Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "“But Hitler Crushed the Trade Unions!”" video.

The historical consensus to not cross check the history between Nazi Germany and Communist Countries?
7
Just as Soviet Russia did to their trade union in theory and in practise. If you consider Soviet Russia was a socialist country, the point you are stating would not be a valid point to oppose the theory that Germany was a socialist country in that time period.
3
DAF was just as subordinated to an authoritarian government as the ACCTU to Soviet Union. What makes this a representation of the Capitalist nature of Nazi Germany while a representation of the Socialist nature of the USSR?
3
Is the concept and the try implementation of VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT ideological socialistic enough? “The Nazis’ racist teachings have been read solely as encouragement for hatred, violence, and murder, but for millions of Germans their appeal lay in the promise of real equality within the ethnic community. Externally, Nazi ideology emphasised differences; internally, it smoothed them over. Hitler demanded “the highest degree of social solidarity and maximum educational opportunities for every member of the German race; toward others, however, [we assume] the standpoint of the absolute master." For all those who legally belonged to the German racial community about 95 percent of the population- social divides became ever smaller. For many people, the regime's aim of leveling out class distinctions was realized in the Hitler Youth, the National Labor Service, the major party organizations, and ultimately even in the Wehrmacht. The Nazis fondness for uniforms is today seen as a manifestation of its militarism. But uniforms, whether worn by schoolchildren or Boy Scouts or sports teams, are also a way of obscuring differences between the well-off and their less fortunate peers. The goal of reducing class differences also motivated the Nazis to launch, between 1939 and 1942, a series of increasingly ambitious plans to settle Germans in Eastern Europe. Designed to give Germans more living space, greater access to natural resources, and better opportunities for self-advancement, the most extreme proposal envisioned forcibly relocating 50 million Slavs to Siberia. (For years, the German Research Foundation also supported the development of technocratic plans for the slaughter of millions of people. Funds for research in this area were still allocated in the Nazis final budget for the fiscal year 1945-46.)“  (Aly, "Hitler’s Beneficiaries," P30.)
2
I think the point is the double standard of Historian on socialist policies implemented by Germany then and other places now. As socialist policies would always reduce the worker’s income on paper for both cases. Historian cannot just claim the those socialist policies are “capitalist” when Germany in that time periods were implementing them, while claiming those are socialist policies when other countries implementing them. Look at that point in a positive view, hypothetically, people living under a country with economic policy similar to that of Germany from 1933-1939 would very likely enjoy those benefits of socialism policies you are mentioning during corona.
2
@Nico165 The video didn’t suggest Hitler had not crushed the Union right of Worker. The video suggested Hitler did not crush the Unions to appease the German capitalist, he did that to consolidate the control to the German economy. Hitler definitely did crush the individual right of unionisation for worker and weakened the power of industrialist.
2
Just like Soviet Union did to those trade unions, yet USSR was still being regarded as Socialist State.
2
@chrismills980 No they were not, independent trade unions and Syndicalism in USSR was banned since 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party, and all of the trade unions operating in USSR were branch-specific unions affiliated with ВЦСПС (Pan-Union Central Council of Trade Unions) that was closely controlled by the Communist Party. That was basically what Nazi did with Daf.
2
It seems DAF do not need to use collective bargaining or strike to achieve anything. It seems like unlike Soviet Russia that control the means of production by removing the upper class, DAF control the means of production by intimidating and extorting (mafia mean as the World War II channel said) the upper class.
2
@michelbuckley5532 War itself can also be the mean to expand Socialism just like Soviet did since it birth from Ukraine, Poland, Estonia to Finland. Practising war economy/command economy, is not a necessary factor in determining is one country practising capitalism or socialism. The point you are using to deny the Socialist merit of DAF can also apply to the Communist Party of Soviet Union. Russian war effort also had disrupted by strikes and revolts and, as many thought at the time, had led to Russia's defeat in WWI. Thus, Soviet Russian learn the lesson. Soviet Russian also used war to expand its socialism since it birth from Ukraine, Poland, Estonia to Finland before World War II. Used large portion of National expenditure preparing the next war during the Cold War period (more portion of GDP than Germany used in rearming in 1935-1938) And, Communist Party of Soviet Union also used propaganda to "diverting the attention of the masses from material to moral values." because "it is more important to feed the souls of men than their stomachs”. If Practising war economy/command economy, is a necessary factor in determining is one country practising capitalism or socialism. Did the Communist Party of Soviet Union was also aimed at keeping things quiet on the home front? Hence, therefore Communist Party of Soviet Union was a capitalist entity?
2
@michelbuckley5532 NS = National Social C= Commun M = Marx S= Social I will put ist or ism to those short form to present XXism or XXist Generally NSism is not socialise though class but race, and without emphasising the redistribution property. NSist was a more preferable choice for middle class than Cist. As there is no class, struggle theory. Upper class wasnot be portrayed as the enemy of the State (in the context of Dictatorship of the proletariat) and able to joint the “Community” just by handing over the mean of production to the state, not their property as in Cist countries. As the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system is just social ownership of the means of production. It can take the form of community ownership, state ownership, common ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, and citizen ownership of equity. (According to wiki) Mist Class theory is not a necessary part in the definition of Sism. Therefore, NSist can still consider as Sist, because all those decisive point didn’t change the fact that all the mean of production was in Social ownership. Your 1 and 2 point was quite contradicting, while saying there is no relationship between Sism and NSism, while saying NS is a reactionary of Mist( which is a part of Sism). Anyway, although Mism can be the base of NSism, and NSism cannot fit the criteria of Mism . It can still under the definition of Sism as long as the society(state) own the mean of production. 1 NSism is about race and Mism is about class. Class struggling let Germany lost the war (race struggles) at least how they look at it, NSist must hate Cist. But hating each other doesn’t mean they cannot be the two side of same coin. Btw the context of the video is the Hitler and his party in 1933-1939. 2 NSDAP was just like a patriotic party which promoting social welfare and hate communists. If you said NSDAP tricked German people, they tricked them in to Sism. This part should be the most important lesson of democratic history, some time the enemy of the devil is another devil. 3 Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft were all NSDAP members, in other word the extension of the Nazi Regime. That logic maybe seems ridiculous using Mist standards. While in Mist, Sism socialise by worker/proletariat and turned the mean of production to the society(state). For NSism socialise by race that could include different class like capitalist, onces they turned the mean of production to the society (state), which eventually they did, all produced under the quota government gave, they can still own the factory. The base definition of Sism is about the socialisation of mean of production instead of the redistribution/nationalisation of property itself therefore in name those capitalist can still owned the property but not the mean of production.
2
@michelbuckley5532 Karl Marx is antisemitic too, anyway 1. “National Socialism” is not “Communism” but they are all under the main set of “Socialism”. National Socialism don’t need to like Communist to be Socialist, hell even Communist countries often invaded each other. Did they suddenly become Capitalist countries? 2. Trick is one theory historian explains why Nazi rises to power. 3. They don’t necessarily be a party member as long as they don’t control any mean of production (actually controlling the production of factory)(not ownership) as either a party member or government official. Socialism did not necessarily require the elimination of upper class that is things in Marxism. It should be Marxism not Socialism that is mutual exclusive with negative capitalist adjectives in the same sentence. They are socialists as they centralist Germany Supply and Demand Chain into state ownership—- Social(Ownership) Ownership of mean of Production. The definition of general socialists is just that. You don’t need to be supported by worker to be Socialist. (Despite, they also did supported by workers)
2
Are you suggesting that Capitalism has existed for thousands of years even under Marxist historiography?
2
1. TIK didn’t imply welfare state is a gateway drug to genocide. Beside Nazi Party did way more then just welfare state. 2. Everything about Daf TIK mentioned here happened even before the start of WWII 3. Nazi abolished the right of private property since 1933 4. That is just red herring, TIK didn’t imply welfare state lead to war and genocide, he just debunking the misconception of German worker then was being exploited by the Nazi by showing living quality of Nazi German worker was better than UK now.
1