Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Where did you get that definition from? You seem to have changed the definition in some way even if it is pretty much correct. Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Dictionary say:
"Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
"a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries"
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism?q=Socialism
When we talk about the public we are often talking about the government. But we only do so because the government is the representation of the people as a whole. What belongs to everyone belong to the government.
Just like what TIK said before. A community is a nation. A community is a society. A government is a community of people. When everything is owned or controlled by the government, it is owned and controlled by the community. That is also what Hitler implemented as he created a totalitarian regime.
You asked for where does his ideal sync up with the definition. I will show you that but first I must point out something.
"since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?"
- What is said here is WHAT IS COMMONLY ACCREDITED TO SOCIALISM. This does not say "but your party is the very anthesis to Socialism". If the Marxists and the communists have been allowed to set the standard for what "Socialism" means, you have inherently a tainted definition. This is why Socialism and Communism was basically synonyms before. For what isn't communism but socialism since it strive to do everything Socialism wants? Socialism was not invented by Karl Marx. It date back to Plato and the Book Utopia describe a Socialistic world. So why should someone else not be allowed to define what Socialism means outside of the Marxist or Communists political world view?
But here is where they sync.
"Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal."
- He make the claim that their German ancestors worked collectively for the common good, the good of everyone in the community.
"Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property."
- Here he makes an attack on Marxism which has defined a lot of the views on Socialism. Socialism was a concept that date back to Plato. While the Marxists view is that no one should even associated with the idea of private property. Hitler correctly points out that Socialism never actually require people from not even be associated with private property. No one is going to lay public claim to your tooth brush for example. I also need to point out that no ideology have ever tried to implement every single point. It should be impossible just like pure capitalism is impossible.
"Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
- A lot of communistic ideals attacked the very idea of personality. That someone might say "I am British" or "I am American". Communism at the time was international. It tried to unify the world (Workers of the world Unite) and so tried to erase the ideas of nations and national belonging. Where everyone belonged to a great collective. Where everything was ours. It is not meme for nothing you know. Artists that were depressed and felt lonely were attacked because "how can you feel lonely when you belong to a collective of millions?", the only reason is if you didn't belong to the collective. Hitler wanted a socialism that focused on the nation, the German community and not the international community.
"We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…"
- This is just spelling it out in the clear. He was a nationalist and not a internationalist. You might see this as a nation within the EU wanting to protect their nation from outside EU interference. Or how a state in the US wants to prevent federal overreach. He was focused on the community, the community that belonged to the territory called Germany. He also see the community as a racially homogenize community. Treat race like a social class. Just like the Socialists do not want the wealthy and the rich because they exploit the common workers, Hitler did not want some races because he thought they are the rich and wealthy that exploit the common workers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andyknowles772 "Then how come it can be traded and owned?"
- Pay attention. I know this is hard, but you are clearly willing to lie.
A share is a CLAIM of ownership.
You can trade your claim of ownership, but it isn't actually a physical thing you can touch. Just like an agreement is not actually a physical thing. You can not touch an agreement. You can touch a piece of paper where the agreement is written down on, but that piece of paper is NOT the agreement. That piece of paper is a piece of paper. The agreement is a abstract concept, just like a share (claim of ownership) is an abstract concept.
"No, that would be you. Here is your claim again:
"If something has shared ownership it is by definition not private""
- That is not being dishonest. That is the literal definition of it in both legal and dictionary contexts.
You however keep ignoring what is said and make up false equivocations. Just like how you ignored that "shares are a claim of ownership" in your previous point.
"So if a couple own a house, it is not privately owned by your definition."
- That is actually correct. It isn't publicly owned, but it isn't private anymore. It is a share property. It does no longer belong to just one individual, which make it not private.
"Find the dictionary definition that defines public as the opposite of individual."
- Fine.
Dictionary(dot)com
1. of, relating to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole
2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole
3. the people constituting a community, state, or nation
4. a particular group of people with a common interest, aim, etc.
Cambridge Dictionary
1. public adjective (PEOPLE)
B2: relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people
2. public adjective (GOVERNMENT)
B1: provided by the government from taxes to be available to everyone
3. public adjective (PLACE)
B1 A public place is one where a lot of people are
4. public noun all ordinary people
Marriam-Webster
1. exposed to general view : open
2. of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state
3. of or relating to people in general : universal
4. of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
As you can see. All dictionaries agree in agreement. Public is a word that is used for the concept of People. As in a group of people. It is ALWAYS defined as a group of people. You can not say that a group of people are not a group. Individual is ALWAYS when we talk about one person and their affairs. Public is always when we talk about groups.
I think you need to list the dictionaries that say that public means individual.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bodombeastmode Well well well. I guess I find you again just copy and pasting the same link over several videos but without actually understanding it. I have already replied to you once so I will just copy that response in this comment.
That article is extremely poor for your argument. It absolutely do not, it does not even reach a conclusion on the subject. What it does however is to provide a case for why that is. If you don't want to read, do not bother replying.
First off. They do not provide a definition for anything they are talking about. They need at the very least provide the definitions of the following concept:
- Socialism
- Fascism
- Nazism
- Right wing
- Far-right
- Public
- Private
I find this lack of definitions very troubling. Alpha History claims that they are there to provide free material for teaching. So why do they also not teach the definitions. It sounds very suspect. Almost like they are trying to hide the definitions so the "students" do not know what the words they speak mean. It is also very strange that they do not come to a conclusion.
Since they do not provide a definition, we have to read between the lines to find how they define it. What they seem to define Socialism as is:
"a political system with the aim to eradication of class, private property or redistribute wealth"
This is not the definition of Socialism since they are cutting out the most important part of this definition. The part all definitions everyone else have include as the top result. The definition of Socialism is the following:
"A set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries"
Source: Oxford Dictionary.
"Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. ...."
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
Their whole argument is in short.
"The majority of historians say Nazism along with Fascism is a right-wing ideology. It was hyper-nationalistic obsessed with military, state power and social control. Unlike Marxists they do not want to eliminate classes, remove private property or redistribute wealth."
Problems with their argument:
1. This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. It doesn't matter if the majority of historians say or think anything as that doesn't make it true. What makes our understanding of gravity true is not that the majority of physicist say so or agree with it. What makes our understanding of gravity true is the experiments that are repeatable and have predictive power. Experts once used to think the world was flat, but just because the experts said so do not mean it is true.
2. They are making a false comparison. Why in a debate about Socialism do we bring up Marxism and Marxists? Socialism is not defined by Marxism or Communism. Marxism is a subcategory of Socialism, just like Social Democracy is a subcategory of Socialism. There is no reason to even make this comparison for any other reason then that they are trying to poison the well.
3. They are making a speaking out of two mouths. They are trying to say it is right-wing, but do not define right or left wing. They try to say he doesn't want to redistribute wealth when he clearly wanted to redistribute the Jews wealth. From what they have said, it is clear that the idea that Nazism is right wing can not be supported. It does fall under Socialism when you actually provide the definition of Socialism. You can not deny that they wanted complete public ownership and social control because they were those that was in control of the public. They were a totalitarian state. Everything belonged to the government.
4. They are factually wrong. The Nazis did remove private property. So even by the argument they presented with Marxists, they do want to remove private property just like the Marxists. They did so with the Reichstag Fire Decree. In the Reichstag Fire Decree they suspended the among others articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution. The articles they suspended said the following:
- Article 115: A German's home is an asylum and is inviolable.
- Article 153: Expropriation of property could be made only on the basis of law and for the public welfare, with appropriate compensation.
With the suspension of 115 you no longer owned your home and it is not your asylum. Your asylum can be taken away from you as it is no longer inviolable.
With the suspension of 153 the government can take whatever they want from you without any legal reasons or for any reasons. They also do not need to compensate you for anything they took. That right was suspended.
5. They never actually came to a conclusion in this article which I find rather strange. Why do they not reach a conclusion if they destroy the notion he was a Socialist? Why do they include the argument that he wasn't, then the argument that he was and then back the argument up that he was with an interview from Liberty magazine where he clearly say he is?
It is almost like you didn't read the article yourself. Even if you don't accept it, the interview show that Hitler believed he was a Socialist.
6. They have a clear political slant in this whole article, but they also do not want to outright say it. It is very suspect.
7. The document they provided where Hitler explain Socialism does fall within the definitions of Socialism. He might say " that they do not repudiate private property" but that is also not a requirement of Socialism. What he does do is that he can take your private property away from you for any reasons. This article actually proves Hitler was a Socialist.
The elephant in the room
There is a big problem in this article is that they do not even talk about what the ideology stands for. How can we talk about what an ideology is when we do not talk about the ideology?
Take Fascism for example. Just look at the name alone. It originate latin word fascis which means "bundle" or a bundle of sticks. Fascism is built around the ancient idea that "You can break one stick easily. But if you have a bundle of sticks all working together you cant break it no matter how strong you are".
This is itself a "socialistic" view. That everyone in a society should work towards a common goal in a common direction and achieve strength through unity. This is why Benito Mussolini said:
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State"
This is the very definition of Socialism. The state owns and control all wealth, industries and natural resources.
In the Doctrine of Fascism Mussolini expressed that he want people to see the state as their god. You do your religious duty to the state, and then carry on with your life.
Hitler did the same exact thing as Mussolini did with Fascism. He centralized all power with the state so he controls everything within the state. It was he who was in charge to redistribute it all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juicyjames2074 "That’s doesn’t seem that different from US capitalism where employees are literally breaking their backs and dying in warehouse industries for a livable wage and yet we call that thriving…"
- In Capitalism they are free to quit. In the Soviet Union you were not. In Capitalism, the workers are free to try their hand in creating their own business since they are not actually forced to work for anyone but themselves. You are only a wage slave if you have the slave mentality. You are not forced to work for any corporation in the west. Do not sit here and think I should care about this kind of sob story. You are not forced to do this kind of work, so stop crying and go and do something that pay better if you don't like it. If you can't get anything better, maybe you can't produce anything actually worth paying any more for.
"Really, the issue in the world in this entire time is that the elites in general have been the only ones thriving."
- Funny definition. It seems you are saying thriving is the same as being rich. That is not thriving. I am a common worker, and I have plenty of money for my needs. I am thriving and have no worries. I am also not chained to some giant corporation and instead work for a small corporation with less then 10 employees. You just have a messed up definition, and that is your own fault as you have lost touch with reality.
"The USSR fell because Gorbachev established a multi-party voting system during a time where not only was his power and image damaged by a coup"
- What you said simply do not make sense. You do not have people that want to make coups if your nation is thriving. Things were bad long before then if you even get to that stage. Also. The coup was unsuccessful which is something you seem to forget. The decision to slowly democratize the USSR was not the only thing that brought it down. The core was already rotten and that decision only contributed to the collapse.
" but all these people were livid about being invaded by the iron curtain and other countries."
- I don't think you understand what the Iron Curtain was. The Iron Curtain was the Communist block. All communist nations didn't allow travel and trade into and out from the rest of the world, and the west especially. It is called the iron curtain because the boarders where protected by razor wire. A curtain of iron, razor wire iron. The nations within the Soviet Union were not invaded by themselves. The satellites maybe, but not the USSR. It wasn't invasions that brought the USSR down, but discontent among its own people. When elections and freedom was given, communism was rejected.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Part 1
I know you are trying to explain something here but you said many false things. Just to be clear. I come from Sweden. A so called "socialist paradise" according to people in the US. So I have a fair deal of experience with socialism, even if it isn't complete socialism like behind the iron curtain.
"Benefits are you don't get exploited"
- This is very much wrong. You are even more exploited then ever. Do you know what the tax rate is here in Sweden? It is about 60-80%. You have around 25-30% income tax, but the employer is also has to pay a hidden tax in so called "Social fees" so your wage is actually 31.42% higher then what you can see. We also have VAT tax which is 25% on most products. So even when you get your wage 50% is already gone, then 1/4 is removed just for the privilege of being able to spend it. This is why a normal McDonald's meal cost around 12 USD in Sweden. High taxes might work if you get something for it. The problem is that we do not. Schools are literally falling apart. Crimes are going out of control to the point even rape cases are closed as there isn't resources to spend on solving it. Don't even bother with lesser crimes. If you are sick don't think you can have a private doctor, you get who you are assigned to. If you are on a waiting list for a operation, you might very well die before it is your turn simply because the tax money can't pay for more doctors.
So if I have to give 60-70% of my income to the government because they have this socialist worldview, but not get this so call utopia. I am exploited for sure. Exploitation happens under socialism just as much under capitalism. The idea you don't get exploited is nonsense. USSR only survived because they exploited people. When the Gulag system was removed, the death of the USSR started.
"you are in control of your own workplace and you can work less for the same reward"
- No you can't. That is just a promise socialists give but it has never actually been shown to happen. In capitalism you are not forced to work for anyone. You are free to start your own business and make your own money. Then you own everything, which include your workplace. However, that doesn't mean you can work less for the same reward. If you do that you will go out of business fast. This is just a lie socialists say will happen, but when it actually comes to delivering on it they NEVER present anything. The only people that are able to work less for the same reward are people that exploit someone else.
"a common thread is the worker controlling the means of production"
- A point I want to bring up here is that we need to talk about how this manifest. How is the worker controlling anything? Under socialism this control was collected under the government since the government is the representation for the people and the workers. If the government represent the workers, the workers controls the government, which means that if the government controls a business the worker also controls the business. In reality however this doesn't work out. It is because the workers are so extremely tiny compared to everyone else in the country that their slice of control is so small it doesn't exist. So the government elite will also think they own everything and the worker doesn't own anything. So in reality you just how a powerful elite controlling the means of production while the worker owns 0,5% of his workplace.
In Capitalism this can be solved as well. A corporation can pay people in shares. If all workers are shareholders, the corporation works for the workers.
"rather than private entities doing so for profit"
- I think you are displaying a rather big problem here. EVERYONE works for profit. Even socialism does. You show here that you don't understand profit. Profit is the money left over after costs are removed. If you don't have profits in what you do, you have wasted time. Valuable time. If you don't have profits you can grow. If you don't have profits you don't have a rainy day fund. If you don't have profits you will die since you have absolutely no flexibility in anything you do. If you make a birdhouse for 10 USD and don't get more from it then what you had to spend to make it you will make birdhouses forever until you starve to death. That is because instead of gathering food you spent all your time making birdhouses and didn't even get enough money to pay someone else to gather food for you.
Profits exist everything. No matter if it is public or private. Everyone has to make profit.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Part 2
"A bunch of wood costs 10 units. I make a chair out if it, which I sell for 110 units. My labour was therefore worth 100 units."
- That is incorrect. You have to earn something on making the chair. If you don't there is no point making the chair since you have other more important things to do to survive. Your labor is not worth 100 units but 40 to 50 units. If you don't have a margin you will die. But that is only if you actually manage to sell the chair for 110 units. Maybe it is so ugly you can only sell it for 70 units. Is your labor still worth 100 units then? In capitalism it might be since you don't take that risk.
"What are the chances of me getting paid 100 units? Zero. Because the owner has to make a profit,right?"
- That is wrong simply because your labor was never worth 100 units in the first place. If you think you can do better then factory owner you can start your own chair factory and compete. If you do that you will notice very quickly that having to earn profits is not the problem. Do you not want to have an emergency fund? Are you doing charity work?
*"Ok, you say. But he has made the capital investment in the factory, machines etc (the means of production) and has to pay the energy bills to keep them running and so on.
That cost works out at another ten units per chair made."*
- Are you not forgetting about labor cost? No. The costs isn't just the material costs. The human labor cost is the most expensive thing. Which has to play a factor. The owner also has to be paid for his work. This is not profit.
"Let's say you accept that the factory machinery saves you labour so you only add 90 units by your labour. Reckon you'll get paid 90 units? Nah, the owner still has to make a profit."
- You are still falling into the same problem. You don't understand what profits is. The owner isn't just sitting around and doing nothing. He also works just like you are. He is making new deals. Trying to get people to buy the chairs and so on. Doesn't he deserves a wage? So if the chair cost 10 units in materials and 90 units in labor, that leaves 10 units left. So he has to pay himself something like 5 units and have 5 units in profit since he needs a rainy day fund in case a machine breaks down. If he has no profits he also can't replace a broken machine which means you can't build chairs which means you are fired. So is it fair that you get 90 units while the owner, the person making sure you can even get 90 units working for him, gets 5 units? That doesn't seem fair. Looks to me like you are exploiting him.
"Ok, says the (socialist) worker, how about if me and my fellow workers share the cost of that instead. So, we share the cost of the raw materials, the upkeep of the factory, power etc, (the means of production) and then we can keep the value we add via labour for ourselves instead of getting exploited."
- Apart form that you are not being exploited. You are working with fallacious reasoning and very much overestimate your own value. Do you think that 100 units is you alone? Do you sell the chair? Do you haul the chair? Do you make the business deals and so on? You think you are owned 100% of everything you make while ignoring that other people also has a hand in that process. If you start your own business with this reasoning you will fall apart fast because you have no idea what you are doing.
"Prices fall as there is no profit motive - people cooperate in making the goods that society need or wants instead of competing."
- No they will not. Prices will increase since you have to print more money if something happens. You need profit no matter who you are. You don't spend 10 hours a day working only to wake up in the same exact situation as you were in yesterday. You need profit to survive. Survival isn't just about not moving from where you are right at this very moment. Life itself can not be predicted like that. What if a hurricane comes in and destroy the chair factory? If the owner had not profits he can't replace it since he worked on a zero sum game. The only way to replace the factory is if someone else give away their resources and effort at their own expense to help you. Or you have to give away your efforts only to restore what you used to have.
You also don't seem to understand that we need competition. I already hinted at this but if you wish to drive down prices all you need to do is to create your own factory and compete in that of making chairs. If you think the factory owner have to much profits, sell your chair cheaper. That way his costumers go to you, and the factory owner has to lower his prices. If there is no competition however and there is only one person making chairs. Now that is when prices skyrocket as you can only but chairs from 1 guy, and he can set whatever price he wants as long as people pay.
The idea that competition is bad is extremely unhealthy. Even ecology shows how that is nonsense. In Yellowstone National Park all wolves were removed due to being hunted by humans. This harmed the park because the deer population grow out of control and ate all plants, they also grow unhealthy due to that no one killed the sick and weak members. This forced a lot of animals out like beavers. When wolves were reintroduced, the deer were brought to a controlled population. Beavers came back and built dams which created ponds which brought even more animals back. Competition is healthy. If you don't have it you grow sick and stale.
Edit: I also want to add that the reason Marx thought that you can achieve more with less work is because he thought the worker will become hype productive as soon as the "oppressor" is removed. I also want to add that Karl Marx never worked in a factory in his life since he mostly lived with his parents and was a journalist. He wasn't a worker and didn't understand how reality is.
I know you say this is all in theory but everything about this is extremely flawed. It lack a complete understanding of how reality looks like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1