any reform or leader for this capitalist component, it is none of their fault and all.
    2
  1406.  @starpergaming2688  Those "private" companies were owned by the state 3:00, directed by Nazi party members 13:32, and regulated by Daf 9:13. Their only seller and buyer was the state 11:24, they cannot fired anyone 17:21 and rise or reduce the wage of the workers 16:37 without Daf permission. How private is that. Regarding the slave labour in case you going to bring it up, they are not a part of society anymore, exploiting them is as allowable as USSR using Gulag inmate (including WWII POW) as slave labour as still being regarded as socialist state
    2
  1407.  @heinrichpreussen  They did 3:00
    2
  1408. There are plenty of socialist policies implemented by the Nazis. Here are the relevant quotes from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF." (9:17,17:25) "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community." (10:10) "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    2
  1409.  @hobbso8508  From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10] As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy, he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition.
    2
  1410. Because Communism is extreme left, any ideology have conflict with them is right, the more violent the conflict between them are the more extreme that ideology’s would be. No one will say the Austrian School Economist is the extreme right, despite they are the true direct opposite ideology of Communism.
    2
  1411.  @hobbso8508  Where is your sources?
    2
  1412.  @hobbso8508  I don’t even know what he means. But your statement was clear enough to form a statement that required a reference to support.
    2
  1413.  @hobbso8508  His statement have no subject with wrong grammar and no comparison, how do I know what he is talking about?
    2
  1414. ​ @hobbso8508  My common sense tells me not to counter-argue a dog whistle without clearly indicating who the accusee is.
    2
  1415.  @Loregamorl  When did the definition of Socialism forbid pseudo-democracy and vanguardism? Or else why would you mention those irrelevant points in this discussion regarding the meaning of Socialism? Oh, sorry, I think we have some ambiguation regarding the meaning of “state” on “” Socialist” state” in my question. The “State” I used in the question meant country. The “state” you used in the answer means the government. Even a region with an autonomous government does not necessarily mean it is a country IRL, so I think there is some difference between the “state” I used in the question and the government I used in the answer. I am so sorry to mislead you to think there was a contradiction. And I am also so sorry regarding my grammar mistakes; I am replying on a phone which didn’t even show me the whole sentence I was typing if the sentence was too long. Hope my lousy grammar didn’t make my response unreadable.
    2
  1416.  @hobbso8508  The definition of Socialism is social ownership of means of production. Not people ownership of means of production. How that society is found and how the society represents its people is not described in the definition of Socialism.
    2
  1417.  @hobbso8508  Is all monarch planned what and how every farm land should plants, or controlled how many horseshoe every ironsmith should made in its own territory? I know some monarch have some sort social welfare system, but not all monarch did that. So not all monarch can be a socialist state, maybe some can but I don’t know. In the case of Market Socialism, why it didn’t include in the definition of Socialism? Pseudo democracy is permitted doesn’t mean society with real democracy or other better systems to represent its people are not within its definition. A Society doesn’t need the consent to represent anyone within the society. Just like your family, your school, your company, your country, none of those need your consent to represent you as a part of it.
    2
  1418. ​ @Loregamorl  Regarding you definition of socialism that the government(state) cannot be the what "owns" things. From "If the government is what "owns" things, then it clearly doesnt match the definition of socialism, because again the government is NOT representative of all of society." "For the definition of government, "a government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state."" By your definition seems that you also excluded "Manifesto of the Communist Party" from Soicalism, too. As the socialism inside Manifesto of the Communist Party is very state and class orientated. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) Regarding the AANES Sorry for the letting you misinterpreted my reply, I wished to make my point as concise as possible as I was just using phone to reply. The reply should be "They have income taxes, so the means of production is not [totally] owned by worker but [also partly owned] by the Government. By the definition of Social ownership, "Social ownership is the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society as a whole." As every government would use taxation to obtain some of the means of production, and appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society as a whole, in the for of infrastructure, or social welfare, so yes income tax is government (representing society) ownership (just some of the mean of production).But your definition your rule, so yes under your definition "nearly every government currently in existence is totalitarian state capitalists." Well according to your definition of workers, I believe the Jazira government would not fall in to the category of someone who adds value to an object, commodity, or service via labor, but they have the part of the social ownership via income tax, and the repercussion of not paying tax surly mean that the workers is not the only owner of the mean of production, as government can seize the means of labor from any worker if they didn't handin part of their ownership to the means of production. Therefore, under your definition, Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, is probably not a Socialist Society (Thank you for accepting my clarification on the meaning of State(Country))
    2
  1419.  @hobbso8508  "In feudalism, yes." Are you substituting Monarch with feudalism? Even in feudalism any Monarch controlled how and what the guilds or feudal lords in its territory should produce? "Market socialism doesn't give state control, but instead requires company ownership to be done via worker cooperatives. Market socialism doesn't go through the state at all, and in fact still has a free market." Society can exist in many forms, state and company are just two out of many form of Society. "It's not permitted at all. Socialist systems must give ownership or control to society. Pseudo-democracies deny that." The ownership control by the society which can be controlled by the government. There is no specific definition on socialism on how the society being represented. "And none of these are socialism." Yeah non of them are specifically practicing socialism, but they are the example showing that society that can represent you without your consent.
    2
  1420. The facts mentioned in both videos were mostly valid except for the secret funding circle part from the Second Thoughts video, but regardless because PRC also won the civil war with the help and collaboration of landlords, businessmen and industrialists. The privatisation was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to the private sector as stock since 1933 with corporate law in 1937 by removing the shareholders “right to vote on dividend policy and 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.), For the other accusations in the Second Thought videos. Every Communist State ever existed had committed at least one of those accusations (including killing socialists in mass or sending them to concentration camps) that Second thoughts were used to refute Nazi German and Nazism from Socialist state and Socialist ideology. Therefore, if we are using the same standard to judge Communist States and their Communism, those Communist States and their Marxism should also be refuted by Socialism. The only thing Communist Countries did that the Nazi didn’t that I can think of was the mass killing of ex-bourgeois and land owners including those who previously help the CCP rise to power after expropriating their private properties. However, social democrats also didn’t kill those people in mass, through using this standard to refute Nazi and Nazism from Socialist and Socialism, you will also refute social democrat and other Socialist and their ideology from Socialism.
    2
  1421.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  [ Let me just point out a few things again. I'm not a marxist, I'm not a communist, and I'm not a utopian socalist. So I'm not sure why you are harping on these issues. My point was that state control alone doesn't equate to socalism. And thats all the video essentially pointed to to "prove" Hitlers regime was socalist. Can we agree on that? Second thing I wanted to point out. You are using the term "marxist" pretty unintelligibly and arguing it with me.... after chastising me for mentioning one aspect of something you claimed was marxist and applying it to socalism. It's just ironic. Like what is your end goal here? Again, I'm not a marxist. And I think you would agree that Hitler wasn't Marxist, correct? I mean what is marxism? which of the hundreds of branches could you even be trying to discuss with me? Then you pick cherry picked quotes to back your claims about a loose concept. Like Marx isnt a god and the arbiter of socalism. He wasn't even socalist lol. So why are we even having this coversation? As I said earlier, much of his work wasn't to outline the tennets of communism or socalism. You quoted Das Kapital... a critique of capitalism . Like yeah Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto aren't the bible of soclaism. ] Socialism is a social construct, the definition of it is made by human, it can be very high and democratic, but it was tied to Marxism. When we talk about what should be or not included in Socialism, we need to start from Marxism. It is because the boundary of Socialist is not really about how those Cold War Communist nation’s policies and Marxist ideology faithful to socialism, but how unfaithful those Cold War Communist State economic policies and Marxist ideology to socialism and still being identified as Socialist.
    2
  1422.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  [Again, cherry picking. I showed many examples of foudning socalists and thier ideals were for democratic workplaces. But people aren't perfect representatives of an ideology. Again, how can you eliminate class without eliminating a power differental? Just answer me that. How was his Owenn's experiment "socalist"? It was just a buisness he managed at 21... MANAGER lol. Yeah he experimented on early child care... did he call it the a soclaist workpalce? Are you arguing that a workplace providing early chidlcare makes a company socalist? And he was a calissical liberal at this point btw. lol come on... It's honestly crazy that you would think this is a valid argument. This seems pretty disingenous. Especially considering later in life (not 21) Owens is mostly facmous for being a champion for trade unions. Are you going to say his unions weren't democratic? What do you think the purpose and structure of the unions he created were? Like would you accept someone scrutenizing some obscure capitalist and their random "experiments"? Thats just silly.] Regardless what was his other political views, he was a socialist. He did socialised all mean of production of the farm into the farm, which made it a Socialism social experiment. Owen started the New Lanark Hill experiment in 1832 before Proudhon published his "What Is Property?" in 1840. That made Proudhon’s socialism a stipulated concept to Socialism. Beside, Proudhon was not even a socialist in strict definition, his ideology didn’t require to abolish the private property and free market . If you are using that loosen definitions of socialism, fascism is also socialism. ( I am not saying Proudhon is Right, I am saying fascism is left) For the last part you’re are just trying to distancing yourself from Marxism, while denying the causal relationship between the Atrocity done by Marxist Communist and Marxist ideology ,and what Karl Marx actually written.
    2
  1423.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  [I really can't even take your argument seriousy. This seems like you are arguing in such bad faith and walking the argument backwards. First you claimed it was during the 50s that "democracy" was clearly defined. I showed that during the age of enlightenment it was clear that they were describing a liberal democracy... Now you are saying "but technically you can manipulate a population"... Do you seriously think the leaders of the age of enlightmentent would look at NK and say "yep thats exacly what we mean when talking about democracy." No... Again, thats like looking at the founding father quotes as advocating for stalanism and authoritarian democracy. That's just pointless to argue.] The definition of different levels of democracy like flawed democracies and hybrid regimes was actually in 1995, and the true official definition of “true (liberal) democracy” was released in 2006 in the Democracy Index. Before that it seems there is no standardise definition of liberal democracy. Again, if I was wrong, please prove it with sources and evidence. Regarding the established of Liberal Democracy, I would like to ask did any of your quote from 1800s, included any concept of Electoral fraud prevention into their ideology. Liberal Democracy is not just about the why people need democracy, what is the goal of democracy. It is also how to achieve those goal justly without any distortion in representing the will of people, and achieving the goal of universal representation of all citizens (universal suffrage). Those are the criteria which Nazi German, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Democracies failed to achieve. Even for the western Democracy Countries, those two criteria were just started to become universal standards in mid 1900s. Why is it so hard to understand my statement. Just theory and provision is not enough,it can be misused very easily.
    2
  1424.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  [doesn't mean that "state" controling the means of production always means socialism.] Socialism is social ownership of the mean of production. If state as the representation of Society control the mean of production, by definition it is socialism. What more criteria you want to add on the definition. [ Marxism isn't reading the communist manifesto (a literally political party pamphlet) and preaching it as correct to other and going out and doing revolutions.] I quote at least 8 Marxist piece in my replies, what do you mean about Marxism is not just about the manifesto? Of course it isn’t, can you elaborate more?
    2
  1425.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  [what is “social” in your view? What differentiate social ownership from class ownership? How does a state come to represent society?] What is yours? It seems you are the one who is not using the general definition. Class and Social are different terms to describe two different concepts. Class is a term to categorize people in society by their wealth. Society (Social in noun) is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction or a large social group sharing the same spatial or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. (wiki) Class is an artificial relative category that categorizes people into different groups based on wealth. On the other hand, the state is a term to describe the social relationship between certain groups of people within a certain area. Therefore, a state can represent society because the people in the state are subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Besides, the only meaning of class ownership is owning a class (lesson). So the difference between social ownership and class ownership is two terms are irrelevant.
    2
  1426.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  All the definitions are from their wiki page. I cannot see any contradiction there because two terms were describing two different concepts. If class itself is a society(social in noun). It doesn’t need to be used as a socialized entity or needs to be socialized. Besides, class is a noun in "class ownership" as "car ownership", while social is an adjective in "social ownership" as "my ownership". Wrong Grammar is fine, but I cannot get what you mean.
    2
  1427.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  Then what is the meaning of class ownership of mean of production? It is not the problem of grammar, the problem is the term you are using didn’t make any sense. Class itself is not an entity, it is just a selection of individuals that are not necessarily connected. Class ownership of mean of production is no different than saying zodiac sign ownership of of mean of production. The Gemini people may not necessarily united and connected together. Are you suggesting every mean of production is own by one class of people? If you are using that definition, it will be always bourgeoisie owns the mean of production. as bourgeoisie is defined as the class who own the mean of production. It is impossible for the proletarian to own mean of production, as once all proletarian individuals owns any amount of mean of production, they will become bourgeois by definition. Then the proletariat owns the mean of production will instantly become the bourgeois own the mean of production. By such definition, class ownerships of mean of production would just guarantee pure capitalism, as every means of production is belonged to individuals and no one is without mean of production.
    2
  1428.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  Then what is the meaning of class ownership of the mean of production? No one class of people owns all the means of production in any capitalist society. As you said, bourgeoisie ownership makes no sense, as not all property owners will have their businesses to operate. Same as the proletariat ownership, as there will be some individuals who are going to have their businesses to operate. And it is impossible to describe collective ownership as class ownership, as class is not a term to describe a collective group of people. This is why the so-called "bourgeoisie ownership" you claimed, which could be Socialism under my definition, is not Socialism because the bourgeoisie is a class where people in that class have their own individual ownership of means of production separately, not even mention the fact that not all property owners will have their businesses to operate.
    2
  1429.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  So why are you shifting the definition of bourgeois from the one who own property that used that for business to just property owner. Furthermore, your collectivism is just capitalism using firm as basis unit. Free market still exist, firm can still go bankrupt by competition. Beside there is still class (wealth and power) differences between firms( the power plant and the toy factory) and between individually, the one who have job and the one who doesn’t (the children, the retired and full time family taker) Btw isn’t it contradictory to claim that the every worker privately own some of the mean of production of the firm he is working in, while claimed that that part of share of the firm is not privately owned by the worker? And furthermore, mean of production isn’t just mean company, your computer your phone, even the rice, milk and meat, all are mean of production. You can increase their value by processing them into cooked food and alcohol and sell it for a greater price. Btw I still don’t understand your meaning of class ownership. As no matter how you shift the meaning of class from accounting just the amount of wealth or accounting both wealth and power, it still cannot describe the modern capitalist society with a mono-class ownership . Firstly, property owner is not just a single class, there is power and wealth difference between Jeff Bezos and the down town convenience store owner. Secondly, there state owned and public property exist, not all property were owned by property owner individuals, The one who pay taxed technically also owned part of those properties, including proletarian.
    2
  1430.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  ​ You definitely change the definition of bourgeois from the one who own property that used that for business to just property owner. When I first said [If you are using that definition, it will be always bourgeoisie owns the mean of production. as bourgeoisie is defined as the class who own the mean of production. It is impossible for the proletarian to own mean of production, as once all proletarian individuals owns any amount of mean of production, they will become bourgeois by definition. Then the proletariat owns the mean of production will instantly become the bourgeois own the mean of production. By such definition, class ownerships of mean of production would just guarantee pure capitalism, as every means of production is belonged to individuals and no one is without mean of production.] You replied [I’m not saying each individual individually owns the means of production. That would make no sense. Obviously each individual isn’t going to have their own individual business to operate?] So it seems you are saying even proletariat owns the mean of production, if they aren't going to have their own individual business to operate, they will not be bourgeoisie.] Then you claim [Private ownership itself is a class. The owner class is called the bourgeoisie.] It seems you separate the term petite bourgeoisie from bourgeoisie when it is in your favour, and merge it back to bourgeoisie when it is not. ____________________________________ There is still a group of individuals INDIVIDUALLY owning the means of production and a group didn't, the mean of production is still own by the workers (bourgeoisie), and the non worker, the children, the retired and full time family taker, don't own the mean of production (proletarian). There is still oppression from big firm to small firm, monopoly can still emerge. Exploitation can still exist in terms of outsourcing. The job is not secure. People can just be desocialsed by just bankrupting their company.If this cannot count as capitalistic society, I would say we are all live in a family unit socialist socialist. Your anacho-market socialism was even worst then the current capitalist system, and still contradicted to your definition of Socialism 1. No class different (in term of power and wealth) 2. The mean of production was still owned by individual classes of people (the workers). ____________________________________________________________ The portions of collective ownership (company share) of a particular worker is still privately owned by that worker. Without that private ownership of that company share what entities the right he had in that company? Thus, private ownership of mean of production still exist in your socialism in the form of company share IRL, but with more restrictions, like you cannot sell it. ___________________________________________________________ I never said Zodiac is a class, what I am saying is Class is as irrelevant/relevant to Social ownership as Zodiac to that, just like race, Gender or religion. It is just a categorical term that can be used as an Socialised Entity to socialise a Community/Society. By centralising the mean of production to the community/society, you get the socialism of that society. That is why capitalism is not class ownership. Under Marxism, there are at least 4 classes, they are bourgeoisie, proletariat, petite bourgeoisie and Lumpenproletariat. Under Marxist ideology, all Nazi member or Communist member were just proletariat same as other citizen, as everything were state own, they were just the socialised man the rationally regulate the economy.Therefore, both Nazism and Communism are socialist ideology, using Marxist definition. (Under Marxism, Class is only about ownership difference, as power is just the product of the ownership of the mean of the production. Without ownership difference there would be no class difference, hence no power difference .) Btw, it seems that you are trying to shift the definition of class into a general meaningless term. If you are using that definition of class, there will be no socialism, as there can be class when there is more than one person. When there is class different, it would be class ownership of mean of production.
    2
  1431.  @rickglorie  Soviet Union and Communist China never think so and killed a lot of ex- property owner.
    2
  1432. No one said they were Marxist, they were just Socialist. 28:37
    2
  1433.  @mendesjosr4438  If Nazi true religion was the nation (the thousands years Reich I believe you are referring), what make the classless stateless communist society not the true religion of Communism? Everyone need to put under the leadership of the "socialized man". If you are saying religion is nothing but an ideology in this context, it seems all Marxism variant would need to put everyone under the leadership of church.
    2
  1434.  @mendesjosr4438  Nazi cannot be the totally evil regime that oppressed and extorted everyone to do it’s bidding and ruthlessly remove millions of Jews from the workforce, expropriation any opposition industrialists, control every hiring and firing of every employee of every companies ,and implement price control while being a weak regime that controlled or heavily influenced by big industrialists at the same time. You need to make up your narrative. Btw all the Nazi policies I mentioned above was implemented before 1939.
    2
  1435.  @hobbso8508  The state controlled both instruments of labor (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) in ownership and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials) with quoting. The state even control the hiring and firing of employee (labor) with labor book. What left in mean of production wasn’t control by the Nazi state?
    2
  1436.  @hobbso8508  Where is your historical reference for both of your statements? I have already provided much historical evidence to show that Nazis robbed all their citizens' property under the state regarding the right of ownership or actual control and how undemocratic Marxism actually was. You just keep denying the writing of Karl Marx and Nazis committing that atrocity without any historical reference because it didn't fit your narrative.
    2
  1437.  @hobbso8508  Can you quote from Karl Marx literature the part that said Revolution be done democratically and will willing accept the result of elections even if they lose, the social ownership is under everyone common control and decisions must be made though liberal democracy, and private property would be acquired from capitalist thought money purchasing and everything from your socialism?
    2
  1438.  @hobbso8508  Would you kindly quote the actual source? I believe Marx would not accept democratic elections results because 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")
    2
  1439.  @hobbso8508  They can just start the violent revolution once they lose the democratic election, which line of Marx's quote would prevent that from happening? And yes Marxism is contradictory. Bakunin another socialist critised Karl Marx: "You can see quite well that behind all the democratic and socialistic phrases and promises of Marx's program, there is to be found in his State all that constitutes the true despotic and brutal nature of all States, whatever may be the form of their government and that in the final reckoning, the People's State so strongly commended by Marx, and the aristocratic-monarchic State, maintained with as much cleverness as power by Bismarck, are completely identical by the nature of their objective at home as well as in foreign affairs."
    2
  1440.  @hobbso8508  So anarchism is not Socialism under your definition now? Beside if you can just discredit someone criticism just because of his political stand, in this logic every Karl Marx criticism against Capitalism can also be discreadited because "Marx was a Communist, of course he was against the idea of captialist doing anything."
    2
  1441. ​ @hobbso8508  According to the manifesto, the final satage of Communism would be a society without state and government. Even in you socialism, government would also play no role in the economy. So what element of "government" within Marxism and your Socialism Bakurnin, an Anarchist, is actually opposing, if there is no controdiction within Marxism?
    2
  1442.  @mendesjosr4438  It seems you miss the point, anti church or anti Christians doesn’t mean anti-religion. As both Communist and Nazi tried to suppress Christian an other religion but you still saying Nazi is a religion. What make Nazism a religion worshiping Nation and Race, while not make Marxism not a religion worshiping Communist Society and Class?
    2
  1443.  @hobbso8508  Bakurnin's criticism of the Marxist System is the polar opposite of what you claim to be. His authoritarian regime vs. your democratic constitutional state, isn't that proof there is a contradiction within Marxism, even though the eyes of a socialist?
    2
  1444.  @hobbso8508  The one of Karl Marx and the practitioner of Marxism as the authoritarian regime described by Giovanni Gentile in The Doctrine of Fascism or the Greater Britain by Oswald Mosley. An authoritarian system can be realised through the theory, not just from its practise.
    2
  1445.  @mendesjosr4438  [Mendes Josr @OscarTang ant the thousand year reich is just a verbal demonstration of "the nation" being the Nazi true religion. It is a religion because they believed the nation was a living being composed by a community of people united by common blood which was sacred and special…chosen as superior (either by god or by (Darwinian) nature according to your inclinations).] [….The Nazis true religion was the nation and the religious matter was not solved…..] Did you forgot what you typed? Why believing in [the nation was a living being composed by a community of people united by common blood which was sacred and special] is a religion , but it isn’t when you changed the “blood” into “class”. PS: I clearly only type Marxist not Socialist here.
    2
  1446.  @hobbso8508  So many words, not a single source is provided.
    2
  1447.  @hobbso8508  And you are still unable to quote it in your comment.
    2
  1448.  @hobbso8508  You are just making up sources to deceive people. If it is just there, put the sections of the source regarding [both Marx and Wikipedia talk about "common ownership" or "common control"] as a time stamp or as a quote to the comment.
    2
  1449.  @hobbso8508  [ It's where TIK talks about the definition of socialism.] You just act like a ponzi scheme scammer when people are asking you where is the money. Just quote it and elaborate how does it realated to your argument regarding [both Marx and Wikipedia talk about "common ownership" or "common control"]
    2
  1450. ⁠ @hobbso8508  You finally put up some standards to the discussion. But you missed the following part “ Different types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[16][17]” Socialism included common ownership doesn’t mean it excluded state ownership with authority rule, as society itself is not necessarily commonly own. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man…. their common control …… (not all nor everyone in the society) The social ownership of mean of production is controlled and regulated by a portion of people not all.
    2
  1451.  @hobbso8508  You just going to neglected a portion of your source that doesn’t fit your narrative? “Freedom in this field can only consist in the socialised man. “ If it is everyone, why only need to only consist in the socialised man and rationally regulated their interchange with nature? The social ownership consist in the state that controlled by the Nazi party.
    2
  1452. Nazi abolish the ownership of mean of production withhold by company share in 1937. “Nazis turned their attention to corporate law, culminating in the enactment of a new corporate law in 1937, managerial authority was expanded at shareholders’ expense (Levy, 1950: 215). While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the 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).” They can only be evil evil by controlling everything, and diversifies the mean of production. We have been this so many time. You are just constantly propagating your imagination of the righteous of Socialism and Marxism, and the evil of Nazism, without base on any historical facts or the actual writings of Socialist literature with basic level of English understanding.
    2
  1453.  @hobbso8508  Nazi move the power from the shareholders to the government. You really need to learn how to read English. “Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101).” PS: the Führerprinzip was appointed by the DAF.
    2
  1454. As I remember correctly, the r/BadHistory could only prove Nazi Germany was neither running the Stalinist Soviet Communist System nor Marxist but didn’t compare Nazism with the rest of the Socialism Spectrum. If accounting for the whole spectrum of Socialism throughout human history, from authoritarian (Stalinism and Maoism), free market tolerating (liberal socialism) to non-pure class based Socialism (Afrosocialism, Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism), Nazism can comfortably sit in the middle of the spectrum of Socialism.
    2
  1455.  @ZIEMOWITIUS  Your reply seems filtered out by the system
    2
  1456. ​ @ahogammer6895  Social ownership of the mean of produced by the means of production is the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society as a whole. The surplus products would be appropriated through tax from the rich and social welfare to the poor, and/or centrally planned the economy ( which Nazis also did).
    2
  1457.  @ahogammer6895  [yes. socialism is not the abolishment of private property. commumism is the abolishment of the marxist definition of private property, which wasnt what the nazis did] So yeah, Nazism is not Marxist Communism, TIK admitted that in the video already. 28:50 Beside can you tell me what is the definition of private property you think this video is using? As it seems Nazi abolished the private ownership right to all kinds of property, regardless those properties can used for profit or not.
    2
  1458. As Hitler and his party centralise Germany Economy and increase the social welfare 11:27 , he and his party are definitely on the left side by definition. From wiki The underlying theory of the political model used by "The Political Compass" is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate, independent axes. The economic (left–right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the state but also a network of communes, while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.[10]
    2
  1459. “Immune system” is just a narrative to explain the historical existence of Fascism. That is not the ideology of Fascism, and not how the Fascist think what they are doing. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the thought and Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) 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) 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)
    2
  1460.  @hobbso8508  The statism called Marxist Class Socialism.
    2
  1461. [First, if someone owns a company (even if this someone is part of the government) that makes that company private property of said someon] In Cuba public sector employment was 78% and private sector 22% in 2006, compared to 91.8% to 8.2% in 1981. Did the existance of private sectors make Cuba not a Socialist State? [all political and economical decisions are made BY the proletary class as a whole. ] Soviet Union definitely not able to do that. If you count all decisions in Soviet system were made by the proletary class as a whole. Then all decisions in Nazi German System were made by the Aryan Race as a whole. As Nazism is race socialism instead of class socialism. [Third, Hitler´s political campaign was mostly, if not only, funded by the non working class (a.k.a. the rich). ] It seems that was not the case. 22:14
    2
  1462. As long as there is no direct contradiction between socialism and dictatorship, your statement can not constitute a counter argument.
    2
  1463.  @hobbso8508  Carl Marx didn’t think so I believe "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. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" The last sentence especially "necessary result" indicated that the voting results were predetermined. Democracy is valueless if they are not used as a means for putting through measures...The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations.(The Communist Manifesto)
    2
  1464.  @hobbso8508  "No, it means that if the voting went a different way it would not be socialism." Or they will achieve it by violence without democracy. Democracy was always just an optional mean of archiving revolution. The bottom line in the Manifesto was “the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.” Beside, in his article "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna" (11 , 1848) he also claim that "...,the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
    2
  1465.  @hobbso8508  Beside so the non- democratic state will become non-democratic socialist state then. So dictatorship is still allowed in Marxism then.
    2
  1466.  @hobbso8508  And Lenin started a Coup d'état after they lose the election, which is again didn’t prohibited by the Communist Manifesto.
    2
  1467. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@sakinemirkan Have you even watched the video. TIK deliberately said that Socialism is social ownership of means of production. 26:19 The classic definition of feudalism “, by François Louis Ganshof (1944),[3] describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations of the warrior nobility and revolved around the key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.[3]” With that definition no Emperor would control all means of production in its land. Besides, what is the definition of “ABSOLUTE Monarchy”? Has it ever been put into practice or is there any Monarchist Manifesto illustrating how should it work? As according to my understanding not even Il Principe has ever said that the Monarch need to socialise all means of production within its land.
    2
  1468. Do it, I can’t wait to see the part that Churchill or FDR said “I am a socialist”; the part they form the Conservative/Democrat Party army that only loyal to the party and fought alongside the US/UK Army in Normandy; or the part they establish an one party totalitarian state and expropriate private property and give them to the party members. If the party members refuse to comply the party order, they will send to jail or stripped from the property without any extra steps.
    2
  1469. Technically, Soviet Union was officially running mixed economy since officially allowing private Farm Market in 1971.
    2
  1470.  @Faustobellissimo  So not even Marxism is Socialism in your opinion then? As you admited Marxism is not real "stateless" at all, or else Hitler would be a real socialist IYO.
    2
  1471.  @Faustobellissimo  Where is the socialism part of anarchism and libertarianism?
    2
  1472.  @Faustobellissimo  Then why real socialism need to be international , if you just say that there is no stateless/international Socialism.
    2
  1473.  @Faustobellissimo  Maybe just write it again in other way, because I just see contradiction in your statement. How a state is not a nation especially before 1944 when nation state and country meant the same thing. Btw all Nazi Germany, Stalin USSR, Mao PRC and Khmer Rouge were totalitarian state. Are you saying that they are all international?
    2
  1474.  @Faustobellissimo  All Nazi Germany, Stalin USSR, Mao PRC and Khmer Rouge were also multi nation unitary state under your definition, they all have different culture, ethnic or language group inside their countries.
    2
  1475.  @Faustobellissimo  Under your same quote from wiki "A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or society. A nation is thus the collective identity of a group of people understood as defined by those features. Some nations are equated with ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism) and some are equated with affiliation to a social and political constitution (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism)." If the class of proletarian rise up globally, and form an international state, the people under the state would share the same culture(class consciousness, communist revolution and Marxism), and history of being opposed by the bourgeoisie, with the collective identity of proletarian. Base on that isn't the class of proletarian would become a nation. Thus even when the revolution extended to the whole world. The whole world would be one Communist State and the nation of proletarian. There is no more international, it is just one nation under the sun.
    2
  1476. ​ @Faustobellissimo  Base on the definition of nation you provide. The birth of new state would guarantee a birth of new nation. Especially when the global population were all subjected to the total control, surveillance and maybe even the oppossion of the same totalitarian Regime. Stating that the true socialism would be a nationless totalitarian state would be an oxymoron. No, there can only be proletarian in Marxist Socialist State as all the private property will be state own. Therefore, no more middle class, no more small business under Marxist Socialism.
    2
  1477.  @Faustobellissimo  TIK has shown the distinction in the video 28:50.
    2
  1478.  @Faustobellissimo  How can a nationless state exist, when the existence of state would guarantee the creation of new nation? Especially for a totalitarian one.
    2
  1479.  @Faustobellissimo  Beside, How can your totalitarian Socialism not authoritarian if no one can opposed the State? Furthermore, how come the Nazi was reactive, when the Social democrats were the one in power, the Jews were in Germany even before the first Reich was found? Unlike the black people and Maxican in USA, There were no Jews civil right movement in or a large amount of Jews immigrated in to German in 1920s-1930s. The Social Democrat and the Jews were the establishment and the Nazi is the actionary force to it socialism.
    2
  1480.  @romulusmars3766  They need to start a war and ton other countries resources to sustain its economic system, how successful was that.
    2
  1481. The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    1
  1482.  @hobbso8508  So woodcutting, carpeting or Sculpturing are not production anymore under your definition? I am talking about the definition of Bartering. Bartering mean exchange of good and service without using money. How can you use money in an exchange without using money by definition? Wouldn’t people steal public property or create private property themselves? How do you keep ownership splitting? USSR had that happened, don’t you think it won’t happen in your Socialist paradise? Again what if those ex-property own buy extra food with the money that government used to buy back their private property. Then use those extra food for brewing and sell those alcohol to other people with the price ten times higher then the cost? Then use the extra money to buy more food to produce more alcohol? What is to be done then?
    1
  1483.  @hobbso8508  Both, how can you reinforce people from not selling the product of those tool, use those tool as repair service or loan it for profit?
    1
  1484.  @hobbso8508  Again,you just said Businesses are separate from individuals. How can you tax something which is illegal.
    1
  1485.  @Nickshady2254  10:12 Workers under Nazi Germany had better conditions, wages, hours, and so on.
    1
  1486. ​ @Nickshady2254  In Race Socialism jews, trans, the disabled, non Arian races were just like Capitalist in Marxist Class Socialism. Other than that German Worker in Nazi Germany had better working conditions than Weimar Germany
    1
  1487.  @Nickshady2254  It was after Nazi Took over
    1
  1488.  @Nickshady2254  Race socialist care about one race rather than one class. This make them race socialist instead of class socialist
    1
  1489.  @Nickshady2254  being fascist doesn’t need to be racist, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Yugoslavia regimes all were not racist.
    1
  1490.  @Nickshady2254  Other than Nazi which you claim is fascist, which fascist country use racist as a major component to its stability and how it’s driven?
    1
  1491. ​ @Nickshady2254  That is tautology. Why Nazi is fascist? Because it is racist. What fascist is racist? Nazi. Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and other fascist are not using racist as a major component to its stability and how it’s driven. If the example you provided can prove those country are using racist as a major component to its stability and how it’s driven, USSR, a socialist country which perpetrated Holodomor, Deportation of minorities, and the Doctors' plot, would also be in the list.
    1
  1492.  @Nickshady2254  National Socialist and Fascist are different ideology. Similar to Communism, just because they are all people killing, authoritarian system in practise, doesn't make them the same thing.
    1
  1493.  @Nickshady2254  How about Doctors' Plot of USSR in 1953?
    1
  1494.  @ARJaymusic  So what is the problem of claiming Nazism, Fascism and Communism are Socialism? Social Democrat is the high end of Socialism, while Nazism, Fascism and Communism are the low end of socialism. They don’t contradict each other. Claiming that Nazism, Fascism and Communism are Socialism doesn’t make Social Democrat not Socialism. Claiming Social Democrat is Socialism also doesn’t dismiss Nazism, Fascism and Communism from Socialism.
    1
  1495.  @WhiteWolf126  Reimann is Jews, but not his source used to write those quote. The part I quote is not Reimann’s own experience. 2. Collectivezation had nothing to do with culture and academia? How about Replacing all the figure head of the culture and academia association with Nazi Loyalist. 3. Soviet Union under Stalin also censored LGBT culture and publication maybe LGBT is too liberal concept to be considered as left wing in 1920s to 1930s.
    1
  1496.  @chromaticstorm787  The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriate the surplus product, produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics") Socialism is not just about advocating (pure) collective ownership of the means of production. It can coexist with market economy and private property. Otherwise, your definition of socialism would exclude “Market Socialism”, which is is the general designation for a number of models of economic systems. On the one hand, the market mechanism is “utilized to distribute economic output, to organize production and to allocate factor inputs. On the other hand, the economic surplus accrues to society at large rather than to a class of private (capitalist) owners, through some form of collective, public or social ownership of capital.” (Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Vol. 2. Routledge. p. 71)
    1
  1497.  @chromaticstorm787  Slavery and Colonialism? What about the WWII POW in Gulag and what happened to Baltic States? Slavery and Colonialism cannot refute anyone from being socialist. Acknowledging the existence of both market socialism and authoritarian Socialism make Nazi set right in the middle of the Socialist Spectrum. 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 set right in the middle of the Socialist Spectrum.
    1
  1498.  @charleymount582 @charleymount582  So the MEFO bill is just a state's scheme with the mask of a company.
    1
  1499. Social Democrats also prior individuals needs/rights over the interest of society, does it also make Social Democrats not socialist? If North Korea Democracy cannot be classified as Democracy under any circumstances. People would not require to created terms “liberal democracy” to differentiate Contemporary Western Democracy from North Korean “illiberal democracy”. Beside Democracy had never been scientifically defined. “Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting,[1][6] no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy.[13] Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is simply, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people, and that the people have a right to rule."[14] Kofi Annan states that "there are as many different forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in the world."[15] One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.[16]” All the examples of democracy you provided here are all able to be defined as democracy under different contemporary circumstances.
    1
  1500.  @zenastronomy  That is just your over-generalisation of the issue regarding the definition of democracy. Democracy is a very board terms, every dictator since Jacobins can technically claim their regime was "democratically" created, but it is not to the level of "everything is a chair.". As Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is simply, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people, and that the people have a right to rule." That is why people created the terms “liberal democracy” to differentiate Contemporary Western Democracy from North Korean “illiberal democracy”, and used 2,232 other adjectives to accurately describe democracy in the English language.
    1
  1501. ​ @AdanALW  The greatest problem of your positions and articulations are they are based on the lacking and misunderstanding of Comunist history. Reading your positions and articulations is just like watching "The Woman King". 1 'Red Capitalism' and 'New Democracy' were never one of the projects of PRC. New Democracy was also not a concept about construct socialism, problem of distribution, Industrialization or solving the scarcity and production. It was WRITTEN IN 1940, describing how transform China from a semi-feudal semi-colonial country to a country into one that is suitable to overthrow the capitalist dictatorship democratically as in the Communist Manifesto. The final goal of New Democracy is to establish a social democratic China still with free market. As they won the civil war in 1949 and established PRC, they did not need to do that anymore and went straight for the collectivization. __________________________________________________ 2,3 That is just total fictional term without any real examples. Can you give me one USSR and one PRC example showing that the state was controlled by the working class and other progressives. Not just on their behalf aka "for" them, but by and of them as well ; and for that process to have advanced to the point were said class has achieved a critical mass to form the effective political base to seize power as a class. Can you show me any event after NEP indicates USSR able to achieve the critical mass? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Can you give me a time and example that the masses and their political formations in USSR got a chance in the driver's seat just like that of PRC in 1966-1967 as you claimed? (People grab power from the local governments ) 4,5,6. Why the purging of Anti-Rightist Campaign, Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns and Sufan movement unable to make the masses, the working class, etc was effectively the ruling class? All of those purge was relied on peoples report. “Politically, I would say that once the people could report officials and remove and purge them through the purges, they were finally able to wield the state so that it was state now by the workers, of the workers as well as for the workers.” Can you tell me anyone officials was purged just because of worker reporting instead of secret police spying or by higher up demand in USSR? 7. Where did you learn the Culture Revolution Fan-Fiction. Zhang never announced that Shanghai Commune no longer existed and it was disassembled. They just change the name, and all the declarations, order, notices , decisions, resolutions and all other documents remained valid. Here is the original script, sadly there is no translated version. "上海市革命委员会关于上海人民公社临时委员会改称上海市革命委员会的决定 1967.02.23 我们伟大领袖毛主席亲自点燃的一月革命的熊熊烈火，从上海开始，席卷全国，把无产阶级文化大革命推向一个崭新的阶段。在这场气势磅礴的革命风暴中，我们上海无产阶级革命派高举毛泽东思想伟大红旗，实行了大联合，开展了自下而上的夺权斗争，把无产阶级专政的命运，把社会主义经济的命运，紧紧掌握在自己的手里。在取得这一系列胜利的基础上，一九六七年二月五日，我们庄严地宣布了上海“三结合”的临时最高权力机构──上海人民公社临时委员会的诞生。这一切都是毛泽东思想的伟大胜利。 现在，根据《中共中央关于夺权斗争宣传报道问题的通知》中的指示，上海人民公社临时委员会就上海临时最高权力机构的名称问题进行了讨论。我们深深感到，这一指示充分体现了中央对上海无产阶级文化大革命的最大关怀，对上海人民的革命精神的最大爱护。我们坚决拥护中央的正确指示，一致通过把上海人民公社临时委员会改称为上海市革命委员会。这一新的名称，现在已得到了以毛主席为首的党中央的批准。这是我们全上海革命人民的最大的幸福，最大的光荣。 上海市革命委员会将更高地举起毛泽东思想伟大红旗，继续发扬一月革命精神，领导全市无产阶级革命派和全市革命人民从胜利走向胜利，誓把无产阶级文化大革命进行到底，誓把上海建设成为一个真正的毛泽东思想的大学校。 原上海人民公社临时委员会所颁布的宣言、通令、通告、决定、决议及其他一切文件，一律继续有效，全市人民必须切实遵照执行。 上海市革命委员会 一九六七年二月二十三日" 8. Cultural Revolution lasted for 9 more years. If you really believed the "Three-in-one" policy was not revolutionary, it was the end and liquidation of the popular movement and an instrument of their power. Can you tell me under your narrative what really happened in PRC from 1967 to 1977?
    1
  1502.  @AdanALW  8 Maybe you should elaberate your whole narrative instead of just stating the conclusion. As the VIOLENT STRUGGLE of revolutionary worker last for 10 years in PRC. How the 3-in-1 injected the Army and Party into the mix, diluted the power of these working class organizations? And thus it was a slow decent from the establishment of the "Revolutionary Committees" or councils into eventual oligarchy and implementation of state capitalism? The Cultural Revolution ended abruptly after Mao death. It take years after the Cultural Revolution to reinstored the old communists position. Are you just copying the conclusion of some Books and call it the day? If you read numerous books and sourcesunderstand the concepts fairly well. Please just come up with your own argument with thesis, statement of reason and evidence.
    1
  1503.  @AdanALW  ​ 4,5,6 The example you are providing were just the denounced of worker not party member. I saw (#93) but that was for Trotskyism, that one seems like more about the interest of the higher-up not the people. As the meaning of "Revisionist tendency" in China and in USSR were totally different. I would also like to know what Liu Shaoqi did make you think he was an revisionist and heading to captialist-road? Would you give me some fact and your actual thought as in PRC propaganda? As everyone lost the game of power became revisionist and heading to captialist-road.
    1
  1504.  @AdanALW  I still cannot see any example that the masses and their political formations in USSR got a chance in the driver's seat just like the masses tried to grab power from the local governments did in PRC 1966-1967 as you claimed?
    1
  1505.  @AdanALW  People's Control Commission still exist when the USSR collapsed, what suddenly make USSR no longer in worker control after Khrushchev's revisionism. Btw under your narrative how Khrushchev's revisionism ruin collectivization, as I know Household plot existed in Soviet Union since day 1 to their end.
    1
  1506. ​ @AdanALW  "I'll get to your comments eventually, but on this last one I just caught before logging off, I already explained that it being merged with CPSU killed it's ability to act with any autonomy and effectively nullified it as a check on their power." From the quoting of your source"The Practice of Denunciation in Stalinist Russia ", it seems most of the Denunciation letters were sent to CPSU and other multiple state committee instead of the People's Control Commission. The check on their power was in the hand of CPSU and many other committee. It seems even "People's Control Commission merging with CPSU killed it's ability to act with any autonomy and effectively nullified it as a check on their power" would not affect the worker state status of USSR. "Denunciations written by Communists about other Communists were usually sent to the party (either the party's Central Control Commission, or to other local control institutions like the Red Army's Political Administration, or to regional party committees). In keeping with the "paternalist state" framework within which many denunciations were written, the addressees were often individual political leaders: Stalin. Kalinin. Molotov in the center, but also regional leaders like Robert Eikhe in Siberia, While some denunciations were sent directly to the secret police, this body was not the sole or even the primary recipient of denunciations in Stalin's Russia. Many were sent to the Communist Party, individual political leaders at central and regional level, regional control institutions, and newspapers. This, for Dr. Kozlov, was the archetypical denunciation: an ordinary citizen informing the center of some bureaucrat's malfeasance, incompetence, or political unreliability. Denunciations were sent to many government institutions, including the internal security forces (the MVD and later the NKVD), the Politburo and the Communist Party Central Committee. For the central authorities, denunciations were an essential means of controlling lower levels of the state apparatus, especially in distant provinces."
    1
  1507. ​ @AdanALW  [It depends how you define democracy and the slaved people , if you defined those slaved people are sub-human just like Americans tried to do in the past , you can exclude slave from democracy even it has universal suffrage in the definition of democracy." So you are saying that such arguments that enslave entire races of people are still pro-democracy arguments because they define themselves as being pro-democracy arguments? You are saying you can have universal suffrage that isn't in fact universal but selective based on race? So then how is it universal? Wouldn't that be exclusive? If universal means the same thing as exclusive, could I then say that the definition of democracy is giving full rights and universal suffrage to all humans, and the only ones who are humans are the people who use the handle AdanALW on YouTube and all the rest are sub-human and get no rights? That would then be a pro-democracy position because that is how it is defined? Now if I established such a system, any of those now deemed sub-humans who oppose me or oppose my ideas are practicing their hatred of me, teaching a doctrine of hatred against me, especially if they deprive me of my owning the as property, right? If the definition of democracy can be race-based, what else can it be versus can't it be? Could be based on religion? Gender? Name? What kind of pants you wear? It seems you are saying it is up to the second next to define the terms. I really need you to clarify you positions or I will not be able to continue this conversation with you.] I answered it long ago That what exactly America did before the Civil War, defined black as sub human and removed their voting right, but it was still being defined as a democratic country even before the civil war. That was not my definition at all, it was just the an example I can found that can fit through all the criteria you gave me. My position is the "enslave entire races of people are still pro-democracy arguments" do existed historically, and was and still is wildly accepted by everyone. If you ask anyone who is the first democracatic elected president in USA everyone would still answer George Washington, not Andrew Johnson. ["If the slave did that themselves and removed the slavery system and confiscated all the property of the slave owners yes." Remember that in this case the slaves are the property we are speaking about. "but the non-slave owners seems to end that base on morality" There are plenty of books which discuss the economic reasons why thee slave-system was opposed and abolished. Are you suggesting that there was no economic causes or interests to the opposition of slavery?] I said "the non-slave owners seems to end that base on morality ( which Karl Marx Economic Determinism may disagree)", doesn't suggesting "that there was no economic causes or interests to the opposition of slavery", I am suggesting Karl Marx Economic Determinism would disagree the use human subjective emotions or feeling as a reason for causing abolitionism. ["Be careful the context here I am saying the rise of the ideology of abolitionism amount society instead of individual, in this case such as other Marxist argue the phenomenon would very likely caused by the objective change of certain factors in the material life" Are you saying that changes in factors of material life played no role in the rise of the abolitionist movement whatsoever?] Do you really know the theory of "Economic Determinism"? It is not fatalism that claiming that everything is predetermined. It is a theory suggesting that economic forces determine, shape, and define all political, social, cultural, intellectual, and technological aspects of a civilization. So Economic Determinism is saying changes in factors of material life played a very important (or even all the ) role in the rise of the abolitionist movement. God where did you learn your Marxist theory.
    1
  1508.  @AdanALW  I accept Hitler is a Socialist is because it is based on facts and evidence and yours is not.
    1
  1509.  @AdanALW  [It depends how you define democracy and the slaved people , if you defined those slaved people are sub-human just like Americans tried to do in the past , you can exclude slave from democracy even it has universal suffrage in the definition of democracy." So you are saying that such arguments that enslave entire races of people are still pro-democracy arguments because they define themselves as being pro-democracy arguments? You are saying you can have universal suffrage that isn't in fact universal but selective based on race? So then how is it universal? Wouldn't that be exclusive? If universal means the same thing as exclusive, could I then say that the definition of democracy is giving full rights and universal suffrage to all humans, and the only ones who are humans are the people who use the handle AdanALW on YouTube and all the rest are sub-human and get no rights? That would then be a pro-democracy position because that is how it is defined? Now if I established such a system, any of those now deemed sub-humans who oppose me or oppose my ideas are practicing their hatred of me, teaching a doctrine of hatred against me, especially if they deprive me of my owning the as property, right? If the definition of democracy can be race-based, what else can it be versus can't it be? Could be based on religion? Gender? Name? What kind of pants you wear? It seems you are saying it is up to the second next to define the terms. I really need you to clarify you positions or I will not be able to continue this conversation with you.] I answered it long ago That what exactly America did before the Civil War, defined black as sub human and removed their voting right, but it was still being defined as a democratic country even before the civil war. That was not my definition at all, it was just the an example I can found that can fit through all the criteria you gave me. My position is the "enslave entire races of people are still pro-democracy arguments" do existed historically, and was and still is wildly accepted by everyone. If you ask anyone who is the first democracatic elected president in USA everyone would still answer George Washington, not Andrew Johnson. ["If the slave did that themselves and removed the slavery system and confiscated all the property of the slave owners yes." Remember that in this case the slaves are the property we are speaking about. "but the non-slave owners seems to end that base on morality" There are plenty of books which discuss the economic reasons why thee slave-system was opposed and abolished. Are you suggesting that there was no economic causes or interests to the opposition of slavery?] I said "the non-slave owners seems to end that base on morality ( which Karl Marx Economic Determinism may disagree)", doesn't suggesting "that there was no economic causes or interests to the opposition of slavery", I am suggesting Karl Marx Economic Determinism would disagree the use human subjective emotions or feeling as a reason for causing abolitionism. ["Be careful the context here I am saying the rise of the ideology of abolitionism amount society instead of individual, in this case such as other Marxist argue the phenomenon would very likely caused by the objective change of certain factors in the material life" Are you saying that changes in factors of material life played no role in the rise of the abolitionist movement whatsoever?] Do you really know the theory of "Economic Determinism"? It is not fatalism that claiming that everything is predetermined. It is a theory suggesting that economic forces determine, shape, and define all political, social, cultural, intellectual, and technological aspects of a civilization. So Economic Determinism is saying changes in factors of material life played a very important (or even all the ) role in the rise of the abolitionist movement. God where did you learn your Marxist theory.
    1
  1510.  @AdanALW  " I don't understand how you can say socialism based on race is a fact and democracy based on race is an opinion you disagree with." What are you saying here? The "democracy based on race" that you are describing did existed IRL, and still wildly accepted as a fact.
    1
  1511. ​ @AdanALW  I surely accept that USA was a democracy country since it found on July 4, 1776, the wiggle room is for you. And yes, as pre civil war Armarican is still consider as demorcractic country, by the definition of democratic state, Apartheid South Afica can still be objectively defined as a demorcractic country, until someone can give a counter argument to prove it otherwise, but slavery, white only democracy, male only democracy or Racial segregation are not the counter argument, as long as people accepting USA was a democracy country. Can you now respond to my question regarding your PRC narrative?
    1
  1512.  @AdanALW  "I've already demonstrated to you that I understand Marx's concepts of dialectical and historical materialism, but you have portrayed them in what I saw as a crude and fatalistic application of them." I also gave you the definition of Economic Determinism which is not fatalism and show you the different between them, and demonstrated how I applied to that scenario already. Carl Marx Economic Determinist might claimed that the incentive of abolitionism was base on economic interest instead of emotion. How is that fatalistic?
    1
  1513. Yes Nazism being socialism is base on its objective fact able to fit into the definition of human (subjectively) created political concepts. The minimum suffrage right requirement of my democracy country is USA since it found. Is your turn in your PRC narrative now maybe.
    1
  1514.  @AdanALW  Sure the ideology of National Socialism is subjective created, but they are objective exists? What is the question here? Although Nazism and Marxism is subjectively created on the opinion and mind of their author , but National Socialism is banned and Karl Marx is dead, they will not changed anymore and have clear boundaries and objectively existed and can be objectively defined by what Karl Marx and Hitler (and maybe other NAZI higher up) written and said. —————————————————— Democracy is a form of government that are still being practiced and theorised by so many people in today. The definition of Democracy would surely be subjectively different for different people in different place and time. In this discussion I am always arguing under your definition, unless the historical fact itself said otherwise. My minimum suffrage requirement of democracy is USA since it found is base on the fact that George Washington was well regarded ( according to US government and U.S. and my country education system) as the first democratic elected president of USA, not Apartheid bad or US has no true democracy before black can vote. If they claim that Apartheid bad or US has no true democracy before black can vote but still regarding George Washington as the first democratic elected president, the contradiction is on their not my hands. ——————————————————- Socialism is a political theory that are practiced and defined by so many people, so their definition of Socialism should be general enough to include all those practices and theories of Socialism in this world. To see should certainly theory or practice include into Socialism, we should compare their theory and practice with those we agreed to included in Socialism. The comparing theory and practice part should also be objective. What should be pre-including to Socialism should also be subjective, but the reason behind those choices should be objective, that why I am question what objective facts your arguments or definition are based on and how your arguments or definition related to those objective facts. ————————————————————- As I am trying to understand your narrative of Cultural revolution, I am always using your definition. I am just try to put ever historical facts to it and see how would it work out, but I never used the view or definition of other people to judge your definition and narrative. Please reply the question regarding your PRC narrative, I can not wait to be educated.
    1
  1515. ​ @AdanALW  I was using a phione to reply I cannot really went back the last sentence and check the grammar. There are objective definition for what constitutes democracy and socialism, and there is room for subjective elaboration based on the opinions of different people. Their objective definition of democracy and socialism are: Democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people. Socialism is a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. In Democracy’s definition——“a way of governing which depends on the will of the people", the subjective components of Democracy is in the definition of “people”. Whose (people without property, of a particular sex, of a different race, from poverty, without citizenship, or with age lower or higher than a certain age) will government should depend on, everyone would give you different answer. Socialism, on the other hand, is a social and economic doctrine that advocates for public ownership or control of property and natural resources. Only the meaning and detail of “public ownership” is open for subjective interpretation. As long as this principle is followed, every theory or practice should be considered socialist. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx stated that the state could represent (is a form of) public/society in his “10 measures”. Thus, if you want to deny Nazism from Socialism though subjectively denying state as a representation/form of public/society, you also deny Marxism from Socialism. Therefore, based on National Socialist ideology and NAZI Germany policy, I can objectively categorize Nazism as Socialism without any uncertainty to a Socialist that believed in Marxist Class Socialism while unable to accurately define democracy for everyone.
    1
  1516. ​ @AdanALW  I am still awaiting your answer to my question about your PRC narrative.
    1
  1517.  @AdanALW  How about new born baby, no government truly govern by the will of all people. So again which range of suffrage being good is up to subjective interpretation of different people. If I give you a definition of democracy that fit the two examples you gave me, you can just give me an example advocating the lowering of minimum voting age. Saying that this is an age discrimination. The only definition that can fit all democracy from past to future must be a very general one. So as the Socialism, your definition of socialism class socialism originated from Karl Marx. There are socialisms other than Class Socialism in the world, even Karl Marx acknowledged this fact in The Communist Manifesto. Authoritarianism and Democracy is not directly contrasted to each other, like USSR and any communist state, they can even co-exist together. Other than Democracy, the opposition of Authoritarianism should also included rule of law, protections for minority groups, an independent judiciary, the real separation of powers and freedom of expression. I used your definition of Socialism in this discussion is because I want to understand your narrative and definition of “true socialism” IRL.
    1
  1518.  @AdanALW  Communism has two phases. The first or lower phase of communism is called as socialism that is the phase between capitalism and communism. Isn't it socialism is an early necessary phase on the way from capitalism to communism? So under Marxist definition of Socialism, state is an acceptable representation of Society/Public. Regarding the state control mean of production reference from (Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848) "These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. ...""
    1
  1519.  @AdanALW  What you are describing is not just Democracy, it is the contemporary liberal democracy . It’s definition not include the classic Athenian Democracy in Ancient Greek (which still have Slavery and no woman right). Karl Marx thinks Utopia Socialism not socialism doesn’t mean they really aren’t . Hitler also thinks Karl Marx Socialism is not socialism doesn’t mean it really isn’t . Just like Bible said other religions are false-religion doesn’t mean they really aren’t. Primitive Communism is a term invented by Karl Marx to interpret the world and the theory of Utopia Socialism predated Karl Marx theory. Utopia Socialism didn’t interpret the world with class and class struggle. The one described in the Communist Manifesto is through the lens of Karl Marx ideology.
    1
  1520.  @AdanALW  The boundary of definition lie on the lowest point. If Karl Marx said Socialism is the intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism and one of the measures is to implement state ownership of mean of production , then state ownership of mean of production is permissible under Marxist Socialism. Take about NEP of USSR, maybe you should also suggest the conceptualising and the historical impact of three-in-one policy.
    1
  1521.  @AdanALW  Discrimination is not just for race, their is also class discrimination. The concept of class and race can both be the mean of systemic discrimination. The effect of both social construct in society is nearly the same. Class itself is not objectively defined, it is just an subjective first impression. If it is objectively scientifically defined, please kindly tell me what is the scientifically definition of upper, middle and lower class.
    1
  1522.  @AdanALW  Seems Lenin’s Democracy was lacking of freedom of expression. Is that a necessary component of your definition of democracy? “….a vanguard capable of countering the inevitable petty bourgeois waverings of this mass, of countering the traditions of, and inevitable backsliding to, a narrow trade-unionism or trade union prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all aspects of the proletarian movement or, in other words, all the labouring masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is unthinkable.”(On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party)
    1
  1523.  @AdanALW  Very Convincing Economic theory, now would you kindly reply the question regarding the worker state of USSR and PRC?
    1
  1524.  @AdanALW  "That's not the distinct Marx is making at all. He isn't saying that Utopian Socialists aren't socialists. On the contrary, he acknowledges them as socialists, as you observed. His issue was that we was saying their philosophy is socialism, but that their program hasn't created a socialist revolution and is not capable of doing that. " Utopian Socialism didn't have a revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes? Why would it be included in the definition of Socialism ? Isn't definition of Socialism require to have a revolutionary state of workers and progressive classes in your understanding?
    1
  1525.  @AdanALW  "In this context Lenin is talking about the Party, not society at large" Nope He also talking about what is needed to be done to the ideology of the mass/proletariat brofore achieving dictatorship of the proletarian.
    1
  1526.  @AdanALW  What I learnt was history, not its narrative under Marxist Ideology, my position is "it happened, and the Mao's revolutionary power dominated China for 10 years." I know well enough to see the plot holes in your narrative, doesn't mean I have one.
    1
  1527.  @AdanALW  “Socialist philosophy and actually existing socialism”??? As actually existing socialism never existed (we never reach a consensus there). So even in socialism theory, there are Socialist philosophy and actually existing socialism theory?? And some Socialist philosophy doesn't fall into your definition of Socialism?? I think it is either your definition of Socialism have some problem, or there are two "Socialism", one that fit your definition and one didn't.
    1
  1528.  @AdanALW  (On the Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party) The using of “mass” and “proletariat” ( in a proletariat state) seems saying everyone in the state/society.
    1
  1529.  @AdanALW  "have a degree in history and all historians do is create narratives. That's literally their job. So whatever history you learned was also a narrative. I'll take your admission that you don't have an understanding of these events and thus haven't formed an opinion on what you actually believe. You are basically being a nay-sayer but you aren't clear as to why, so you are being contrarian and reactionary. But suit yourself, as long as we are both aware of this." Now I am using your historical narrative as I am trying to understand it. However, there are tons of first hand historical evidences contradicted with your historical narrative. Even TIK need to quote at least 110 source to support his narrative of NAZISM is Socialism and refute the counterarguments. I believe you need to do a much better job to support your narrative.
    1
  1530.  @AdanALW  "Now moving on, feel free to restate your questions." 1. Call it "Fred" for all I care. Conceptually I am speaking of a period in China's history after the defeat of the Nationalists, and the victory of the Communists where the PRC was established by and controlled by the Communist Party, PLA and other such organs but not yet by the workers and their organizations (I will elaborate in this further in the next response). I am still waiting the “next response”. ______________________________________________________ 8 Maybe you should elaberate your whole narrative instead of just stating the conclusion. As the VIOLENT STRUGGLE of revolutionary worker last for 10 years in PRC. How the 3-in-1 injected the Army and Party into the mix, diluted the power of these working class organizations? And thus it was a slow decent from the establishment of the "Revolutionary Committees" or councils into eventual oligarchy and implementation of state capitalism? The Cultural Revolution ended abruptly after Mao death. It take years after the Cultural Revolution to reinstored the old communists position. Are you just copying the conclusion of some Books and call it the day? If you read numerous books and sourcesunderstand the concepts fairly well. Please just come up with your own argument with thesis, statement of reason and evidence. _____________________________________________________ 4,5,6 The example you are providing were just the denounced of worker not party member. I saw (#93) but that was for Trotskyism, that one seems like more about the interest of the higher-up not the people. As the meaning of "Revisionist tendency" in China and in USSR were totally different. Everyone lost the game of power in PRC became revisionist and heading to captialist-road. I would also like to know what Liu Shaoqi did make you think he was an revisionist and heading to captialist-road? Would you give me some fact and your actual thought as in PRC propaganda? ________________________________________________________________________ 2,3 I still cannot see any example that the masses and their political formations in USSR got a chance in the driver's seat just like the masses tried to grab power from the local governments did in PRC 1966-1967 as you claimed? "I already explained that it being merged with CPSU killed it's ability to act with any autonomy and effectively nullified it as a check on their power." From the quoting of your source"The Practice of Denunciation in Stalinist Russia ", it seems most of the Denunciation letters were sent to CPSU and other multiple state committee instead of the People's Control Commission. The check on their power was in the hand of CPSU and many other committee. It seems even "People's Control Commission merging with CPSU killed it's ability to act with any autonomy and effectively nullified it as a check on their power" would not affect the worker state status of USSR. "Denunciations written by Communists about other Communists were usually sent to the party (either the party's Central Control Commission, or to other local control institutions like the Red Army's Political Administration, or to regional party committees). In keeping with the "paternalist state" framework within which many denunciations were written, the addressees were often individual political leaders: Stalin. Kalinin. Molotov in the center, but also regional leaders like Robert Eikhe in Siberia, While some denunciations were sent directly to the secret police, this body was not the sole or even the primary recipient of denunciations in Stalin's Russia. Many were sent to the Communist Party, individual political leaders at central and regional level, regional control institutions, and newspapers. This, for Dr. Kozlov, was the archetypical denunciation: an ordinary citizen informing the center of some bureaucrat's malfeasance, incompetence, or political unreliability. Denunciations were sent to many government institutions, including the internal security forces (the MVD and later the NKVD), the Politburo and the Communist Party Central Committee. For the central authorities, denunciations were an essential means of controlling lower levels of the state apparatus, especially in distant provinces."
    1
  1531.  @AdanALW  "110 sources of poor quality doesn't make it suddenly a strong argument. The question is also the quality of the sources. For example, as a trained historian I can tell you there is a big difference between primary sources and secondary sources. And anything you read you should always employ critical thinking skills and ask the critical questions "Who is the intended audience? What is the author's thesis? Does the author do what they say they are going to do? and Do they do it fairly or correctly? Is the author using loaded or neutral terms? Does the author use facts or does the author ise emotional appeals? Can we detect a bias? Where was it published? What do we know about the author? Is there anything in their background that might indicate a bias or that they can be trusted?" Etc, etc. This is basic critical reading that high school and college students should learn and people in general should use with any source of narrative and/or information they come across. For example, a tobacco company might have 110 sources claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancer, but that doesn't mean you should accept that uncritically. There really is no shortage of sources that have already debunked this argument because Tik is hardly the first person to make it. I have no idea if you would read books, but I know you look at YouTube videos so off the top of my head, I recall the channel Finnish Bolshevik already did a "Tok-athon" and you could maybe start with those videos. After that maybe you still have questions and I could potentially help you, but it is far easier to point you to other sources that have done the legwork and then clarify than have to type a whole thesis here in the YouTube comments." Then why the hell you criticising his narrative base on your own definition socialism, but not the quality of his sources or with the sources that have already debunked this argument.
    1
  1532.  @AdanALW  "No, I am afraid that is a misread of what is being said. Marxist thought generally avoids in these topics speaking of "everyone" especially when they say "proletariat" they are almost always exclusively speaking of wage-earners." The context was USSR in 3/1921, who else in USSR was still excluded from the meaning of "the mass" or "proletariat"?
    1
  1533. ​ @AdanALW  "Yeah, I elaborated on what I meant by worker control of the state in part two of that response. So if you read part 2 again, you'll see me elaborate there" Would you mind to post it again? It got lost in long articles. "Are you aware of the beef between Trotsky and the farmers?" I don't know whether you would mind telling me. I completely hand-waving it because Trotskyism is not a class crime (bourgeoisie or bureaucratic action). They were still Marxist socialist, and by just practicing and believing the theory itself should have no conflicts of interest with workers or farmers. If it is going to be purged in the power of the farmer/worker, they should use other charges to purge him. "So, wait a second, why does the critique of Revisionism get allowed to be different but the application of Socialism have to be exactly the same?" Because if you allow your definition of workers to be the ruling class state in practice can be less than what "masses tried to grab power from the local governments did in PRC 1966-1967 " and just like USSR after NEP. The period for the workers to be the ruling class state in practice in PRC would be much longer. Then the question would be why there is a blank 17 years in your PRC narrative. They finished a socialist state transformed in 1956 and constantly purged the communist member from 1957–1959 with Anti-Rightist Campaign with the help of farmers and workers informed. So why didn't the workers being the ruling class state in PRC under your definition start in 1956 or 1957, just like under the ruling class state in practice in the USSR definition?
    1
  1534.  @AdanALW  "Moving off of my phone so I can read your response in full as I type mine. Further answers/elaborations to your questions." Long story short, in those 10 years, farmer and worker were still able to remove communist official by direct force or reporting to the party.
    1
  1535.  @AdanALW  "san zi yi bao" and “four freedoms”[贷款is just loan not usury in Chinese.] (never implemented) were policy to combat (successfully) famine caused by collectivisation, not revision capitalism . Even using your narrative non of those policy seems objected to the Marxist Socialist measure in the Communist Manifesto. "The landlords have no land and the rich peasants are no longer rich. What’s the use of grasping class struggle? We all live by earning work points; so long as production is being done, well then all’s fine".(Peeking Review #22, 1976, p. 11) “Class” in China was inheritable. If you born in a landlord family. You and your offspring would still be landlord even after your property was stripped (The landlords have no land and the rich peasants are no longer rich). So what should a real communist be do, kill them all? Rich peasants is not landlord. They ,earn from their labor, are still worker class in your definition, why allowing them to exist and emerge make him a revisionist? For other part. Please quote the sources. As I can’t check did they really said those things.
    1
  1536. ​ @AdanALW  “Practically finishing Socialist Reform” in 1956 is from the official history report from News of Communist Party of China CPC. “到１９５６年底，参加初级社的农户占总农户的９６．３％，参加高级社的达总到农户总数的８７．８％，基本上实现了完全的社会主义改造，完成了由农民个体所有制到社会主义集体所有制的转变。”( I cannot post the link sorry) Completing collectivisation and having famine afterwards didn’t contradict each other, Holodomor and Soviet famine of 1932–1933 also happened in USSR (in your worker state in real life period) after NEP and sucessfully finishing collectivisation. “Class” in China was inheritable. If you born in a landlord family, you are a landlord class. This was how thing work back then, ever heard "Five Black Categories" before? "So I guess I have to break this down about what is the connection between rich peasants as landlords and sharecropping. I assume that you understand that in a market system there is competition. In the course of competition some win and some lose out. Those who win them expand, buy up and consolidate more land. Eventually if they keep this up the end up with more land than they or their family can work on. So then they begin to hired farm-hand to work their land. Many times the farm workers are working the very land that used to belong to them but for a wage while the rich peasant now pockets the profits the laborer's work generates for the land-owners. Often a system of rents and sharecropping can also come into practice, where by landless laborers then rent parcels of land from rich peasant landowners, rent cattle and tools, and like any scheme, say like credit cards, they are compounded with usury (interest rates) that are designed to be a predatory swindle that are meant to keep those who can't make a payment into a perpetual cycle of debt that allows the landowner to consistently bleed the landless peasants dry." The whole statement here is just a big Slippery slope fallacy. 4 Counter Arguments: 1.Four freedom Never Implemented 2.Even if Four freedom ever implemented, there would be Government Regulation, will rich peasants able to become landlord? Unlikely, as the consequence would be exicuted, reeducation or Labor Camp. 3. Non of those policy including Four Freedoms were contradicted with the socialist measure of the Communist Manifesto. 4. Rich peasants are still worker under your definition.
    1
  1537.  @AdanALW  ​ I just found the second hand source you based on. The claim from those source totally distorted what the first hand sources in Chinese said. What written in the second hand source were just a subjective denouncement with a lot of adjective and capitalistic revisionism accusation. If the whole Western study of Eastern Communism Theory and History was based on sources with such quality, the whole field would just built on the propaganda that dictators used to legitimise their own actions. After reading though his article, It seems that he was a loyal Communist Manifesto follower more than a revisionist. Here are the whole articles of “Liu Shaoqi, “Instruction to An Tzu-wen and others” and “Report Concerning the Question of Land Reform” translated by ChatGPT. “Instruction to An Tzu-wen and others, 1950” “ After the land reform in Northeast China, the rural economy began to develop upward. Farmers who owned three horses, a plow, and a large cart were not wealthy farmers but rather middle-class farmers. In Northeast China, these types of households probably do not exceed 10% of farmers, and the proportion of truly wealthy farmers is even smaller. In a few years, these relatively wealthy farmers with three horses, a plow, and a cart should account for 80%, among which 10% are wealthy farmers and the remaining 20% are poor farmers who do not have carts or horses. Now in Northeast China, this middle class of farmers should be given significant development opportunities. Today, mutual assistance for temporary work in Northeast China is based on bankrupt and impoverished individual economies, which is a bad foundation. It is said that 70% of farmers in Northeast China participate in mutual assistance. The reason why there are so many temporary work opportunities is that individual economies are bankrupt, and farmers have to work temporarily. In the future, all individual economies will be able to produce independently, so the temporary work opportunities will inevitably shrink. Farmers with three horses can still work temporarily or independently. Only when farmers with three horses participate in temporary work can it be considered voluntary. Now, 70% of households participate in temporary work, but this will decrease in the future. This is a good sign, indicating that the economy has developed, and more farmers have become middle class and can work independently. This is the expected result. With 70% of farmers owning three horses, it will be easier to establish collective farms in the future. Therefore, while promoting and explaining the benefits of temporary work, farmers should also be allowed to work independently. Is it possible for temporary work to develop into collective farms in the future? I think it is impossible! These are two different stages, and we must prevent sudden changes. Because they are two different stages, they cannot be confused. It is wrong to change too early. During the Fifth Plenary Session, the error of "left" opportunism was committed by confusing democratic revolution with socialist revolution. Collective farms use machines to engage in large-scale production and negate individual economies. For example, if a collective farm is established in a village, only one should be built. If two are built, there may be many difficulties, which will be hard to solve. When the Soviet Union began to implement collectivization, 30% of farmers were unwilling to join. However, in order to achieve large-scale machine production, the land of farmers who do not wish to join can be transferred to the edge of the farm. Therefore, individual production may be possible throughout the country, but in a collective farm in a village, it cannot be excluded. Moreover, when implementing collectivization, everyone uses machines for production, and there is no possibility of individual farming. The transition from individual production to collective farms is a revolutionary change in the mode of production. Collective farms without machine tools cannot be consolidated. The Soviet Union did not have machines at the beginning of collectivization, but under the national production plan, each farm had a fixed product quota, and machines and tools would be available within one or two years. Therefore, collective farms could be consolidated. Without such conditions, it would be impossible to persist even with horses and plows for several years. Our current temporary work mutual assistance and supply and marketing cooperatives play a role in educating farmers about collective concepts. In the future, with the addition of machine tools, we can lead the implementation of collective farms. What is exploitation? Exploitation is necessary now, and we should welcome it. Workers demand capitalists to exploit them because they cannot survive without it. Exploitation saves people. This year, a large number of refugees went to Northeast China, and if rich farmers can exploit them, they will be grateful. In the past, over one million laborers went to Northeast China each year, and if rich farmers do not exploit them, they cannot survive. Rich farmers who hire more workers and buy more horses should not be restricted. This is not spontaneous. In the future, we will have a way to deal with rich farmers, but for now, we should let them develop. There is no harm in this. When they reach a certain limit of development, we will restrict them in the future, maybe three to five years later. We will use the national labor law to organize hired laborers, improve their treatment, impose land taxes, increase their share of public grain, and other measures to restrict them. However, in reality, surplus labor in rural areas is scarce, and there will not be many hired laborers. The state will also mobilize many farmers to work in factories. Stalin once wrote a letter requesting that collective farms mobilize farmers to work in factories. Therefore, it is too early to restrict individual farming now. It is good for them to farm independently, and we cannot think that farmers who oppose individual farming are collectivists because they are still too poor to farm independently. This is not spontaneous. It is also good to allow more rich farmers to emerge now. What is laissez-faire? We should let workers and individual farmers hire workers and farm independently. Three horses and one plow are enough for them. We cannot let those who do not allow workers to hire or farm independently to be laissez-faire. What should we do if a Party member becomes a rich farmer? This question is premature. People can still be socialists even if they exploit others. For example, hiring refugees to work is not exploitation. Saint-Simon was a capitalist, but he was also a socialist, although it was utopian at that time. If a capitalist in Northeast China wants to follow Saint-Simon's approach today, he may succeed and not fail. Expanding production by hiring labor and buying horses and opening oil shops can increase social wealth, which cannot be called exploitation. Nowadays, it is a society of private ownership. Party members who have made money from production cannot pay public dues, and the state will not ask for their oil shops and horses. They can only have temporary private ownership. If they develop production now, they can pay public dues in the future when collectivization is implemented. These rich farmers who are also Party members are also good Party members, but generally, not all of them can do that. Therefore, even if there are 10,000 rich farmer Party members in Northeast China in the future, it is not terrible because in a few years, there may be one million Party members in Northeast China. If all these 10,000 people are not good, it does not matter if they are expelled. Moreover, among the 10,000 people, 5,000 may still want to remain in the Party. Therefore, rural Party members now can farm independently. Our party rules and regulations allow Party members to farm independently and hire workers. The idea that Party members cannot exploit is a kind of dogmatism. However, allowing Party members to farm independently and whether they should do it are two different things. We allow Party members to farm independently, but we do not encourage them to do so.”
    1
  1538.  @AdanALW  “Report Concerning the Question of Land Reform, 1957” “The provisions in the draft of the land reform law regarding the land and other property of the rich peasants are intended to preserve the rich peasant economy and, in the process of land reform, to remain neutral towards the rich peasants politically, in order to better protect the middle peasants and small land rental owners, isolate the landlord class, and unite the entire people in an orderly way to achieve land reform and abolish the feudal system. Why did we allow farmers to confiscate excess land and property from the rich peasants in the past land reform, but now advocate for preserving the rich peasant economy in future land reforms? This is mainly because the political and military situation in China is fundamentally different now. In the past, two years ago, the revolutionary forces and counter-revolutionary forces were still in a brutal war, and the people's forces were still at a relative disadvantage, and the outcome of the war was still undecided. On the one hand, the rich peasants did not believe that the people could win and still tended to side with the landlord class and Chiang Kai-shek, opposing land reform and the people's revolutionary war; on the other hand, the people's revolutionary war demanded that the peasants pay a great price (sending troops, contributing grain, and performing obligatory labor) to support the war and win the victory. And winning the war is the highest interest of the entire nation, and everything should be subordinate to it. It was precisely at this time that we allowed farmers to confiscate excess land and property from the rich peasants, and confiscated all the property of the landlords, in order to satisfy the demands of the poor peasants, mobilize the high revolutionary enthusiasm of the peasants to participate in and support the people's revolutionary war, and overthrow the Chiang Kai-shek regime supported by American imperialism. This was necessary and correct at that time. Without a thorough land reform in the liberated areas at that time, it would have been difficult to overcome the difficulties encountered. The situation now is fundamentally different from the past. The people's revolutionary war on the mainland has basically ended, and the final destruction of Chiang Kai-shek's bandit gang is beyond doubt. The two huge tasks of requiring peasants to serve in the military and perform obligatory labor no longer exist, and the task of contributing grain has also been reduced compared to the past. The basic task of the entire nation now is to carry out economic construction nationwide, restore and develop the social economy. The recapture of Taiwan is still a major task, but the People's Liberation Army has enough strength to undertake it. The nature of the difficulties we are facing now is different from the difficulties we encountered in the past war. The current difficulties are mainly in the financial and economic aspects, the difficulties in restoring, transforming and developing the social economy. At the same time, the great revolutionary unity of all ethnic groups, democratic classes, democratic parties and people's organizations throughout the country has been formed politically and organizationally, and the political attitude of the rich peasants has generally changed from before. If the people's government implements a policy of preserving the rich peasant economy, it is generally able to win the neutrality of the rich peasants, and can better protect the middle peasants and remove some unnecessary concerns of the farmers in developing production. During the period from July 1946 to October 1947, in the course of implementing land reform in many areas of North China, Shandong, and Northeast China, the peasant masses and our rural workers did not follow the instructions issued by the CPC Central Committee on May 4, 1946, which basically preserved the property of rich peasants, and instead acted according to their own will, confiscating the land and property of rich peasants like landlords. This is understandable because this period was the most tense and cruel period of struggle between the Chinese people and the reactionary Kuomintang. Deviations occurred in land reform during this period, and the interests of some middle peasants were infringed upon, and some rural industries and businesses were destroyed, and in some places, there were incidents of random beating and killing. The main reason for these phenomena was the tense political and military situation at the time, as well as the fact that most of our rural workers lacked experience in land reform and did not know the correct method for classifying the rural class. They misclassified some people's class status and treated some rich peasants as landlords and some middle peasants as rich peasants. In view of this situation, the CPC Central Committee issued the Land Law Outline on October 10, 1947, distinguishing between rich peasants and landlords but allowing for the expropriation of excess land and property of rich peasants. In the winter of the same year, the Central Committee issued a document on the classification of rural class status, Chairman Mao issued a statement on the current situation and tasks, and Comrade Ren Bishi gave a speech on land reform. From this time on, some of the chaotic phenomena in the countryside stopped, and land reform entered a normal track. In order to prevent our comrades from repeating past mistakes in carrying out land reform in the new liberated areas, it is necessary to point out the past experiences. We are now in a completely new situation, and the land reform law we propose, which aims to eliminate the feudal system and preserve the rich peasant economy, is completely necessary. The policy of preserving the rich peasant economy that we have adopted is certainly not a temporary policy but a long-term one. That is to say, in the entire stage of new democratic revolution, it is necessary to preserve the rich peasant economy. Only when the conditions are mature enough, and machine cultivation can be widely used in rural areas, collective farms can be organized, and socialist transformation can be carried out in rural areas, will the existence of the rich peasant economy become unnecessary, and this will take a fairly long time to achieve. This is why we advocate preserving the rich peasant economy at present. Naturally, in those areas where land reform has already been completed, it is not permissible for rich peasants to use this as an excuse to reclaim land from peasants. If such incidents occur, they must be strictly prohibited.”
    1
  1539.  @AdanALW  The policy never put in practice, doesn’t mean it has it believer. And same as four freedoms( not sān zì yī bāo if you have any misunderstanding）, someone proposing it for combat famines didn’t make it went through, there was not just Liu in the centre committee. You must never heard the term “Laogai”, to deny the existence of Labour Camp. Again the four freedoms in Chinese us土地租佃自由，土地买卖自由，借贷自由，贸易自由 The 借贷自由 only meant freedom to loan not usury, charging interest is not included in the meaning of 借贷.The usury in Chinese is 高利貸( literally high interest loan).
    1
  1540.  @AdanALW  "How is it distorted? What you posted here is explicitly arguing for increased exploitation and pushing this idea that people can't survive without the rich exploiting them. You think that is what Marx said? You think that is Socialism?" It seems you just basically miss out the last sentence. “Only when the conditions are mature enough, and machine cultivation can be widely used in rural areas, collective farms can be organized, and socialist transformation can be carried out in rural areas, will the existence of the rich peasant economy become unnecessary, and this will take a fairly long time to achieve. This is why we advocate preserving the rich peasant economy at present.”
    1
  1541.  @AdanALW  You were judging was Liu a revisionist through his theory and reasoning, then judging it by the theory and reasoning. Are you now trying to accusing him as a revisionist with whataboutism of contemporary US capitalist history? That was totally irrelevant to the topics we are discussing. btw do you know what I found, I expected “four freedom” and “sān zì yī bāo” was not official policy, they were accusations Slogans made to denounce Liu. As I couldn’t find any mention of those two term in Liu’s Collection, official notices, government documents and public poster regarding the implementation of those two terms as government policy. Every usage of those term were after the Cultural Revolution started. (I will organise the source later)
    1
  1542.  @AdanALW  I was saying the term of "four freedom" and "sān zì yī bāo" themselves was never used before culture revolution, not the contant inside it. What you were arguing is totally irrelevant to what I said. Even if he said the phase 土地租佃自由, did 土地租佃自由 agains any measure of The Comunist Manifesto? To acrchive true Socialist State IRL, you don't need to archive the Communist State meantioned in Das Kapital. Otherwise, it would be true Communist State IRL. Using "bad faith arguments utilize popular appeals" to something not yet happend is just appeal to motive fallacy. I believe you have a degree related to sociology, you should do a better job and put some basic logic in your comment.
    1
  1543.  @AdanALW  Please kindly send me a more detail source regarding the article "The People's Democratic Dictatorship: Its Popular Foundation and Basic Characteristics," Please also give me the page number if it is possible. Btw why there is a comma at the end of the article name, are you altering the sources?
    1
  1544. Again, please kindly send me a more detailed source regarding the article "The People's Democratic Dictatorship: Its Popular Foundation and Basic Characteristics," Please also give me the page number if it is possible. Btw why is there a comma at the end of the article name, are you altering the sources?
    1
  1545.  @AdanALW  Again, rich present are not landlords even under your definition. The sources you provided totally distorted those articles' motives and central ideas. Turning a practical Socialist that worried about whether the farmer could handle the pressure of agricultural collectivization with the ownership of limited means of production into a revisionist that headed toward the road of capitalism. Regarding Lie, who is he lying to? He was talking to the Deputy Secretary of Central Commission for Discipline Inspection in the first article, and the second one was an Report in The First Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the Legislature of PRC", who is he lying to Chairman Mao? For the other part, we should look at the original source first.
    1
  1546.  @AdanALW  It is just the fruit of the poisonous tree. Regarding the "four freedom" and "sān zì yī bāo" my evidence would be more than that. Post-NEP Soviet Union must have a very strong mass of the people would participate actively in the state organs like people in PRC did in Cultural Revolution. Or else the problem here would be double standards.
    1
  1547. ​ @AdanALW  Yet you are not able to prove it with concrete evidence. Like who? Remember, the whole New Democracy never implemented thing. Do you think how many of them were New Democracy believers like Liu? Members just need to take positions righter than Mao (Including New Democracy) to get purged or heavily suppressed during Mao Era. How do you know which one was true Capitalist? With the propaganda you read?
    1
  1548.  @AdanALW  Sorry it got deleted again. Let do it as short as possible. You just reminded me, Chinese officially finished “socialist transformation of ownership of the means of production” in 1956. Therefore, PRC was in still transitioning from land reform or New Democacy, which never put into practices into Socialist state （collectivisation) before 1956. Therefore, even in Mao standard, all the “revisionary” of Liu is ok before 1956. To prove Liu was a revisionist, you need to use first hand sources after 1956. To prove it with Marxist standards, further look would still be needed. PS “Report Concerning the Question of Land Reform, 1957” was actually from 1950, you by searching “刘少奇副主席关于土地改革问题的报告 一九五零年六月十四日”
    1
  1549. ​ @AdanALW  The question about the period of 1956 to 1966 is not, there is still 10 years there. _______________________________ Btw it seems that you also missed this one "I already explained that it being merged with CPSU killed it's ability to act with any autonomy and effectively nullified it as a check on their power." From the quoting of your source"The Practice of Denunciation in Stalinist Russia ", it seems most of the Denunciation letters were sent to CPSU and other multiple state committee instead of the People's Control Commission. The check on their power was in the hand of CPSU and many other committee. It seems even "People's Control Commission merging with CPSU killed it's ability to act with any autonomy and effectively nullified it as a check on their power" would not affect the worker state status of USSR. "Denunciations written by Communists about other Communists were usually sent to the party (either the party's Central Control Commission, or to other local control institutions like the Red Army's Political Administration, or to regional party committees). In keeping with the "paternalist state" framework within which many denunciations were written, the addressees were often individual political leaders: Stalin. Kalinin. Molotov in the center, but also regional leaders like Robert Eikhe in Siberia, While some denunciations were sent directly to the secret police, this body was not the sole or even the primary recipient of denunciations in Stalin's Russia. Many were sent to the Communist Party, individual political leaders at central and regional level, regional control institutions, and newspapers. This, for Dr. Kozlov, was the archetypical denunciation: an ordinary citizen informing the center of some bureaucrat's malfeasance, incompetence, or political unreliability. Denunciations were sent to many government institutions, including the internal security forces (the MVD and later the NKVD), the Politburo and the Communist Party Central Committee. For the central authorities, denunciations were an essential means of controlling lower levels of the state apparatus, especially in distant provinces."
    1
  1550.  @AdanALW  "we went back-and-forth on "New Democracy" for quite a bit. I'm just glad then that we can move on." Your concept of "New Democracy" was still wrong, the meaning of New Democracy was well discribed in Mao's “On New Democracy”, just because Land Reform Movement, socialist transformation of ownership of the means of production and New Democracy were all come from Mao didn't meant that they were the same thing just like "Rocky" and "Rambo" were still two different movie made by Sylvester Stallone. And you still miss out the decades of 1956 to 1966, which is totally irrelevant to the concept of "New Democracy". "Yes, you're quoting me the article. And what is it you are getting at? Remember that you asked me for just one solitary example, and I supplied it. Remember when I told you earlier that history is about narratives?" What are you referring to? your unfoundable source? Sources is for cross review you cannot just give me a unreviewable Sources and said that it is a valid source because it meet the Referencing Standards. Especially, a translated article from contemporary history, it is quite fishy to unable to find the original script of a translated article in public domain in public domain.
    1
  1551.  @AdanALW  "I believe you are right on the date of the source. I transposed the date of the secondary source with the citation of that report. It was 1950. However, I don't see why to prove he was a Revisionist one can't use statements he made prior to 1956." Because they were running a state preparing to become a Socialist (collectivist) state not a socialist prior to 1956 as the Communists Manifesto suggested to. Using a socialist state policy/theory standard to judge the policy/theory of a state preparing to become a Socialist (collectivist) state is just as absurd as saying someone following you in hiking is going backwards or saying yourself one hour ago was going backward. If yes, Mao written the article of “On New Democracy” in 1940, did it make him a revisionist?
    1
  1552.  @AdanALW  “There are so many moving parts to this conversation it is hard to narrow down to what you are responding to. Please do my the favor and either referencing specifically, quoting or rephrasing what it is you are responding to. Otherwise it becomes very difficult for me to follow you.” Plz do the same thing
    1
  1553. ​ @AdanALW  "Mao was not infallible or exempt from demonstrating revisionism. If you recall, I already criticized the 3-in-1 as being counter-revolutionary. Mao demonstrated Revisionism at many different times and periods." I also use evident to show you that your claim was wrong, in theory, 3-in-1 strengthening the power of the worker with the article of 《论革命的“三结合”》. In prectice, worker can remove the party member offical with direct force and informance, that was basically summing up what happened in the whole Cultural Revolution in the lower level. Notable example would be "Cleansing the Class Ranks" in 1968 and "Counterattack the Right-Deviationist Reversal-of-Verdicts Trend" in 1975. (Which I also commented before) "Dialectical materialism is a science, a method, it is not a religion. Any figure can make errors in its application, just as a scientist makes errors. However, if the science is followed correctly it will reveal the errors or any author. These aren't prophets or popes and this isn't a religion that is based on a cult to their personalities." If the environment of the nation wasn't put into consideration, then, the Marxism in "The Manifesto of Communist" was the Revisionism of Marxism in "Das Kapital". That is just total nonsense, following the guidelines of "The Manifesto of Communist" and speed up the socialeconomy development of a developing countries into one a developed country that is suitable of Socialism transformation is Revisionism. While you are saying that Marxism is an scientific Ideology, which should adapted to where it is going to implement, you treat the communist theory in Das Kapital as religion and use it as a doctrinaire to accuse those Socialists whom were labelled as revisionist by the Totalitarian Comunnist Regime being revisionistic with their "capitalist nature" in their theory. While you never use the same communist theory to accuse those totalitarian revisionist who killed thousand of opposition, and consolidated the power of the state from the hand of the workers and not allowing "democracy"(the one under you're definition) even after completing collectivization as revisionistic. Your narrative seems suggesting a true worker control socialist state can exist under a totalitarian revisionist (like Stalin, or Mao which you agreed implied though the statement of "Mao was not infallible or exempt from demonstrating revisionism"), that consolidated power of the state from the worker, but not able to exist under a team of revisionist with "capitalist nature" . It seems your narrative is just the Eastern Properganda narrative which served the interest of those totalitarian revisionists. How can you know so much about Classic Class Socialism theory, yet unable to critically analysed and criticised the narratives you are using or those contemporary comunists ( whose were blindly believe in or paid by those Communist Authoritarian Regime). "Wherever revisionism is displayed it still remains Revisionism despite when it is stated. Even in the period of 1949 to 1956 Revisionism reared its head and there was a struggle around that even in that period." What is this argument based on some Communists Bible. That is just some subjective commentary without any base.
    1
  1554.  @AdanALW  "ok, looking at your edits, basically my earlier response stands but I will add a few comments.... supposedly revising? That's like saying Moses was a revision of the Mormons." One definition only have one base line. What defined the base line of Socialist, "the Communist Manifasto" or "Das Kapital". "New Democracy" is allowed by or even following the instructions of "the Communist Manifasto", but some of those instructions contracdicted to "Das Kapital", and you are the one who accused Liu's "New Democracy" revisionism because of following those instructions from "the Communist Manifasto" that contradicted to the theory of "Das Kapital". Now you said I am the one who confused. Yes, you are right, it is Moronic, why a socialst following the step of "the Communist Manifasto" would be accused as revisionist by contradicting to Das Kapital. "As far as your "bible" statement, all I said is that there was definitely a struggle within the PRC and the Communist Party in the years 1949 to 1956. Are you really ... every single one, were practicing anti-revisonist Marxism?" You are definitely right. What make USSR after NEP becoming a worker Socialist state IRL, while PRC can’t from 1956 to 1966 after collectivisation, under the same set of situation? Or perhaps you are suggesting that none of the debates if the day included any examples of Revisionism whatsoever? That all of them, every single one, were practicing anti-revisonist Marxism in USSR after NEP?
    1
  1555. ​ @AdanALW  What are you talking about " New Democracy" and "People's democratic dictatorship" were two different concepts. How can you mix them together? "For example, you kept asserting that there never was an implementation of "New Democracy" in China, but the very article you quoted to me from Liu makes reference to it. In fact, he says it also here in the report he gave to the Eighth Party Congress "This dictatorship was meant to fulfill the task of the bourgeois-democratic revolution because it only brought about reforms in the feudal land system. It did not change the ownership of means of production by the national bourgeoisie, or individual ownership by the peasants. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the people's democratic dictatorship began to shoulder the task of bringing about the transition from capitalism to socialism. That is to say, it was to change the private ownership of means of production by the bourgeoisie and the small producers into socialist, public ownership; and to eliminate in a thorough way the exploitation of man by man. Such state power, in its essence, can only be the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only when the proletariat, through its vanguard, the Chinese Communist Party, has employed this weapon of state power without the slightest hindrance and closely rallied around itself all the working people and all other forces that are ready to accept socialism, jointly to implement the line of policy of the proletariat and, on the one hand, build the economic and cultural life along the road to socialism and, on the other, suppress the resistance of reactionary classes and cliques and guard against the intervention of foreign imperialism, will it be able to fulfill this serious and complex task. ... Even Liu's broken clock was right twice a day. He has basically laid out here what I have been telling you this whole time. Of course, he has errors as he goes on the report, but now you seem to like Liu, so if you won't take it from me, maybe you'll take it from Liu. "
    1
  1556.  @AdanALW  2. PRC from 1956-1966 already have way to replace party member and officials. From "Minutes of the Discussion on Several Issues regarding the Policy Orientation of the United Front", 1957 Liu Shaoqi, Translated by ChatGPT "We just need one article, and Wen Hui Bao will immediately make changes. Just a few letters from readers and Chu Anping will resign immediately. Guangming Daily won't be able to continue. We didn't adopt a closed approach, without any orders from the State Council or decisions from the central government. With just two editorials and a few letters from readers, the direction would change immediately. The Chinese bourgeoisie will still have a prosperous period in the future..." 1. It seems you are the one dodging the question. You are accusing him going a capitalist way with Das Kapital while he is reforming PRC into a Socialist state as in the instructions of The Manifesto of Communism. I myself surely have no problem because base on what he did and said I didn’t think he is a revisionist.
    1
  1557. ​ @AdanALW  New Democracy and People’s Democracy Dictatorship were also two different terms. You see the “dictatorship” after the democracy there. People’s Democracy Dictatorship was written in the constitutions of the PRC in 1954, while New Democracy was criticized as “bourgeois democracy" in "Intervention at the Chengdu Conference on the National Minorities” by Mao in 1958
    1
  1558.  @AdanALW  People’s Democracy Dictatorship was written in the constitutions of the PRC in 1954, while New Democracy was criticized as “bourgeois democracy" in "Intervention at the Chengdu Conference on the National Minorities” by Mao in 1958
    1
  1559.  @AdanALW  I edited the reply
    1
  1560.  @AdanALW  "I collapsed/consolidated some of this threads together in other post. But I will state again what I said there here. You are confused because the quote I supplied on rent was not from Capital (1867) but the Economic Manuscripts (1844). Capital does have a whole chapter on rents, which I recommend you look at along with the manuscript on rent." Oops Sorry pointing the wrong quote but the point of accusations is similar,about rent or allow hiring farmers/ allowing rich peasant to exist . The first accusation is based on a section of translation of a unfoundable document in either Chinese or English translation. Therefore we can disregard that evidence. For the second part The Manifasto still allowed privite ownership of mean of production and hiring labour while a country transforming into a (collective) socialist state. You tried to neglecting the regulation part within Liu theory, confused the concept of rich peasant with landlord, rich peasant still work and still a worker, while landlord does not. "Your issue is that you seem to think the Manifesto is the be-all and end-all to the body of work of Marxism-Leninism (or even vanilla Marxism) when it is a small pamphlet and not nearly as in-depth as other works. As I have told you before when it came to constructing a political program for communists, "Critique of the Gotha Program" is much clearer, and when it comes to economics Capital is considered the magnum opus of Marx." Manifesto is not the be-all and end-all to the body of work of Marxism-Leninism (or even vanilla Marxism), but it should be the lowest boundary of Class Socialism. Doing things permitted and allowed in Manifesto, but contradicted with higher Communist theory, should not be the reason for accusing someone a revisionist of Socialism. "I already explained all the components needed to present in order to be Socialism. I already explained to you the period in question and supplied you with the specifics, named the political organs and their working class composition." Yes, you have explained all the components needed to present in order to be Socialism. you had already explained the specifics, named the political organs and their working class composition. Yet, the problem is the standard you applied on USSR seems different from that you applied on PRC, and you still unable to disprove how PRC unable to achieve those all three components in 1956-1966.
    1
  1561.  @AdanALW  "Yes, I am aware that "New Democracy" was seen as having the flaws and many feature of bourgeois democracy. I think the issue from the gate here, going all the way back to Nazism and Hitler, is that you are stuck on labels when I have been asking you to look at definitions. I have already supplied numerous examples of how language can be used in Orwellian ways, the Patriot Act curtailing civil liberties, the Democratic Party being the pro-slavery Party, etc. A great example of this would be when Khrushchev declared the USSR a "state of the whole people". PRC, USSR, USA, etc, none are immune to this." But are you aware "People's Democracy Dictatorship" and "New Democracy" are different concept now? "I have already supplied numerous examples of how language can be used in Orwellian ways, the Patriot Act curtailing civil liberties, the Democratic Party being the pro-slavery Party, etc. A great example of this would be when Khrushchev declared the USSR a "state of the whole people". PRC, USSR, USA, etc, none are immune to this." "War is Peace" is real even in your definition of Democracy. You can including Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat in your definition, even though Lenin openly stated that dictatorship of the proletariat need to work with the restrictions of freedom of expression. That why I would rather made a definition as inclusive as possible but with clear and objective boundaries and make many sub-definition for different concepts, than make one general definition but with obscure and subjective boundaries. That why I would use the terms Socialist, racial Soicalist, Class Socialist, class socialist theory, and class socialist in practice.
    1
  1562.  @AdanALW  Regarding "Four Freedoms", Four Freedom is an exaggerated accusation of certain policies within the "Resolution on mutual aid and cooperation in agricultural production" initiated by Deng Zihui by Mao at the Chengtu Conference in March 1958. The policy test trial in 1951 and passed in 1953 by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The Freedom of Loan The Loan can only lend between Supply and marketing cooperatives, Agricultural Production Mutual Aid Groups, Agricultural Production Cooperatives, and lend to individual farmers( added by Mao). In addition, the rate of interest is regulated. The Freedom of ranting farmland, it is also heavily regulated, "….only widows, orphans, disabled, military personnel, and those without labor are allowed to rent land for farming." The Freedom of hiring, it is permitted but heavily regulated as in the measure in "Manifesto of Communists". The worker's welfare is regulated. Freedom of trade, again, is regulated "If woods were completely controlled by the country and could only be sold to wood companies, people couldn't cut their own wood to make coffins or build houses without approval. How can this be feasible? However, even if now national timber is allowed to be completely freely traded by timber merchants, it still cannot work without certain market management, so trade freedom is still subject to control." (Selected Work of Deng Zihui, Page. 353-354) (Resolution on mutual aid and cooperation in agricultural production) For sān zì yī bāo, it is from the "Regulations governing Rural People's Communes" drafted by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party under the host of Mao in 1961. sān zì are Increase Household plot presentable from 5% to 7% Soviets have had it since its founding to its collapse, including the Worker state IRL under your definition. Freedom of Market Again the context is the same as the Freedom of Market in Four Freedoms. Self-financing, the basic economic unit of Self-financing is production Commune, not individual. And finally, yī bāo is "Households responsibility system", where communes can keep their product surplus over the production quota. Different party members have different interpretations to a different extents. Liu's version of Household responsibility is just permitted families can keep the surplus production from the means of subsistence ( 田头 (tiántóu): field edge, end of a field, 田角 (tiánjiǎo): farmland corner, angle of farmland, 田坎 (tiánkǎn): farmland depression, low-lying area in farmland) after handed in the 50% of the production amount to the country. (刘少奇同志生平年谱（1961年 六十三岁) 中央文献出版社) (Regulations governing Rural People's Communes) (刘少奇同志生平年谱（1961年 六十三岁) 中央文献出版社)
    1
  1563. How can everything be socialist under the definition used in this video, when TIK deliberately defined the definition of Socialism as Social ownership of means of production? 26:10
    1
  1564. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @josejaquez4100  National socialism did advocate and try to achieve social ownership of means of production. Here are the relevant quotes from the video: "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) Can you kindly elaborate on how a cup of water, as a representative of everything, can meet the requirements of advocating or trying to achieve social ownership of means of production, and thus, therefore, must be socialism under your narrative?
    1
  1565. 277 contradicts to 17:09 .Hitler formed DfA a national Union after disband those trade unions.
    1
  1566. It seems the “United Socialist American” you are describing here fit the following segment of Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism in Manifesto “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) According to Karl Marxist, USA is indeed running a (reactionary) socialist system in a capitalist country( which Karl Marx still acknowledged that is still a kind of socialism) For your other reason. 1. Not racist, not even Karl Marx and Engels were not racist. Marx wrote the “On the Jewish Question” and Engels wrote “If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of "accumulated inheritance." It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro.” in the Anti-Dühring. 2. No private ownership of capital, maybe under Marxism, but Karl Marx acknowledged Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism as Socialism in the Manifesto. 3. If Socialism can be Authoritarian, why can’t Fascism cannot be a kind of socialist just because of their Authoritarian?
    1
  1567. Why would Hitler kill bunch of usable skilled manpower in a losing war without gaining any profit would make Hitler a capitalist?
    1
  1568.  @hobbso8508  So the class of people didn’t need to be eliminated then. They can keep their job of administration in the firms. This is basically what the Nazi did. They stripped the ownership of the mean of the product of the firm owner and let them keep working for the State.
    1
  1569.  @hobbso8508  Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. (Wiki) How can private property exist without the legal designation?
    1
  1570. In practise, Maoism not only kept people in poverty, it also keep people in famine. Industrial race built machine, agriculture race produced food is just work distribution like between workers and farmers. Only when every race got what they need and not “exploited” can achieve a “thousand year Reich”. If anyone breaking the balance, “exploiting” others, under Hitler Socialism, it would only restart the shrinking market problem. Your narrative of fascist imperialist would not happened in Hitler Socialism. If it happened like Mao, Lenin and Stalin fucked up their own nation economy and created at least 2 large scale man made famine, then it must be false Socialism, as the real Socialism has never been tried.
    1
  1571.  @On_The_Piss  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.
    1
  1572.  @Truthaholokz  Stalin also failed his plan for collectivisation, and killed millions in famine, yet he is still being regarded as Socialist. Being a socialist is not about how good/bad the plan was, but about the goals and the intentions of the executor.
    1
  1573.  @zaibian7  The definition of Socialism is social ownership of mean of production. The socialise entity can be race, class or even gender. National Socialism is not Marxism but both are socialism. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    1
  1574.  @zaibian7  As 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members. They were the extension of state when the party equals to the states.
    1
  1575. Marxism is not about democracy control of means of the production, yet it is still being classified as Socialism. "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.)
    1
  1576.  @walterbailey2950  Hitler pretended to be Right to win get more voted, and scammed those shareholders and firms owner with his leftist policy after he rose to power. Here are the leftist policies like social welfare and State regulations policy implemented by the Nazi Regime. 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) 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 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.) There were boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. In no way was this a market free - it was a centrally planned economy. (Neumann, “Behemoth,” p251-254. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p52, p56-57, p59-60.) 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. (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
    1
  1577.  @walterbailey2950  Nazi was not dumb enough to eliminate completion between firms like the soviet did when they rised to power. The only parts having competition in the Nazi Economic system were between the firms. 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 workers would still have their jobs and wage.
    1
  1578. Hitler also claimed that he was both a socialist and a nationalist in his Second Book.42:24 It seems Hitler saw Socialism as an equal to Nationalism, then just nothing more than a tool to promote Nationalism.
    1
  1579.  @tg4678 Where are your proof, sources or evidence regarding your latest narrative? Debunking your baseless narrative doesn't constitute whitewashing US foreign policy or dismissing everything said by an academic. Your baseless narrative doesn’t represent or reflect any US foreign policy or any academic.
    1
  1580.  @tg4678  Your self-confidence is as remarkable as your ignorance regarding these subject matters. If what I quoted is as you said disproving my argument, you are more than welcome to use my quote provided in this YouTube comment section to prove me wrong. Suppose you are not able to use your own sources to support your narrative, which I have debunked so many times with historical sources, or not even to use the source that I provided to debunk my narrative that you claimed to be contradictory with my sources. In that case, I think our discussion is already sufficient to prove how historically inaccurate your socialist Cold War imaginary fantasy actually is.
    1
  1581.  @tg4678 Compliment or not, US admitted the genocide. Again, at worst, the US just did nothing about the genocide; they never denied and defended the genocide. Again, indeed, the US and UK supported the Khmer Rouge against Communist Vietnam. However. US or UK also supported Stalin against Nazi Germany, supported Tito against Stalin, and PRC against the USSR. Did being supported by the US or UK refuting Stalin, Tito or the PRC from being communists? I used the quote that the USSR claimed they were running a socialist society to debunk your narrative of [Soviets didn't claim they were living under socialism, but that they were on the way to it. Their arguments were why their ideas were needed to reach socialism later, but not that they were already administering a socialist state.]
    1
  1582.  @tg4678  Downplay or not, US admitted the genocide. Again, at worst, the US just did nothing about the genocide; they never denied and defended the genocide. Besides, the Cambodia bombing campaign against FUNK, which included Khmer Rouge, ended in 1973 [Bombs Over Cambodia Genocide Studies Program- Yale University], two years before the Khmer Rouge won the civil war and committed the Cambodia Genocide in 1975, which Comsky defend and denied in 1977.
    1
  1583.  @HookedonChronics  Nazi party was the most popular party in the last 2 elections, that was the govt only choices. Beside, Hitler was assassin by conservative or Wehrmacht for no fewer than 30 times
    1
  1584. It was 2 months ago
    1
  1585.  @justzephan2267 ​​⁠ Btw just saying about 100 millions people were killed under the ruling of Stalin and Mao. If you can refute Nazism from Socialism with their kill count, Marxist Leninism would also be refuted from Socialism by a large margin.
    1
  1586.  @Happycoreftw  "fixed prices do not equal socialism lol " Did you forgot what your comment was, or you just tried to take my reply out of context by removing your own comment? "Also gonna need a source on that second claim buddy" Search The Great Purge for Stalin and Red Terror for Lenin.
    1
  1587.  @localkauf  Regardless of the anti-democracy statement [quote 1] or the vague and open end statement [quote 2] that can be used to justify totalitarianism from Marx's literature, your opinion regarding the Soviet Union doesn’t justify neglecting the Soviets, not Nazi Germany, while you are comparing the ideologies of Marxism and Nazism in terms of the definition of Socialism. What Nazism, in theory, doesn’t qualify as a socialist ideology? [quote 1] "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") [quote 2] “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.")
    1
  1588.  @localkauf  What Nazism, in theory, doesn’t qualify as a socialist ideology? Btw where is your source? And I believe even subsidizing that kind of democracy with violence revolution and violent enforcement were justified under Marxist Literature. “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” (The Communist Manifesto)
    1
  1589.  @hobbso8508  What happened in reality surely have it's own marit. Just because of unable to achieve some theoretical goal of Communism or Socialism because of reality constraint, it doesn't discredit their attempt to implement Socialism.
    1
  1590.  @hobbso8508  They were still democratic before they collapsed so as Soviet Union is socialist before they collapsed.
    1
  1591.  @hobbso8508  Generating democratic, are you trolling here what does it even mean. Afghanistan was using a democratic system, it failed in practice because of reality constraints, but the system was still democratic.
    1
  1592. As long as Ford didn't fund Nazi Party for their Campaign in 1933 (which he didn't AFAIK). Ford was not activily supporting Nazi the party or the ideology. What happened before 1939 was just doing business or keeping their business in the Germany Market, what happened after 1939 was beyond Ford’s control, as Fordwerke has already been controlled by the Nazi government appointed manager. What can be sure is no matter how Ford protested, there cannot closed down the Fordwerks German factor, or stopped it using slave labor.
    1
  1593. Lenin and Stalin also eliminated the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, the Trotskyists, 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 classified as socialistic.
    1
  1594. ⁠​⁠ @directAction3389  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) Therefore, the inherent objective of Nazism is not genocide, thus cannot fit your definition of Fascism. For the accusation of genocide, sadly it only protected victims in the groups with the same nationality, ethnicity or religion, according to the United Nations Genocide Convention. Therefore sadly those mass murdering happened in most of the“Fascist countries” that established with the help with CIA cannot be classified as genocide.
    1
  1595.  @kapitanpufferfish5164  So as Marxism then, Marxism “public” also didn’t care much about the merits of liberal democracy. Marxist Leninism didn’t deviate from the OG Marxism. The origin Marxism is actually no less anti-democratic than Marxist Leninism. [quote 1] "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") [quote 2] “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.")
    1
  1596.  @kapitanpufferfish5164  Then what separate your definition of non socialists Marxist Leninism from your socialist Marxism? Both ideologies aimed for concentrating the mean of production in the state to the state, and let themselves the “communist/socialised man” to regulate all the interchange within the state
    1
  1597.  @kapitanpufferfish5164  I am not asking about your Council Communism. I am asking what separate your definition of non socialists Marxist Leninism from your socialist Origin Marxism? Both ideologies aimed for concentrating the mean of production in the state to the state, and let themselves the “communist/socialised man” to regulate all the interchange within the state.
    1
  1598. Hitler Socialism is race socialism which socialised by race instead of class like Marxist Class socialism. The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews. As communism and class socialism are the product of Karl Marx(a Jews), so he also hated them as Class socialism hate capitalist.
    1
  1599.  @shellsheridan8056  He need to do that to sustain his socialist Germany .
    1
  1600.  @saucyinnit8799  Again Hating other communist party is a very usual trait of Socialist. Soviet PRC and Vietnam all had war with or invaded other communist/socialist countries. It again cannot prove is a country or its leader capitalist or socialist.
    1
  1601.  @saucyinnit8799  But does it make Soviet Union a capitalist country?
    1
  1602.  @saucyinnit8799  Even with private own Household plot and the existence of Private Farm Markets that allowed the selling of surplus food produced from the Household plot exist within Soviet Union, does it make Soviet Union a capitalist country?
    1
  1603.  @saucyinnit8799  Sorry for the last 2 previous question, I did not changed the whole sentence.🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️You may rereply your answer if you wish. You really need to learn the socialist history. Soviet Union allow the private farming on household plot ( owning the mean of production of agricultural products). The farmer can sell those surplus produced in private farming markets
    1
  1604.  @saucyinnit8799  From the start to the end of USSR, private farm market legalised in 1971, same question does it make USSR a capitalist country?
    1
  1605. Privatisation in Nazi Germany was a 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 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.), That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224) TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
    1
  1606. You miss the part that governing party control every social group under, turning private property into governing party property, and people will be stripped from their property and/or send to concentration camp if they fail to comply party’s order. As USA didn’t reach that stage, and no governing party going for that approach in last 2 decades. It would be very hard to say that American is a socialist state which aims for social ownership of mean of production, or any president in last 2 decades were socialist that want to go for the socialist approach.
    1
  1607. It just shows that TIK’s logic , even under your illustration, is still valid under the Karl Marx’s definition of Socialism. If you don’t agree with is definition, you can just directly state “I think Karl Marx’s definition is wrong, and here is why….”. Instead of [Marx isn't the end all and be all of anything. He brought some useful ideas to the dialog.]
    1
  1608.  @caryrosenthal7485 Then where is your idea? Again if you don’t agree with Marx’s definition, you can just directly state “I think Karl Marx’s definition is wrong, and here is why….”. Instead of stating [Marx isn't the end all and be all of anything. He brought some useful ideas to the dialog.]
    1
  1609.  @caryrosenthal7485  What to address exactly? Your definition of Socialism is different from the one of Karl Marx. You cannot just start a discussion to exchange ideas by just declaring your stance. If you are really interested in exchanging ideas, you state your reasoning, instead of Sealioning this two weeks old post. Again if you don’t agree with Marx’s definition, you can just directly state “I think Karl Marx’s definition is wrong, and here is why….”. Instead of stating [Marx isn't the end all and be all of anything. He brought some useful ideas to the dialog.]
    1
  1610. ⁠​⁠ @caryrosenthal7485 Dd TIK ever defined Capitalism or even mentioned or quoted any narrative regarding Ayn Rand "objectivists," anarchocapitalists, Austrians schools of economics, and Milton Friedman monetarists in this video? Seems you are making a very big strawman and putting many words to TIK’s mouth in order to criticise the supposed position of TIK that you set up. Regarding your Comment regarding Karl Marx. It seems you are implying that you believe Karl Marx’s definition of Socialism is not relevant to the definition of Socialism anymore, because: 1. It has been 200 years; and 2. Marxism illustrated from Marx’s literatures [is not really an ideology]. Firstly, there is no necessary correlation between the age and relevance of any ideologies, but it seems this comment would be little bit redundant to your second reason. Secondly, I cannot argue with your subjective opinion, but I believe many people would disagree with your implication of “Marxism [is not really an ideology]”.
    1
  1611.  @caryrosenthal7485  He said that he was a Socialist. 40:51 Where can you find that [he has said that he was an anarchist, until he was persuaded by von Mises.] Again it seems you are making a very big strawman and putting many words to TIK’s mouth to criticise TIK’s supposed position that you set up.
    1
  1612.  @caryrosenthal7485  Your straw men are specifically 1. claiming [ TLK seems to believe that only radical capitalism is capitalism. I doubt he even really understands that. There are various flavors of radical capitalists. They are not homogeneous. You have your Ayn Rand "objectivists," anarchocapitalists, Austrians, Milton Friedman monetarists, .... ]. Where TIK mentioned none of those nor defined capitalism in this video. 2. Claiming TIK [ has said that he was an anarchist, until he was persuaded by von Mises.] . Where TIK only said that that he was a Socialist at 40:51 of this video. And Communism is just one of the Socialism. The passage I quoted from the manifesto is about how Karl Marx illustrated how his Communism different from other Socialist Ideologies.
    1
  1613. Then what are you trying to argue here? 1. You admitted that whether TIK is anarchist is irrelevant to the discussion, and 2. One cannot be both a Capitalist and a Socialist under your definition. One can be both a Capitalist and a Socialist under Karl Marx’s definition. There is no contradiction between the two statements.
    1
  1614.  @caryrosenthal7485 There is no argument, as you admitted your first argument is irrelevant. Your second argument is just expressing your own subjective definition of Socialism, which has no conflict with the Karl Marx’s definition of Socialism.
    1
  1615.  @caryrosenthal7485  You did extrapolate a whole lot of arguments regarding [TLK seems to believe that only radical capitalism is capitalism], Manicheanism, and your [very first day as an economics major], which TIK never talked about in this video, based on your st fact that you cannot even prove. If [whether he was a socialist or anything else] is irrelevant, as you said, all of your extrapolated arguments would also be irrelevant.
    1
  1616. Is youtube, you cannot mentioned H‘ “Minecraft” in the comment section.
    1
  1617.  @emilianogv2978 I am not the one claiming OP grandfather was uneducated.
    1
  1618.  @brandonmorel2658  [I can also say that Hitler was a reactionary chauvinists because of the overwhelming majority of well researched evidence that assures me of that fact: The political economy, which tells us he protected capitalism. The social policy which targets a minority group in Europe, and exterminates them; the racism, the gender chauvinism, the social Darwinism, the anti democracy and anti-egalitarianism. These things tell he was ultra conservative and reactionary in his view, which fits a Far Right person, not a supposed socialist.] Besides, [The political economy, which tells us he protected capitalism.], which I have debunked it with overwhelming majority of well researched evidence multiple time. I totally agree your statement. However those attribution also applied on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and dictators from other Communist States. And those Communist dictators and their ideologies are still being recognised as socialism. That is why under the same ultra low standard, you cannot refuted Hitler and his ideology from Socialism, yeah, we best with the reasons in your statement.
    1
  1619.  @horatiopelagius8703  Sorry I didn’t do my homework well enough, it should be more than 70% approval rating. The election were all or at least mostly Soviet Union legislative election. They have independence Candidate as opposition anyway so Communist Party has opposition in their legislative election. I can just interpret it in a Tanky way that the election accurately represents the will and approval from all the people in Soviet Union. This is the worst part of your definition, you cannot prove their mechanism was not effective respecting/representing the wishes of the community with evidence. As you use Marxist theory to definition Socialism and the unable to fit Utopian Socialism, socialism prior to Marxism, which does not have the concept of either class or democracy into your definition. The definition of Socialism you are used in the discussion is just “Marxist’s Socialism” not Socialism as a whole. Even I play in your game and let you use your socialism definition in this discussion. You are still not able to deny those Communist regimes were Socialist with your definition and need to modified it 2 times, which are: 1. “requires a democracy” 2. “requires to meet the standards of representative democracy” 3. “ must have a mechanism that the owner can express this ownership. The mechanism doesn't matter. What matters is if the mechanism works and it ensures the organisation is run in such a way as to honour the wishes of the community.” Even putting 3 different new rules into you definition, your definition still being torn apart by Cold War Tankies mindsets. You need to do much better than that. I surely know the definition of Socialist in YOUR mind didn’t change at all. The definition should be 1. The entity that is operate in socialism that cooperated with Marxist class theory. 2. This bloodshed Communist regimes that is based on Marxism doesn’t count. The problem is your are unable to make a definition of Socialism good enough that can exclude those Communist regimes without stating it out loud while minimising the distortion to the original definition of Socialist under Marxist class theory.
    1
  1620.  @skummelkatt  2/ The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
    1
  1621.  @josemariapena4226  The argument does not work that way. This is not whataboutism. This is a logic gate. If you say Nazi is not socialist because they did something, but a communist country did the same thing and still being considered as socialist. Then that thing cannot necessarily prove that Nazi German was not practicing Socialism.
    1
  1622. ​ @ariali9831  He also used : Turner to support "the myth persists that capitalists brought Hitler to power, despite the fact that the evidence quite simply doesn’t support it." and "most of this support went to individual Nazis rather than the Party itself"; Temin to support Germany just like USSR "reorganised industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity"; and Jeffreys, Evans and, Turner to support the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was a grassroots organisation that financed itself from donations and selling tickets to Hitler’s speeches. Robert Gellately also has recently published a book called “Hitler’s True Believers” which strongly argues that historians (all in academia, which is heavily funded by the State, and thus biassed) have completely ignored the socialism inherent with National Socialism.
    1
  1623.  @poncholarpez6233  Where is the socialism part in your system?
    1
  1624.  @poncholarpez6233  Liberalism and authoritarianism are the up and down of the Political spectrum
    1
  1625.  @poncholarpez6233  Left Right is to describe economically concept, but I believe it would be hideous to hear Some Left Up wing Group is doing something something from News Reports. So they just generalised it with the closest economical policy they can relate to or set them as the opposite of the enemy they claimed to oppose. But in here I need to state again Fascism is a left wing authoritarian ideology, they use a blob of syndicate (union) to ensure the profit from the upper class would channel to the lower class, and emphasise nationalism for protectionism for the local business and the workers it hired. So somehow Trump which had a more protectionism approach policy under a social democratic government is a fascist like approach but it is a left wing policy. But he also veto the Obamacare which is a right wing approach. But the democrats did it in reverse so both parties have some left and right policies. So both of them are actually political central parties. They just like two sides of a hacksaw puzzle. Their left and right just mean pro democrats or pro republicans.
    1
  1626.  @zenastronomy  Nation can be a product of ruling and enforcement of ruling. USSR was an International with 15 Republics, it was an union of nations, but USSR utilised Nationalism to legitimise its ruling since day one. If I claim human female(internationalist) is a kind of human(nationalist), it doesn't mean all human (nationalist) including Hitler is human female (internationalist).
    1
  1627. ⁠ @zenastronomy  Lol you are the one who said: "2. yes they (Marxist) do get to define what socialism is. it's their movement. You don't have a monopoly on what socialism is. What you say is irrelevant. What the entire world defines as socialism is more important, than your stupid definition. " When Karl Marx’s definition of Socialism is not in your favour, you said it is 140 years too old?
    1
  1628.  @zenpapyrus  Fire Decree, Bank Act of 1934, Corporate law of 1937 were actual law and historical documents. There is no lie there. It seems being unable to tell the difference between a government system and an ideology would be considered more idiotic. Hitler was a Socialist because he self-proclaimed he was, and he tried and failed to achieved his Socialistic Goal, the Aryan paradise, (9:48 38:06) with his Socialistic mean (the whole video).
    1
  1629. What a tragedy of mankind, just like those being genocide by Communist Regimes.
    1
  1630.  @nicknolte8671  Yeah right, Nazism is so about laissez-faire capitalism that 1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf. 2. Hitler attempted to organize the economy (26:29) centrally and increase the social welfare 11:27, workers had fixed wages, “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (17:15, 17:31), and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi member. 3. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialized entity, the race (32:44), instead of industrializing Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic for the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism (37:47). 4. Hitler want to solve the solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” through agriculturalise the Lebensraum, to create a constants regulated supply and demand between the Reich for the industrial products and Lebensraum for the agricultural products (34:48)
    1
  1631.  @andyknowles772  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 the State (10:15) (11:27) and to workers by DAF (17:15, 17:31). 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)
    1
  1632.  @andyknowles772  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 How can you tell the “profit” of the firm and the firm itself were the private property of those industrialist right before the Nazi regime ended. The private ownership of those firms of those Industrialists were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime. On the other hands, Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream) It was not the Nazis who gave the postwar owners private ownership. It was the West German Government.
    1
  1633.  @andyknowles772  The surplus product of IG Farbben and Krupps was appropriated to the workers in following ways. "Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.) "The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)." "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) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
    1
  1634. 25:29
    1
  1635.  @kimobrien.  Communists will keep running the nation until the state fades away. I don’t know how it could happen, but until then, the Communists would run the state indefinitely. The whole Marxist Socialist System is also based on nation states (nation and state were interchangeable in 1800s English, at least Karl Marx used it interchangeably in the Manifesto) “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. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
    1
  1636. 285 contradicted to the reference in 17:17 .
    1
  1637.  @toaster2428  Seems you missed the part that he showed Nazi Germany also took down Big Business of Aryan like Professor Junker 4:20 and Fritz Thyssen 20:55, and the fact that the economic relations between firms and the workers were heavily regulated by the Nazis through the DAF(9:17 ,17:25).
    1
  1638. ​ @LactoseTheeIntolerant  When I said [If you are using that definition, it will be always bourgeoisie owns the mean of production. as bourgeoisie is defined as the class who own the mean of production. It is impossible for the proletarian to own mean of production, as once all proletarian individuals owns any amount of mean of production, they will become bourgeois by definition. Then the proletariat owns the mean of production will instantly become the bourgeois own the mean of production. By such definition, class ownerships of mean of production would just guarantee pure capitalism, as every means of production is belonged to individuals and no one is without mean of production.] I never mentioned anything about PERSONAL property. , what I said there was just PRIVATE property. Where is the PRIVATE property came from. [as for calling children the new proletariat in this situation… really? [ You are either not counting children as human, or you neglected the existence of child labour. And class in Marxism is defined by the ownership of “private property”. Children, the retired and full time family taker all had none of that as they don't work in firm. By that definition they are the proletariat. Your definition of “private property” is also wrong, it is just property that can make money. No need to make money off of the labor of other people under them who don’t own the means of production. As if using your definition there will be no petite bourgeoisie, a term which Karl Marx used. It bring to another point, I never said proletariat seizing the means of production contradicted itself, I said the concept of collective ownership would empower every worker and abolishing private ownership, as the entitiment of that power is come from the worker's private ownership of his firm share. Nope you are the one who accounting power not the catalogize of class. You are the one who asked "Again, how can you eliminate class without eliminating a power differential? " If you agreed power is not accounted into catalogize of class. In that case, you agree State ownership of the means of production is also a kind of Socialism, which you previously disagreed, as you believe cless difference was also caused by power difference.
    1
  1639.  @LactoseTheeIntolerant  About the definition of the Proletariat The definition I used here is the definition you previously made. [Private ownership itself is a class. The owner class is called the bourgeoisie. You can't be a bourgeoisie and not individually own private property, and vise versa.] [Proletariat means people who don't own private property. ] ______________________________ About the definition of Private property "Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labor and the external conditions of labor belong to private individuals." Here it is, the definition of private property from Karl Marx. No need to "make money off of the labor of other people under them who don't own the means of production" as you previously suggested. The private property you were implying is capitalistic private property, not just private property. ______________________________ [The central theme of Marxism is abolition of exploitation of workers by buisness owners. Capital, is the money which makes ownership of the means of production possible. Under capitalism, if I buy a business and pay people to work there, I am entitled to all profits produced thereby. Marx sees this as an injustice and an unsustainable social model. ] The central theme of Marxism is the abolition of the exploitation of workers by business owners through transferring the ownership of the mean of production from the business owners to the State. The socialized man, the associated producers, would rationally regulate the economy. Socialized man, not a democratic elected man. ______________________________ [Again, this makes no sense when we are talking about Marxist theory and definitions. For the hundredth time, collective ownership is no a bunch of private owners, lol. ] You are right. Under Marxism, collective ownership doesn't necessarily mean the worker of the firm would have the right to make decisions. As in Das Kapital, Karl Marx suggested: "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.) But if we are talking about your definition of collective ownership, which requires workers, [Having some amount of control is literally the founding principles of socialism. Without it, your labor is being exploited by someone else and their interests. Without it, there is likely a class system. ] The private ownership of that share of the collective firm that the firm workers are working for is required, as the share is the thing that entitles the workers' rights and profit share within that company. ______________________________ [You are misunderstanding me. You interpret and speak in very black and white ways. Just because there can be a relation between power and class doesn't mean they are synonymous with each other. I never claimed that eliminating this specific type of class would eliminate all power ever. I was speaking about the power differential of being an owner of private property and being forced to sell your labor. That's it. That doesn't mean that ALL power differentials are eliminated. Like I'm not arguing that socially someone can't be more "powerful", lol. I'm saying labor exploitation can't exist. I'm not arguing like Tom Cruise can't exist as socially "powerful". Or that a physician can't be valued by the collective as more necessary, thus have more "power" to gain wealth.] So you agreed that Marxist State socialism is socialism then, as classes only classified by wealth difference are eliminated, there is no class difference, and the State owns everything. Both Nazism and Marxist-Leninism were socialism under the Marxist definition. If you still do not consider Marxism as Socialism, why are you still bothered to discuss about Marxism?
    1
  1640.  @hobbso8508  Nazi literally own the property by the constitution though abolishing the private ownership right in 1933. It seems what your definition of Socialism is not base on any objective definition, but just your subjective liking.
    1
  1641. The definition of Socialism TIK used in the Nazi Socialism video was an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production” 25:40
    1