General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Historia, Magistra Vitae
OverSimplified
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "OverSimplified" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

@commiechar "No they were not. " Wrong. They were. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
4
@commiechar "Nationalization of some industries does not constitute socialism. " True. However Nazis nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called their nationalization as "Gleichschaltung".
4
@commiechar "Besides the fact that the means of production were kept firmly in the ruling class’s grasp, " Wrong. The means of production was controlled by the government, which also decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. They had a centralized and planned economy, also known as a Command economy.
4
@commiechar "Hitler also admitted that they were not socialist, and were instead fascist. " Wrong. Hitler has never said such a thing. Hitler always said they were National Socialists, and he, Goebbels and Mussolini have strictly and explicitly said, that National Socialism and Fascism are two fundamentally different ideologies.
4
@commiechar " He also, yknow, killed socialists and communists." So did both Lenin and Stalin during their revolution. Your point being?
3
@commiechar "Thinking they were socialist because they had the word “socialist” in their name is ridiculous." They had such name only to signify what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. They were socialists because they had a socialist economic system. Duh.
3
@joshuawillis602 "It’s far right. " Wrong. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on ethnonationalism.
2
@mobiletaskforceepsilon1172 : Wrong. Fasc ism was a to tal itar ian fa r-lef t, soci alist ideology, an outgrowth of Sorel lian Syndic alism, which itself was an outgrowth from M arxist socia lism.
2
@koel66 "Hitler was authoritarian and right wing" Wrong. He was a totalitarian, and far-left socialist.
2
@vwgames49 : They have nothing to do with far right whatsoever. Her party is on the center, leaning to the right.
2
@joshuawillis602 : Wrong. Nazism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on ethnonationalism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind.
2
@deckire "which isn't actual Socia lism, " Wrong, it was. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soc ialist.
2
@deckire "which soci alists actu ally kinda ha te. " Wrong. They do not. Jos eph St alin wo uld like to have a wo rd with you.
2
@deckire "As such Faci sm and Nazi sm, are High Autho ritarian / Tota litarian Capitalis tic Govern ments which would make them Far Right. " Wrong. Both fascism and nazism were totalitarian far-left, socialist ideologies which opposed capit alism. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gov ernment. Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the governm ent. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
2
@dariusiii7832 : The reason why they had such a name, was because they were advocating for soci alism. It wasn't a secret. "But we Natio nal Soc ialists wish precisely to attr act all soci alists, even the Comm unists; we wish to win them over from their inter national camp to the nati onal one.“ — Ado lf Hitl er
2
Both Nazis and "neo-nazis" are far-left socialists. Neither have anything to do with right wing of any kind.
2
@vwgames49 "The Nazis rejected the concept of class conflict, which is the concept every leftist belief is based on" You have indeed proven that National Socialism is not Marxism.
2
@vwgames49 "It wasn’t until recently that right wingers have tried to portray them as leftists" Wrong. Nothing to do with some random right wing amuricans. Hitler himself has said since the early 1920s, that they are socialists and advocate for socialism.
2
@joshuawillis602 "Communism is left wing and fascism is right wing." Wrong. Communism is extreme left while Fascism is far-left.
2
@joshuawillis602 "Simple research on the subject of right and left wing will tell you that fascism is right wing by definition" Wrong. Fascism was far-left by definition, as it was a socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. Fascism, as created by Giovanni Gentile, comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. Fascism is "Communism without the lie" of a Utopia.
2
@nimdaqa "Na zi Germany privati zed most industries ... they privatized public services," Wrong. Privatization was not a thing in N azi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most of the industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Na zi Party. They called this "Gleichschaltung". "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socia lisation, or what is known here as socialis m. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Ad olf Hit ler, H itler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
@nimdaqa "Ad olf Hit ler was the very definition of capit alism: greedy, unfeeling, and evil." Wrong. Hitl er had nothing to do with capital ism whatsoever. On the contrary, he despised capita lism since according to him, it was a "Jew ish ploy". You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a social ist. That's what made Hitl er a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a sociali st leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hit ler outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soci alism from the rest of the Mar xist crowd.
1
@chrisberrios5857 "No, they were extre me rig ht. Commu nists are extre me le ft. " Wrong. Nazis m was a tota litarian f ar-le ft, soci alist ideol ogy. It was right from mar xism, not "righ t wi ng" or "ext reme" by any means.
1
@nimdaqa "The Hitle rites privat ized most industries, ... they priva tized public services"_ Wrong. Privatization was not a thing in N azi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most of the industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Na zi Party. They called this "Gleichschaltung". "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socia lisation, or what is known here as socialis m. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Ad olf Hit ler, H itler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, pub lished in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
@nimdaqa "Ad olf Hit ler was the very defin ition of capit alism: greedy, unfe eling, and evil." Wrong. Hitl er had nothing to do with cap ital ism whatsoever. On the contrary, he despised capita lism since according to him, it was a "Jew ish ploy". You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a social ist. That's what made Hitl er a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a sociali st leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hit ler outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soci alism from the rest of the Mar xist crowd.
1
@v-corps "Fasci sm is the total opposite of Communism. Hitl er was a Capi talist." Wrong. Fas cism and communism are opposites when it comes to how soc ialism should be implemented. When it comes to Hit ler, he opposed capita lism and was a devout sociali st. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soci alist. That's what made Hitl er a socia list. He may have been right of the Bolshe viks, but he was still a socia list leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hi tler outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socia lism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@BanCommies_Fascists "They're literally opposite of each other." Wrong. They are next to each other.
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 "He redefined socialism as just some vague kind of nationalism to take votes away from the KPD and SPD." Wrong. There was no redefining of any kind. He was only adamant that socialism could be properly done only within a nation and race. "Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one's fellow man's sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism. " "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 "Socialism’s core is ending private ownership of the means of production (often called “private property” in socialist thought, separate from “personal property”). To say “Socialism is not ending private enterprise” is like saying “Socialism is not socialism”." Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) own/control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership/control of the means of production. Nazis had the latter.
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 "private individuals don't own the means of production, workers do. " That is Marxism, not Socialism per se.
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 "the word "privatization" was even coined to describe Nazi policies" Wrong. It was coined by some random journalist in "the Economist" magazine. Nothing to do with Nazis. There was no privatization of any kind in Nazi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung".
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 "Several institutions were privatized, because as Hitler said in the quote before "True Socialism is not [anti-private property]"." Nothing was privatized. Everything was nationalized. Hitler and the Nazis ended up abolishing private property rights via Reichstag fire decree on Feb. 28, 1933. Also Hitler was of the opinion that the State should control property anyways. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Adolf Hitler, Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 "Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, Socialism is an economic system." Correct, however Marxism is just one of the many socialist ideologies. Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) own/control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership/control of the means of production. Nazis had the latter.
1
@idkwhatnametochoose6197 : Almost none of those companies were privatized. They were nationalized. Deutsche Reichsbahn especially during 1937 when it was renamed for that in the first place. As stated in the Wiki: " In 1937 the railway was reorganised again as a state authority and given the name Deutsche Reichsbahn ("German Imperial Railway", DRB). "
1
@v-corps "Na zis are far rig ht." Wrong. Nazi sm was a totali tarian f ar-lef t, sociali st ideology based on ethnonat ionalism.
1
@v-corps "infact they st ate capita lists." Wrong. There is no such thing as "st ate capita lism", it's an ox ym oro n by itself. Also the na zis were socia lists, since the state controlled the means of production.
1
@deckire "this is not actual Socia lism. " Wrong. It was. You cannot be an advoc ate for centra lized planning and strong govern ment controls without being a socia list.
1
@deckire "which is sorta look ed down on by soci alists." Wrong. It is not. Jos eph St alin wo uld like to h ave a wo rd with you.
1
@watching7721 "Fasci sm is extre me righ t " Wrong. Fascis m was a totalita rian f ar-lef t, socia list ideology base d on natio nal syndic alism. It wa s righ t from mar xism, not "extr eme" nor "rig ht".
1
@watching7721 "Plus, Na zis were only socia list in name." Wrong. They had a centralized government with a centr alized and planned economy, where government controlled the means of production and also decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. It was text book socia lism 101.
1
@deckire "While Fasci sm and Nazi sm has a high control over the economy, they do not own the produ ction of it," Wrong. They did. You could not produce anything without the permission of the Government and you could not get workers without the per mission of the DAF (in naz ism) and you could not even get any raw materials without the permission of the Government. In both nazi sm and fasci sm, the Government controlled the means of production.
1
@deckire "This is different from Social ism which the Govern ments have full control of Resour ces and productions, with no privati zation and equalizing profits to the people." In both nazi sm and fasci sm the Government did have full control over the resources and therefore the production, there was no privatization but mass nationalization and "equalization of profits to the people" is only relevant in marxism, while in na zism and fasci sm the profits were sen to the Government.
1
@deckire "the more correct term is that it was a Planned Capata list Economy." There is no such thing and such a term is an ox ym oro n by itself. Planne d eco nomy is the polar opposite of market economies. They cannot co-exist.
1
@deckire "so that they can keep Capati sm running." Wrong. There was no capital ism. What you mean to say, is that they can keep the Gover nment i.e. Sta te running. Fas cism advoc ated for stati sm and unity within the state after all. Collectivism.
1
@deckire "Fasc ism and Nazis m is not about about forming Socia lism like you would see in Com munism," Nobody is arguing that fas cism and na zism tried to achieve com munism. On the contrary, they wanted to use socia lism as the stepping stone to form an ultimate State.
1
@deckire " but instead maintain and preserving Cap italism." Ne ither fasci sm nor nazism had a ca pitalist eco nomy. Again, both of them were based on social ism.
1
@deckire "as there was a high amo unt of Pri vate Corpart ations,, " Wrong. Most of the industry in both fasci sm and nazi sm were nation alized and control led by the ruling party app aratus. In the case of na zism, they reorganized all indust ries into corpor ations run by mem bers of the na zi Party.
1
Nope.
1
@joshuawillis602 "fascism was factually right wing." Wrong. Fascism was far-left by definition, as it was a socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. Fascism, as created by Giovanni Gentile, comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. Fascism is "Communism without the lie" of a Utopia.
1
@Rum-Runner "Soci alist in name only." Wrong. They were advocating for socialism on a national level hence the name in the first place.
1

Previous
1
Next
...
All