Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Conservatives Have The Worst Arguments Against Socialism (Debunking Oxford Speaker's Rambling)" video.

@RextheRebel : Wrong. They did no such thing, and their whole party was socialist. There was no "socialist faction". The Night of the Long Knives was only about the internal power struggle between Hitler, Röhm and the German army leadership. Nothing to do with socialists nor socialism whatsoever. SA leaders held ambitions to replace the officer corps of the Reichswehr and the professional army with a “People’s Army.” Such a goal became a threat to the Nazi regime itself. Army leaders responded by demanding the elimination of the SA as a condition for permitting the Nazi government to remain in power. Eliminating the SA cemented an alliance between Hitler and the German army leadership. In return for Hitler purging the SA and prioritizing the needs of the professional army, military leaders supported Hitler in August 1934 when he took the last key step toward full dictatorial control.
4
It's not a matter of thinking. By definition they were socialists. It's a historical fact, hun.
3
It was socialism by definition, and North Korea is certainly more democratic than other socialist countries... at least they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place, while neither are a thing in places like Cuba for example.
3
... or that ANTIFA is about Anti-Fascism. Oh wait.
2
Fascism indeed was a socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism, also yes, Liberalism opposes every kind of socialism and big government in general as formulated by John Locke, the sole purpose of the government was merely to protect people's lives, liberty and property. Fascism also explicitly says they oppose Liberalism in their "Doctrine of Fascism".
2
@TheBigWall3284 : True, however it wasn't about the name. It was about their socialist Command economy.
2
@redacted3740 "no it's not, the only socialist thing about them was their name." Wrong. 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.
2
@redacted3740 "They broke up trade unions, destroyed workers rights " Every socialist regime did, however when it comes to the Nazis, they nationalized and merged them into one single nation wide super union known as the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front). The DAF created a single overarching labor union. Essentially all German workers and employees in every economic sector belonged to the DAF. For example, farmers were coordinated into the Reich Food Estate. While traditional unions prioritized workers’ rights, the DAF emphasized national economic goals above personal well-being.
2
@redacted3740 "and sent both socialists and communists to concentration camps. " Every socialist regime did this also. Ever heard of the October Revolution? Gulags?
2
@DarrenSmith-j8m : Already have, and here are some suggestions. - "Mein Kampf" by Hitler - "Hitler's National Socialism" by Rainer Zitelmann - "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann - "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War" by Ludwig Von Mises - "Hitler's True Believers" by Robert Gellately - "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" by Leonard Peikoff
2
@theburgerboy5936 "One of the first acts of the Nazis in 1933 was to sell nearly every single state-enterprise in Germany to capitalists" Wrong. They did no such thing and they sold nothing. On the contrary, they first thing they did was mass nationalization of the German industry, and later they reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education. "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.,
2
@theburgerboy5936 "and the official stance of the Nazi party on private property was that enterprise should be in private hands wherever possible." Wrong. Even in Hitler's table talks on September 3, 1942, he said that land was “national property, and in the end only given to the individual as a loan.” Hitler only recognized private ownership insofar as it was used according to the principle “common benefit ahead of private benefit,” which means that if it was necessary in the common interest, the state had the right at all times to decide the way, the extent to which, and when private ownership was used, and the common interest was, of course, defined by the state. Not to mention, that private property rights were abolished via Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933.
2
@theburgerboy5936 "You also completely ignored the fact that the Nazis still privatized nearly all state-enterprise the same year they took power, " Again, they didn't. They privatized nothing and it wasn't a thing in Nazi Germany. There was only mass nationalization and bringing business under NSDAP control in accordance with the "Gleichschaltung" - principle. Good example of this is the Deutsche Reichsbahn, which specifically was a private business before 1933, but got fully nationalized during 1937.
2
@theburgerboy5936 "and were later privatized between 1935 and 1937." Wrong. They weren't. NSDAP sold some stock related to the banks, yet they still remained under State control.
2
@theburgerboy5936 "Which is consistent with that policy, state-enterprise was kept to a minimum and only used when absolutely necessary, and when it wasn't, it was privatized." Wrong. National Socialism was all about state control over every aspect of people's lives, including businesses. This was also reported by the Time magazine back in the day. "Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
2
@theburgerboy5936 " but it by no means entirely abolished private property. The wider German population were still able to own private property as long as they complied with the Nazi Regime." Both Article 115 and Article 153 were suspended. Obviously, they did not confiscate everyone's property. Yet all property in any given time could be confiscated by the state and a certain amount was. Industry was divided into 13 sectors and placed under the control of the state. However there was no private property ownership anymore, by definition. When the government has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own property. You are merely a manager of government property, and merely so long as the government state permits it.
2
@something1600 "The Nazis did nothing but protect private property and capitalism" Wrong. Private property rights were specifically abolished with the Reichstag fire decree, and they never had Capitalism to begin with. They had a centralized and planned economy almost identical to the USSR under Stalin, not to mention, Hitler specifically admired the Soviet central planning.
1
@something1600 "why would the capitalist fund the Nazis if the Nazis were going to seize the means of production." The fact that some capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Marxism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Marxists. Capitalists don't like to be killed any more than other people do.
1
@DarrenSmith-j8m "nazis were not socialist" Wrong. By definition 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.
1
@DarrenSmith-j8m " and gulags were just prisons with forced labour" Designed specifically for rival socialists. Mensheviks and Trotskyists comes to mind.
1
@DarrenSmith-j8m : Every socialist regime killed their political rivals i.e. other socialists and broke up independent unions. Mussolini however, nationalized and transformed them into syndicates. Also Mussolini never said such a thing about markets. Fascism had a Command economy via Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1