Were the Nazis Socialists? Historians DEBUNK and EXPLAIN
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- Were the Nazis Socialists? A talk by Dr. Eric Kurlander and UA-cam Historians Dr. Zar of History and Headlines, Tipsyfish History and the Cynical Historian.
Today in a variety of formats from history groups to political commentaries and beyond to blogs and academic research, we see debates constantly appear involving the National Socialist German Workers' Party otherwise known as the NSDAP (Nazi Party,) and whether or not they were actually socialists?
We see constant claims from "It's in the name," to "they said they were" and "the Nazis were only Conservatives," and that "the Nazis were leftists."
But what is the correct answer? Is it a simple yes or no? Is it more complicated than that?
In this episode we define socialism and proceed to explore the differences between other socialists and communists, we then turn to look at fascism, Nazism and the far right.
We take a look at over a century of academic scholarship and see how "National Socialism" and the Nazi Party has been viewed and how these views have changed and why?
Did the Nazis nationalize industry and natural resources? Was there a link between the NSDAP and Big Business? How did capitalism fair during the rise and establishment of the Third Reich? Was Nazi Germany an authoritarian capitalist monopoly? Were there socialists in the Nazi Party? What set the Nazi movement apart from all the other radical movements during its time? And lastly, how should a general audience view the Third Reich and its political ideologies and policies?
In this episode Dr. Kurlander and several UA-cam historians guide you through the questions above and leave you with a clearer picture on a subject that is not only controversial but one that people continue to argue about to this day.
Support Dr. Eric Kurlander at these links below!
Academia: stetson.academia.edu/EricKurl...
Get his book Hitler's Monsters here: www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Monste...
Faculty Profile : www.stetson.edu/other/faculty...
Support Dr. Zar of History and Headlines below!
UA-cam Channel History and Headlines: / @historyandheadlines
Website: www.historyandheadlines.com/
Article "Were the Nazis Actually Socialists?
www.historyandheadlines.com/w...
Patreon: / historyandheadlines
Facebook: / historyandheadlines
Twitter: / historyheaders
Support Tipsyfish and her awesome work at these links below!
UA-cam Channel : / @annalofhistory
Patreon : / tipsyfishs
Twitter: / tipsyfishs
Facebook: / tipsyfishhistory
Support the Cynical Historian below!
UA-cam Channel: / cynicalhistorian
Patreon: / cynicalhistorian
Facebook: / cynicalcypher88
Twitter: / cynical_history
Footage attribution is from various outlets in Wikipedia and Internet Archive and falls under "Fair Use."
Very pleased to announce that this is the first episode of an "off and on" series that will explore controversial topics in modern history!
@@dadsonworldwide3238 The far right killed around 10 million people in Europe and Russia and North Africa. There is no denying (or defending) that.
@@infowarriorone far right is still within the definition of Socialism. you can't get away from the corrupting idea of centralizing power behind a few individuals. it is the same result.
You really hit the ground running with this series then!
@@infowarriorone Yes, I am from Europe, and I can tell you that Lenin and his elk, even before Stalin killed as many people as Hitler, but they where Russians si that doesn't count? Stalin and Mao killed even more people, and Pöl Pot killed 1/3 of the population of his country. Well done, but I assure you that they were convinced anti-nazi.
@@infowarriorone The regular left killed that much with holodomor alone. Not that you will ever see any movie about that or any other communist massacre
It was a very interesting problem conversation. Good luck with the comments on this one
Some of us see a bees nest and walk the other way. Others throw rocks at it. Keep throwing.
I was going to call you out.i won't. Everything you seem far right I deem far left. You have let main stream media change the meaning of words for you. I feel bad for you. All your teachers led you astray. You are proof of my disdain for public education. Good luck young man.
@@mackelby1 You can attack the message or the messenger. I promise you, the messenger is almost always an easy target. Challenge yourself and see what kind of rational argument you can put forth against the argument. I'll be interested to see it
@@thinkinaboutpolitics I can appreciate it. Because I used to believe in the media driven paradigm myself. All good. Seriously 5 years ago I would have been on board. But I challenged myself. So here I am now. Breaking free of the deliberating Stockholms Syndrome was very liberating. It is all good really. I was in the same boat for many years. Longer than that young man has been alive. I get it and don't blame anyone but the system. It is designed to do just what it is doing and doing very well. Good luck, and I also challenge you you to put forth the same you asked me to. All I heard was the MSM words and the school systems words. Seriously anyone can do that. To be honest I think the 2 sides talk is all for us to fight about it. They are all working together to enslave us. This is all the easy pickings so we don't dig any deeper. They are all the same bloodline.
@@mackelby1 there's a whole lotta words, but not much meaning. Can you give me two books you read to help you break free? Conservative political philosophy books are kinda my niche.
Capitalism is when the government doesn’t do stuff.
-Adam Smith
“Socialism is whatever I want it to be”
- progressive leftists
@@samplexample Isn’t that something conservatives would say?
@@f-35alightningii79 idk you tell me.
This entire video is reification plus partisan cope.
‘DemocraticMarxist’ giving an ‘objective’ take on an obvious question. Pfft hackery of the highest degree.
@@samplexample "socialism is anything I don't like" -conservatives
Socialism is When you define gender and everything by Marxist theory but do Absolutly nothing for Working class people and do everything to serve Corporations.
--- Modern Wokes
Claiming that Nazi's were against trade unions is spurious becasue they created the biggest trade unioon that has ever existed (German labour front). Lenin and Stalin also disallowed private unions so the point is mute. If the people are completely socialized and control the means of production then there is no point to private unions.
But the NSDAP did not socialize the means of production and the profits in the contrary they privatized state owned businesses.
The best evidence for the vast autonomy of private companies is the scheme run by Oskar Schindler wich managed to save 1.200 Jews.
"against trade unions" yes, they were and if you knew anything you would know that the so called Labour Front was nothing bit a sham to keep workers in line. They were not allowed to strike or do anything that would "endanger" capitalist profits.
What is (revolutionary) socialism in a nutshell?
While 'capitalism' exists as the predominant economic system you get so frustrated that other people don't want to adopt the socialist model, and so force them have it because apparently you know better than them about what they want and need.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this video!
I was about to send you the link, hahaha! Your session starts after Dr. Kurlander!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 I saw it in my subscription feed.
God, it's a breath of fresh air listening to actual historians on this topic rather than political hacks.
Historians aren't necessarily economists and vice-versa.
Right wing monopoly capitalism. Organized capitalism. Authoritarian capitalism... What an oxymoron, but you do you.
38:31, no mention of the German Labor Front (DAF) union which replaced all unions through coercion and force carried out by the SA, and later the police arrested leaders of unions, confiscating their money and assets. Dr. Kurlander failed to mention the Hitler then banned collective bargaining, and through Nazi-installed labor trustees, operating on behalf of the DAF, they controlled labor contracts - including fixing wages and preventing workers from changing positions or changing professions unless trustees and the employers the trustees represented would allow it.
Dr. Kurlander does mention that the Nazi party did intervene in some industries, but downplays the tremendous pressure put on its workers and corporations alike to operate their means of production for the good of the German people, the volk(people), the volksgemeinshaft; their ideology of the collective German racial community (as opposed to a collective international classless community). That is why the DAF became Europe's largest labor union with 32 million members by 1938, whilst it wasn't compulsory to join, it was very difficult to find employment outside of membership and there was threat of being arrested, shunned socially and even possible violence or property damage. Lets not forget either that many German people supported the Volkisch cult ideology which paradoxically appealed to the individuality of the German Volk, but at the same time totalized them as a collective through their struggle to persist as a nation and race, a term called Kampfgesetz (Law of Struggle [gesetz=law, kampf=battle/struggle]). Just consider these quotes from Hitler (from the book Collection of Speeches 1922-1945) "The German Volk will see this fight through to the end" and "The individual cannot shrink from it, it is the fate of the entire Volk" and "I would like to speak to you on the inevitability not only of this battle, but our struggle as such: of the struggle which takes the life of the individual to give life to the community". Here we can clearly see that the Nazi ideology which ruled over Germany, its workers and corporations under the thumb of the DAF appealed to individualism so long as it served the interests of the state.
Why Dr. Kurlander omits this aspect, and even tries to distance the idea of collecting the race under the state as the Italo-Facists would, I have no idea. And how he ties this to capitalism, god only knows.
@@6Sparx9only an oxymoron if you don’t understand what capitalism is, and if you think it means simply free markets and the ‘invisible hand’. That’s a ridiculous belief not based in reality.
@@edwardbateman3094 yeah... you're going to have to actually make an effort if you want that takedown to have any teeth rather than just slinging 'he said she said' shots. Just saying you dont possess the nous isn't that compelling.
To my dear subscribers, thank you all. You have my love and appreciation. Support our guests in the links above in the video description! My latest history merch! Sea Peoples meet Late Bronze Age humor! I thought this was pretty amusing.
teespring.com/new-sea-peoples-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102908
Support the channel below! Celebrate the birthplace of civilization and get our Sumerian Shirt | Hoodie | Coffee Mug today! CLOTHES: teespring.com/Sumerian-Clothing?pid=212&cid=5818
COFFEE MUGS: teespring.com/sumerian-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102908
Check out our new store! teespring.com/stores/the-history-shop
Get your Sea Peoples | Late Bronze Age Merch below!
Mugs: teespring.com/new-sea-peoples-mediterranean?pid=658&cid=102950
Hoodies | Shirts | Tank Tops: teespring.com/get-sea-peoples-mediterranean?pid=212&cid=5819
Get your Hittite Merch below!
Mugs: teespring.com/HittiteEmpireMug?pid=658&cid=102950&sid=front
Shirts | Tank Tops | Hoodies: teespring.com/hittite-empire-shirt?pid=2&cid=2397
Trojan War Merch Below!
Mugs: teespring.com/trojan-war-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102950
Tank Tops | Shirts | Hoodies: teespring.com/TrojanWarShirt?pid=2&cid=2397
To support the channel, become a Patron and make history matter!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages
Donate directly to PayPal: paypal.me/NickBarksdale
Enjoy history merchandise? Check out affiliate link to SPQR Emporium!
spqr-emporium.com?aff=3
*Disclaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel!
Join our community!
Facebook Page:
facebook.com/THESTUDYOFANTIQUITYANDTHEMIDDLEAGES/
Twitter: twitter.com/NickBarksdale
Instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/
The terms socialist, socialism, conservative and conservatism have been so brutalized and funneled into whatever the current narrative of one political faction or another wants them to mean ,that they have been reduced to meaningless “sales speak”. This , in my opinion, is a dangerous confusion of language that indicates the beginning of the collapse of empire. How can you build a better future if you don’t know what’s actually being said? Could this be a repeat of the “Tower of Babel” story?
Really bold topic! Big thumbs up! 😁👍 Great guests. Loved it. Fearless.👊
Jacque Fresco spoke about this, presumed a mathematical language could solve the issue. US is certainly Babylon my friend.
I like how you used the babel allegory w a different twist. Excellent comment
Confucius out here in the comments calling for the rectification of names.
Conservatives ran with a very very cheap ploy in order to attack left wing parties. That ploy is called guilt by association and is based on the ignorance of their electorate. Because there is the word "socialist" in the National Socialism Party, right wingers have run with the lie that Nazis were socialist, which they weren't by ANY meaningful sense of the term.
Basically, it's the same as if I said that the Islamic Republic of Iran was full of US Republicans because there is "republic" in the name.
See how it works ? it's a pretty shameful ploy that right wingers are using, and it would only worthy of laughs in a serious Parliament (like we hear at the beginning of the video) if it wasn't indeed deeply insulting, as leftists were both the first enemies and victims of Nazism. That of course flies in the face of Conservatives, who prefer to bury this fact and run with a lie.
if you want to understand politics you MUST understand philosophy. left and right simply put boil down to the lft being man cannot govern himself effectively. and the right side of the spectrum says not only that they can but they should govern themselves. any ideology that believes in authoritarian control are on the left side of the spectrum anyone that believes in more self governing falls into the right side. almost no one is full left or right. most all people fall into the right side of the spectrum. most all people want to live their lives to their own accord where what they produce belongs to them and theirs to distribute how they please. leftists believe that your life is there to support somene else over yourself. but then you get put in a conundrum if you have to be altruistic then who looks out for you? say its you and another but only you have the means to provide leftist philosphy says you give this away to the other man even if he has no ability to provide anything of value for you to live too. right side philosophy says its best to give yourself the food and in doing so can have the strength to provide for others once you are capable of self sufficiency and if the other guy lives by this ideology then both are covered and will live. not to mention we all know every living organism once TAKEN CARE OF begins to stop taking care of itself becoming a burden.
55:20 the Nazi's didn't outlaw or disband trade unions. All trade unions were subsumed into the DAf.
The DAf was the largest trade union in the world during the late 1930s.
Like many western trade unions today, it was not run by its members but by a Kommissariate.
The DAf could instruct apparently private industries to expend profits on "public" works such as sporting facilities - ostensibly for the workers. This was not a trade union in name only but had teeth.
Real wages, the buting power of the working man's wage, increased markedly under the Nazism of the late 1930s.
Every 'private' business in Nazi Germany employed a party Kommisar to ensure the 'private' company didn't transgeess or embarass party doctrine.
Much like the Chinese Communist Party today.
Very true if any so called “private business” dared to go against the state their company would be stolen from them and nationalized. They made a quick and heavy example of junkers from the junkers plane factory. Expropriating his company putting a party representative in charge. Putting the fear of losing their business in the private enterprise. Shall they dare to go against the state.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a socialist."
Keeping in mind, of course, that the Nazis also came for the communists, socialists who were not Nazis, liberals, democrats, conservatives, and anyone else who did not affirmatively endorse the Nazi monopoly of power. Shame you did not actually watch the video and learn that the Nazi movement, i.e., National Socialism, was a hybrid ideology that incorporated elements of socialism and state-sponsored capitalism under an absolute monopoly of power under a single party and totalitarian state.
@@egosumhomovespertilionem2022 Why is it a shame that I listened to the video? Do I have to put on a little hat now? ¢:/
@@egosumhomovespertilionem2022 Yep! You nailed what kind of devious organization the National Socialists were.
First they came for the Communists, but we do not mention that in the American version which became popular during the McCarthy era...
@@gyorkshire257 First they came for Mr Potatohead's glorious hog,,, and I said nothing..
Thank you very much for letting me take a part in today's episode!
It was a pleasure and if you allow there will be many more appearances!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 Absolutely! You know where to hit me up.
Really enjoyed your commentary.
@@sarahrosen4985 Thanks! Glad ya enjoyed it c:
@@AnnalOfHistory watching your suffragette video now. Great video! I need more time in the day!!! How am I going to make up the backlog of videos you have waiting for me?!
Yes, they were so careful about eliminating private property.....that they eliminated private property in 1933 when they took over.
@Vincent Verona The 1933 Decree, the nationalizing unions into the DAF, autarchy, price controls, wage controls, rent controls, centralizing the banks, gleichschautung. Hitler believed in the labor theory of value and the shrinking markets theory. His own words stating that without the racial component, national socialism would be competing on the same grounds as Marxism. When they tell you that they're socialists, and they do socialist things, maybe should start believing them.
Except they did not.
@@joshuamaurer9784 "When they tell you that they're socialists, and they do socialist things, maybe should start believing them." Except they neither were socialists, nor did they do socialist things, nor did they consider they themselves socialists in the way socialists actually considered themselves socialist. But let me guess, you also believe that North Korea is a democratic republic.
@@page8301 Okay, what are your sources that they weren't socialist? I have quite a few support my position that they were. "Hitler's Socialism" by Rainor Zitelmann, "The Vampire Economy" by Gunther Raimann, "Hitler's Benefirciaries" by Goetz Aly, Hitler's two books (which I think mentioning them got my other comments deleted, several of them), and "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises to name just a few. Just back up your statements with sources (credible) that support your position.
@@page8301 And if you don't want to read all those, or at least not right away, I suggest this video ua-cam.com/video/mLHG4IfYE1w/v-deo.html. It's 45 min. Very quick compared to reading just those 6 sources I listed above. There's also a 5 hour version that goes into far more detail ua-cam.com/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/v-deo.html. Again, much faster than reading just those 6 sources above. Though I still suggest you read them. It's far easier to understand if you've read it yourself.
I was hooked right away when Prof. Kurlander gave his well thought, broad definition of socialism. However, and maybe he was oversimplifying for the wider audience, I feel he missed an important topic in Oswald Spengler and his influence on German right-wing politics in the post-World War I period. To his credit, Kurlander does touch on the Berlin movement- the rise of anti-Semitic right-leaning parties like the Christian Social Party between 1880 and 1900- but Spengler was sort of a capstone on the Berlin movement. Spengler, a die-hard conservative himself, attempted to create and define a conservative, German version of socialism that he called "Prussian socialism" which emphasized nationalism, discipline, and productive labor in service of the nation while utterly rejecting the concept of class conflict at the heart of "English socialism" as he called it. He felt that the German people's enthusiastic support for the start of WW1 was the ultimate expression of "Prussian socialism".
A read of the NSP and Hitler's writings shows that Spengler clearly had a profound effect on the Nazi movement (although my understanding is that Spengler rejected Nazism)- Nazism was essentially a combination of Spengler and Arthur de Gobineau (a 19th century French writer who invented the Nazi version of "Aryans", and this was further elaborated upon by Houston Stewart Chamberlain). The NSP heavily emphasizes those same values that "Prussian socialism" emphasizes, along with Gobineau's race theory. Nazi writings even directly borrowed Spengler's terminology, notably the concept of Marxist/Bolshevik/Jewish socialism being "False socialism", opposed to the Nazi version. In his unpublished "Zweites Buch", Hitler explicitly states that he's a socialist and then goes on to define socialism along Spenglerian lines, rejecting class and affirming his loyalty to "das Volk". Even after the Machtergreifung, the Nazis continued emphasizing devotion to "das Volk", hard work in service of "das Volk", militarism, etc.
Edit: TCH comes close to touching on the Spenglerian re-definition too. You guys keep dancing around it!
This was definitely meant as a beginners course and so we didn't want to lose the audience in the brush of things. However I am talking to him about doing an episode on the "roots" of nazism and I think you will be very pleased when you see the results.
I’m looking forward to it!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 "we didn't want to lose the audience in the brush of things" If "in the brush of things" the truth lies, than let the audience get lost, stop trying to "save" (control or manipulate) the audience, be honest and sincere, and don't be a sophist.
Amazing content! Love all the detail and nuance from your guests. Great job thanks!!
Just found the channel. Really interesting conversation that really shows the nuanced context of history. Great content
This was a excellent episode, great change of pace from your normal content (even though i love ancient history) i found it very educational
He was wildly inaccurate.
I just interviewed Professor Stanley Payne, the leading intellectual on Fascism and can confirm this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's a no name socialist professor... but he hasn't read even the basic primary sources which would make someone capable of speaking about Fascism.
This is known as propaganda.
The primary sources are essential to read if you're going to talk about Fascism.
nice video as usual I think a video about nazis view on religion and atheism would be as interesting as this video
I actually want Dr. Kurlander to come back and talk about religion in the Third Reich! Great idea!
Yes, please!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 A good many of the "conspiracy" ilk continuously cite the spiritualism and fringe religious themes attributed to nazi activities and goals. A sort of state religion if you will. I'm not sure if this is a straw man or an actual thing. I would hope Dr Kurlander could address things such as Himmler's obsession with Christian artifacts and the inception of a "secret society" within the SS.
According to g0ebbels himself,
they were on the left. They"despised the bourgeois owner class(Besitzbürgertum)".
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:50 The *video explores the question of whether the Nazis were socialists, bringing in experts to discuss the topic and analyze the historical context.*
03:12 Dr. *Eric Kerlander defines socialism as a tradition emerging in the late 18th/early 19th century, offering an alternative to free-market capitalism. It encompasses diverse intellectual traditions, including non-revolutionary and non-violent approaches.*
05:58 The *discussion touches on the origin of the term "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (NSDAP), emphasizing its attempt to differentiate from left-wing parties and its focus on race and ethnicity.*
09:28 The *nature of the Nazis' socialism is deemed complicated, with early indications of socialistic elements in their program, but a careful avoidance of anti-capitalism. Over time, their rhetoric evolved to emphasize anti-Bolshevism and anti-communism.*
12:25 The *"25 points," the Nazi party's early program, reflected an incoherent mix of liberal, socialist, and conservative elements, showcasing the party's attempt to draw from various political traditions.*
20:01 The *association between big business and the Nazi party is explored. While some big business figures backed Hitler, the majority of heavy industry, and some light industry, supported the Nazis due to shared anti-left sentiments.*
25:07 The *characterization of the Third Reich as an "authoritarian capitalist monopoly" is acknowledged as not overly simplistic. The Nazis maintained a form of organized capitalism, exploiting resources at home and abroad, and controlling the economy without advocating for a free market.*
27:41 The *Nazis, despite having "socialist" in their name, did not implement traditional socialism. The appointment of a pro-capitalist banker to manage the economy contradicts socialist principles.*
28:35 Hitler's *rhetoric favored militarization over consumer products, deviating from traditional socialist ideas. The economy under Hitler focused on organized monopoly or authoritarian capitalism, not free-market liberalism.*
30:29 The *economy of the Third Reich was a mixed economy, leaning capitalist, with elements of state intervention to address challenges like the Great Depression. It made concessions to the state for growth and employment.*
32:48 The *Nazis did not extensively nationalize industries but opted for partnerships between the private and public sectors. This approach differed from traditional socialism.*
35:19 The *social programs implemented by the Nazis, such as universal healthcare and family loans, aimed to maintain social stability and economic production. These programs paralleled those in other Western countries.*
40:19 Academic *thought on Nazism has evolved, rejecting extreme views that portray it as either purely right-wing conservatism or left-wing totalitarianism. Nazism combined elements of capitalism and state intervention.*
42:53 The *Nazis cannot be classified as traditionally conservative. They belonged to an alt-right tradition critical of both left-wing socialism and traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism emphasizes individual rights, civil rights, and free-market capitalism.*
54:53 The *video discusses whether the Nazis were socialists. It argues that while the Nazi government in Germany had greater control over many aspects of daily life, including trade unions, and implemented social programs, they were not true socialists.*
55:33 During *the Nazi rule from 1933 to 1945, the German government became intrusive, banning trade unions and taking on the role of overseeing workers' welfare. However, this was seen as a sham, with workers treated as if they were serfs and forced into slave labor.*
56:14 The *video addresses the argument that the Nazis were socialists by examining aspects like the initiation of social security and increased government involvement in projects. It emphasizes that despite these elements, capitalist investment, private ownership, and profits remained prevalent.*
57:10 The *video counters the idea that the Nazis were socialists by highlighting the continued existence of enormous capitalist firms during the Nazi period, such as Daimler-Benz, Porsche, Krupp, and others. It notes that private ownership persisted, and industry did not undergo complete nationalization.*
58:33 The *conclusion is that the Nazis were not socialists. Although the Nazi government had increased control over various aspects of German life, the continuation of capitalist structures, private ownership, and intrusive government involvement created a composite society, not fitting the definition of socialism.*
Made with HARPA AI
All that still makes them socialist no matter how you try to spin it.
Great video, I especially enjoyed the Professor you brought on who discussed the different ways the Nazis were interpreted and understood in historical discourse.
Amazing content although a bit off topic for the channel name !!!!! Lol
Thanks !
Nick has suggested changing the channel name several different times to include more/all eras of history... but his audience ~loudly~ insists thqt he not change it. He tried just using the acronym once, but even that was met with gasps of horror and pearl clutching.
Apparently, we just like unwieldy channel names 😆
Excellent - has Eric written any more books ?
So sad to learn of Nick’s passing. What an inspiring example of the organic intellectual. Thank you for your work Nick, rest well.
53:30
Although China is seemingly contradictory in opening up its economy to capitalism it's not contradictory to Communism itself in that capitalism is how we get to Communism.
Karl Marx saw capitalism as a great tool which is far too dangerous for humanity to utilize for our infinite future. There's not enough resources and capitalists always burn out due to top-heavy distribution and debt demands.
@CLM1978 capitalists only see quarterly acceleration
So it’s all Hegelian Dialectic or fall on the same coin.
But they're literally turning back from communism. So they're getting to communism by retreating from communism in a way that gets us back to communism? That makes no sense at all. The economics of current China is actually much in line with Mussolini Fascism or Hitler Nazism. This makes sense, because fascism and communism in terms of economic policy are much closer than most would have you believe.
I love it, but i can imagine that people with no historical background or US - based people can't fully grasp it. Not because they're stupid or something, but just because the historical meaning of so much discussed here is quite different
Wondering if the “US-based people” or “US-based political interpretation” plays considerable role in some of the confusion…
We have been conditioned to not understand socialism. It's very much intentional that most Americans don't understand Socialism or even Capitalism for that matter. Why? In my view (which I didn't invent), it's to suppress the development of class consciousness and continue to perpetuate capitalist realism (the idea that capitalism is simply the default state and not so much a political ideology). Once it becomes a political party/ideology, it becomes something you can be critical of. If people actually understood both capitalism and socialism they wouldn't care so much for laissez-faire capitalism, in my opinion. I do think more people are starting to understand these things in the states, the cat's out of the bag. The Internet means these things can no longer be obscured from us nearly as easily.
@@roilen8131 I agree 100 percent and I’d say a historical framing could be applied that almost guarantees that to be the case. Namely, the Cold War. In America, for one we were founded on principals of liberal capitalism, but than with the Cold War, we overtly made capitalism the bedrock of our national identity. We have been heavily propagandized against any kind of socialism and even went as far to arrest and f with communists in the McCarthy area. Left wing movements still get a lot of back lash to this day. And mild soc dems like Sanders are labeled as radical socialists, even neoliberals get called leftists by the far right in this country
@@baptizednblood6813Mccarthy was right about everyone he accused
@bobbiemiles-foremaniii8747 I don't know everyonw he accused and on what grounds amidst the second red scare, but as a result Stalin called him "the better agent than any of my own", which being grown up in USSR have quite deep meaning.
TIK wants to know your location
1 like = 1 more hour of TIK explaining the Economic Calculation Problem again.
What I wouldn’t give see real historians rip into him soon.
@@sambull2621 Maybe there is a reason the "real" historians haven't ripped into him?
@@francissreckofabian01 Because they don't waste their time replying to hacks?
TIK rulea
This was a wonderfully thorough, balanced, nuanced, and informative discussion. Thank you for contributing this.
the first guest somewhat. The rest were just the typical Marxist line, it wasn't Marxism so it can't be socialism.. It is the tired trope that if it isn't Marx it can't be socialist.
I want to know how people define "right" and "left." I can never get a clear definition from anyone who calls Nazis or fascists "far-right."
Its not one dimensional. Normies think it is, and the purveyors of dominating rhetoric want you to oversimplify the argument. Left and right is just akin to a simple dichotomous right and wrong, with no objective measure of which is which. Policy is what matters. Cause and effect. Language should be simplified only to the extent that it makes for more efficient discussion. Anything more results in inevitable obfuscation.
J call them far right, becose their ideology was hugely based on racial, and national aspects, while all the left wing groups in the weimar republic at the time, was leaning on unity of workers across world, which was total contradicction to nationalism, or racial views. Also the economy aspect of NSDAP was the last thing they care about, and it was all about to isolate economy, from every other country, becouse nazis wanted to be selfsufficient, becouse of it national concept. They planed to secure "lebensraum", and the economy model would be similiar to GB or France, where they would gain welth from european and russian resources, and slavery work, of slavic people.
@@gizmo9452 the "left wing" based their ideology largely on race now, does that make them "far right?"
And the Nazi platform absolutely was economic, as well. They nationalized almost every industry. "Lebensraum" was about expansion, which absolutely isn't an inherently right-wing tendency.
It seems to me that the Nazis can't really be either left or right. Almost as if they were, just like other fascists, a centrist ideology.
@@rodneythundercock
There is diference what is considered right wing, in weimar republic during 20 interwar peroid, and today politcs. The race teory was hugely absorbed by right wingers, so reflecting it at today politics doesnt make sense. every political spectrum have their diferences. Defineing it by today standards is just false.
They dont nacionalize every industry. Huge part of it was in private hands, like Heinkel, IG Farben, Wolkswagen... And j dont say, the lebensraum idea was standalone right wing idea, but ideology that put this idea to use, has political spectrum, that made its core of racial and nacional arguments, which can be alliagned to right wing parties, in that time.
J dont say, their economy isnt important, but it wasnt something that Hitler care much less about, and it was 3 row argument, under racial and national supermany, and Hate towards marxism, and comunism. He get germany from visible crisis, and prepere country for war. The rest was unecessery for him.
Hans-Joachim Braun in „The German Economy in the Twentieth Century that Hitler said he dont even have economical program. IT wass all about taking it all and trying to create sometihng, anything, that seemed to be working.
And facist in not centrist ideology either, and it is consider a right wing also.
(and sory for my bad english, it is not my first language)
@@gizmo9452 @Gizmo but they call it right-wing in today's political climate. So your argument makes no sense.
They did nationalize every industry. While some remained in private hands, nominally, they were **ahem** "encouraged" to act in the party's interests. The government still guided and controlled every aspect of production.
Fascism is a centrist ideology. Whether it's "considered" right or left is kind of what this whole disagreement is about. The modern left asserts that fascism and Nazism are both right wing, while giving no real arguments for it.
American political categorizations and definitions are absolute idiotic.
The first guy is painful to listen to, he contradicts himself, the definition of double brained.
Spanish ex-communist celeb writer/ political historian Antonio Escootado asked to a today marxist "do you see any serious difference between a nazi and volkshevik".
Volkshevik 😂
Thank you very much for the great topic and high level Guest who speaks neutrally and gives excellent information and insight that is easily digestible.
My grandfather was a very early member of the Nazi Party. He was also a committed GERMAN nationalist and a capitalist business man.
Not exactly a socialist 😎
What did Hitler say about capitalism?
@@User5_
Capitalism without Jews was fine for Hitler…
_"Socia lism 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 paras itism 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 soci alism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Ar yan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that soci alism is inseparable from nation alism."_
"Why We Are An ti-Sem ites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
30 mins in and loving it. Eric seems very objective on his observations. I came here looking for assurance on my belief that nazis where socialists and I gotta say I now have a new view on the subject.
Well if you get very easily persuaded by one video, then you should research more, how about you watch a video called "economic doctrine of the nazis" by Hans Herman Hoppe
@@josephgilliana9213 just read primary sources on the subject. Why are either of you allowing yourselves to be convinced by one video? I’d be happy to point you to the Nazi Germany Sourcebook by Routledge. Key to remember when reading primary sources is who said it, what was the occasion, what was their goal, etc. ALL of these you should keep in mind regardless of your opinion before reading a primary source
@@clarerobnett7342 ? Get over yourself!
nazi germany economy was a socialist economy, george reisman phd in economics writes why this is true
I said I have a new view on the subject. Anyway I rather be persuaded by a good argument. Than to be so set on my ways that I'm not able to view other points of view
Another interesting subject Nick, thx.
Thank you so much for this video. Every video I've seen or article I've read on this has come from ideologs trying to push their agenda on History both making extremely weak points. Thank you for pointing out the nuance on this complicated subject.
So TIKHistory doesn't make any strong points, despite having hours upon hours of content showing that it is socialism?
They were Nationalists first, socialists for the Aryan race, not for everyone that showed up at the border, like today.
now how many borders did they cross?
@@CA-jz9bm
By conquest?
Almost all of Europe I think.
"I find that socialism is often misunderstood by its least intelligent supporters and opponents to mean simply unrestrained indulgence of our natural propensity to heave bricks at respectable persons." [George Bernard Shaw, "An Unsocial Socialist," 1900] -as quoted in Online Etymology
George B. Shaw advocated for the review of every human being by a board of specialists to determine whether that individual contributed to society or didn't, whereupon if the conclusion was in the negative, said individual would be euthanized.
ua-cam.com/video/hQvsf2MUKRQ/v-deo.html
It would be unfair to call the Nazis conservative because it's part of the altright tradition. Well put professor!
Dr. Zar says, " no true socialists. And I'm not sure about Scotchman either.".
Thank you for this presentation. You and your guest speakers provided an in depth and nuanced analysis of this material. Politically, words like fascism and nazism are thrown back and forth across the isle devoid of any real meaning and it was refreshing to hear this serious treatment of this deceptively simple topic.
This was not in depth analysis.
It was propaganda from someone who didn't read any of the primary sources...
Complicated is kind of an understatent though, right?😂
Not really since Facism is when capitalism default to to defend against socialism. So therefore, the Nazi were capitalist. The first historian is trying to muggy the waters saying but nazis weren't really conservative. Which is total bs.
Thanks for the non bias take
Kurlander was illuminating, to day the list.
I would argue that much of the confusion that exists with finding an adequate definition for the word 'socialism' is largely due to the campaign waged by mid-twentieth century libertarian economists, who successfully convinced many of their contemporaries and following generations that 'socialism is whenever the government does something.' Not only is this absolutely false, but it has also done a great disservice by reducing the quality of public debate.
Socialism is simply the ownership of the means of production by workers/proletariat. And in a Marxian approach, this worker-ownership is accompanied by a command economy (though there are socialists who do favor the use of markets as a mechanism for exchange).
I don't know if the regulation of markets, welfare programs, the existence of public sector or state owned enterprises are inherently 'socialistic' especially since capitalist parties (whether liberal or conservative) have no problem with state intervention if it creates new markets, saves an industry from failure, invests in research and development, and promotes the further accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie.
I think it's important to draw a distinction between a worker's state and a capitalist state, and how the goals of each state differ when it comes to ownership structure and intervention in an economy.
Uh no. Because you can call the state the people. That means the state owns it. So that whole definition is crap in reality. Its a stupid idea by stupid people. The only person who should own the rights to your labor is you thats the end of it. For the last hundred years clowns have tried to justify slavery of the masses and repackage it as socialism or communism etc...But in the end its handing authority over to gov. so its stupid.
@@funkmaster2258 Nope. You're wrong.
@@funkmaster2258 actually Mr. Funkmaster you are 100% correct
Socialism is state control of the economy
And that means slavery for you and me
@@OmarO4 really omar ? Explain how if you can. Actually explain communism and capitalism. Do you even know what either 1 of those words mean?
Why didn't we hear the word "authoritarian" used?
Meaningless word
Authoritarian and libertarians are not the divide between left and right wing.
OK, where are the sources of those information?
Unlike TIK none of these guys comes armed with a single reference.
with FACTS and LOGIC
There should be greater focus on other 20th century ethno-nationalist authoritarian regimes, especially those that lasted longer. Focusing on Germany can only yield so much.
Italy Japan etc etc turkey to some extent
For over half a century, none the less, Hitler has been portrayed, if not as a conservative - the word is many shades too pale - at least as an extreme instance of the political right. It is doubtful if he or his friends would have recognised the description. His own thoughts gave no prominence to left and right, and he is unlikely to have seen much point in any linear theory of politics. Since he had solved for all time the enigma of history, as he imagined, National Socialism was unique. The elements might be at once diverse and familiar, but the mix was his.
In these schools of thought the left right dichotomy is believed to have been transcended.
The term Third Position is used to describe the broader philosophical lens into which fascism and natsoc fall.
As per the political ethos, tactics or tones or whatever else that are (considered) either left or right are free to be utilised.
There are reactionary and revolutionary elements in these schools of thought, and especially due to how much liberalism is ingrained in the ways of thinking in the Anglophonic world we are stuck in this "no it was left! No it was right!" Seesaw that is really quite silly, as fash and natsoc foundationally reject the liberal basis which underlies Anglo/western politics.
That's how both the right and left genuinely loathe and oppose these schools, despite each considering that the other is either secretly or unwittingly of its stripe
This is especially confusing to Americans because the left and right are inverted vs europe. The left in Europe is anti-authoritarian, anti-nobility and aristocracy, the left in the USA is pro-authoritarianism, basically little marist tyrants at this stage.
@@deadend1041 You’re completely wrong. The left hardly exists in the US. Liberals are not leftists and the government has been sliding further and further right for decades.
@@deadend1041 The left in America is not "pro-authoritarian" any more than the left in the rest of the world. You can be pro or anti authoritarian on either the left or right, and in America the actual left(NOT liberals, who are centrists), are a wide mix of pro and anti authoritarianists. Democratic socialists and libertarian socialists fall more in the middle, while marxist-leninists fall on the authoritarian side and anarchists and anarcho-communists fall on the anti authoritarian side. This idea that the left are all authoritarian and the right are all anti authoritarian is nothing more than modern conservative populist propaganda meant to invoke red scare-esque fear by equating the entirety of the American left along with liberal democrats(who are again, NOT leftists) to Soviet communists.
The modern political compass is inherently flawed anyway as it posits that being in favor of smaller government is anti-authoritarian or "libertarian," which is fundamentally impossible in a modern capitalist system where down sizing of the government always leads to increased power of corporations plus erosion of worker's rights, increase of income inequality, etc. In other words, right wing "anti authoritarianism" or "libertarianism" is inherently authoritarian as it places civil liberties and individual freedoms in the hands of big businesses who will inevitably abuse them.
Every political faction and group in America is authoritarian. They're all capitalists too, from Bernie Sanders to Ron Paul. They're all authoritarian capitalists who quibble around the edges of actual interest.
An interesting interview. I like the segment in which Dr. Kurlander covered the historical background required in order to understand the rise of left- and right-wing movements in much of the Western world between the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Of course, changing domestic and international conditions did influence how various political parties evolved over time. Context is everything, after all.
A quick giveaway of the Nazis' ultimate agendas: The sidelining of guys like Hjalmar Schacht and Hugo Junkers. While Schacht was in favor of the revival of Germany, Hitler & Co. wanted the pace of armaments programs way beyond what Schacht thought was feasible. Meanwhile, Hugo Junkers, who was very much interested in civil aviation but only marginally interested in bombers, was similarly sidelined. Clearly, Hitler & Co. were catering to the ultranationalist contingent within the German elites. In addition, Hitler was quite generous in providing additional (and tax-free!) incomes to Germany's senior generals as a means of ensuring the military's loyalty to him. Last, but not to the least: the elimination of Ernst Röhm, Which enabled Hitler to eliminate his biggest political rival and, at the same time, significantly improve his relations with the German military. Basically, Hitler answered national policy-related questions critics would raise without beating the bush all that much.
I have noticed a plenty of verbal masturbation over labels like "socialism", "fascism", etc., both in the comments section of this video as well as outside. Identity politics in action. Much of political discourse taking place in public sphere is hampered by labels and caricatures which I find absurd as identity politics actually obfuscate rather than clarify issues.
The comment section is so sad. Over an hour of detailed and nuanced conversation dismissed by 'experts' who can't bother to read or engage with information outside their McCarthy like world view....Thank you SAMA for trying to educate and engage with the uneducated and ignorant.
Appreciate your comment of support! My thoughts exactly are spot on with your comment.
McCarthy was anti Fascist.
@@christopherdunstan1708
I believe McCarthy was just a little bit ahead of his time
@@christopherdunstan1708 and yet tons of people died or were blacklisted under McCarthyism for being a suspected socialist.
@@fibonaccisequins4637 for one Mcarthyism is a bullshit term on par with Blitzkrieg made up after the fact. Even then almost no body died... No body was sentence to death and best coming from a anarchist site with more malaware than porn site. They say 37 people died. That is probably bs too. It isnt beging black listed you are being tried for treason.
Next week: is a sunflower a star?
Terrible analogy. The Nazis, as the people in the video explain, were significantly inspired by socialist thought.
People think Marx was the starter of socialism and all socialists or people who called themselves socialists were born from him but Marx merely expanded and changed the views of proto-socialists, like utopian socialists, adding a focus on dialectical materialism
Marx also added the Class struggle thing. Also, socialism, in all it's forms, is utopian, which is why it is doomed to fail forever, the only difference between one regime or another is the death toll.
Marx also added anti-semitism into the mix. Most of the anti-semitic rethoric Hitler used he borrowed from Marx.
@@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf Marx hated Jewish religion, not their race, also, I call BS, Hitler did not steal from Marx, he hated Marx!
@@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf those were state socialism, Marx would hate them
@@Jesscresent76 Of course Marx would hate them. Socialists hate other, slightly different, socialists more than anyone else. And Marx was an insufferable asshole to begin with, ever since his youth.
Also, "State Socialism" is like saying "Wet Water".
Marx was a Class Socialist. Hitler was a Race Socialist (hello Critical Race Theory!). Mussolini was a Syndicalist Socialists.
And the list goes on.
It's all Socialism.
@@Jesscresent76 Yes, it only because wasn`t proper socialism. As the polity socialising everything was not the Proletariat.
suggesting that "it's complicated" because nazism has arbitrary similarities to socialist aims and methods is reductionist and frankly irresponsible.
the similarities were not arbitrary. Hitler himself said that if it wasn't for his racial vision, then national socialism would be the same as marxism.
The reason "it's complicated" is not in the conclusion. The coclusion of all the evidence is simple:
Yes, the Nazis were Socialists, leftists.
The complicated part is in the sisipean task of gathering the facts. And even more complicated is to convince the leftists to accept that yes, they hold similar ideas (or in some cases, like the ones supporting Critical Race Theory, the SAME ideas) as Adolf Hitler.
Well, I guess some key questions would include:
DO you have to be in the Marxist tradition to be a socialist? The 19th century would vehemently disagree, but by the WW1 era everybody was, no matter how far they had splintered, even the social democrats. SO the Nazis fail there.
Is a state capitalist model sufficient or insufficient to be called socialist? In theory the USSR would disagree, favouring collectives. OTOH, in practice their system was only a step or so more socialist for much of the economy. Bit of a wash.
Do you have to be an internationalist to be a socialist? By now, yes. But not everyone we would still call socialist quite agreed with that. Goes back to whether or not you were definitively in the Marxist tradition, and whether that tradition defines socialism or not.
Other issues that can be raised are often distractions- the adoption of Leninist ideas like the vanguard party and all the forms of party-state that follow, including executive and enforcement mechanisms and political structures parallel to state structures down the line, can be adopted by anyone. The Nazis only partly constructed all that in the time available, anyway, making many concessions to the existing forms of civil society and civil and military service until the decided near the end that these were unreliable. So even calling them Leninist socialists is weak- they were poor imitators.
The ultimate problem is that this notion comes from the American libertarians and libertarian-inflected conservatives, and is influenced by their roots in the English Whig tradition that so informs modern American and even British conservatism. From this POV, anything as collectivist in ideals, language, social organization, attitudes to class and status, and with such radically revolutionary objectives for social transformation, gets pegged as socialist and radical. Taking a step further and putting Nazism on the "left" is influenced by those factors, and by some rudimentary knowledge of the movement's early history and some early players, and by the incapacity of people in that milieu to see anything other than a left-right and parallel socialist-capitalist political spectrum.
1- Read "The Jewish Question" by Karl Marx. Hitler borrowed a lot from that.
2-There's no such thing as "State Capitalism". If the State runs the economy, it's Socialism. If the State stays out of the economy, then it's Capitalism. The only ones who ever use the oxymoron "state capitalism" are socialists trying to deny the fact that both Nazi germany, Fascist italy and the USSR, both unders Lenin and Stalin, were Socialist regimes.
3- Hitler didn't want to imitate the communists. He specifically made a point on that. His socialism was national, not marxist, and his was the "true socialism". It's also worth noting that, for Hitler, Race and Nation were one and the same. So it's more accurate to say he was a Race Socialist (hello Critical Race Theory!)
Those who follow the same or similar ideology today see socialists and Communists as their enemy. The German Nazis also saw socialists as their enemy, which is why the Dachau prison was created. Hitler started imprisoning them nearly a decade before the Final Solution was decided upon at the Wansee villa. The 'socialist' aspects of Nazi Germany were held over from the Wiemar Republic (health care etc.). My understanding is that Hitler was more of a privatizer than a socialist.
Hitler did not believe in Private enterprise his problem with Russian communist is that they Took their orders from Moscow
He privatized the profitable German nation railway and basically gifted his biggest corporate supporter Thyssen with the German steel industry so I agree.
Hitler nationalized every major industry. What are u talking about
@@arthurhayward122 Hitler "privitized" the railways, and gave all the "corpotate" "profits" to his best "friend" and only corporate supporter Thyseen, who he stole from and put in Dachau.
@@flaminpigs3545 “only corporate supporter” really? Hitler was popular with The leaders of German business interests because of his elimination of labor unions and suppression of the political left. Many of them thrived under the Nazis. Thyssen, who Hitler gave a controlling interest in the steel industry, fled Germany because the Nazis began persecuting the few Christian’s that wouldn’t go along with the plans for a German Christianity rebuilt to conform to Nazi ideology.
Modern definition of socialism as a political philosophy emphasizes that socialisms goals is to have the community as a whole to be owners of the economy. So was the nazi party socialist? I say no. It was an aristocracy run by a dictator. It was nationalistic. Its version of capitalism was full of nepotism and oligarchy. It was for German citizens only. That means no non germans. no LGBT. No non whites. No marxist socialists. No traitors. No minorities of any kind. Its way too exclusive and anti social and anti foreigner. And even if all of Germany was cleansed of the undesireables....i say it would still be an anti social nation run only by a chosen aristocracy meant to be built for that aristocracy.
Also no capitalism. Because N*zis viewed capitalism as a Jewish idea.
TIKhistory is the only "best source" of information for this topic on youtube. Plus he actually formally cites his sources (in video) and list in them in the comments without fail, unlike the mass majority of youtube historians who always promise sources in the comments/description yet never fail to leave them out....
TIK actually respects the intelligence of his audience, unlike most educated people who thumb their nose at anyone without credentials regardless of the quality of their argument
I agree big-time. Even before watching TIK most of the propaganda about Nazis being capitalist and not socialist are false. Was actually watching the 5 hour Hitler was a Socialist and bumped my phone and this showed up
He uses arguments for his arguments not history for his arguments
@@kingmango4054 Heheh huh? Wtf kind of response is that? You silly or sumtin?
It was interesting to hear a group of socialists trying to clean the name of their ideology from one of their biggest exponents.
However, not only hitler described himself as a socialist, but nazi germany had a "syncronized" economy with those who failed to comply being expropiated and administrated by government officials. Also, the owners of the big bussines were important members of the nsdap.
It was a really interesting video with the professor at first, but then the agenda started to become obvious.
Now, about what that cynical guy said, Pinochet was an authoritarian dictator, but not a facist.
The main difference being that fascism, nazism, socialism, comunism and all those ideologies tell the people what to think, what to do, where to live, where to work, etc. People lives are at the mercy of the state.
Pinochet, on the other hand, let you do whatever you wanted to do, you were in control of your own life, with the only prohibition being to stay away from far left politics, and of course terrorism.
Finally a sensible comment. Many people blindly follow so-called historians not knowing that majority of them have 'Socialist" Bias whether this century or last one. Nazi germany had the largest labour union ever seen which had more control than any factory owner or a manager. Factory owners cannot even fire them without dealing with the Nazis and often were forced to hire less competent labour almost all things were subsidized so with even with low wages people were able to afford more things. They say hitler erases the socialist (marxist party) first but the truth is hitler erased all parties regardless of their ideology as he believed these parties create divide among people according to one of his speeches. Also there are other countless evidence which proves our point but so called popular books on nazi germany are propoganda by writers and very few of them are unbiased.
“the owners of the big businesses” So, not socialism then.
@@hailhydra7959 LOL!
Since they were important members of THE state party, they were more politicians than businessmen, so it was socialism then.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
@@page8301 the inevitable question is then: "do you?"
If Marxism is the only socialism you know, then you’ ll think that everything non-Marxist is also non-socialist and that is a fallacy, you’d be wrong.
Marx understood National Socialism pretty well. He discusses antecedent phenomena to National Socialism in the Communist Manifesto, in the section on "German or " True" Socialism ".
@@mastrblastr3010 Marx also made his anti-semitism very clear in The Jewish Question.
Hitler was not exagerating when he wrote that, if not for his racial worldview, his brand of socialism would only compete with marxism on it's own turf. That is, they would be one and the same.
Unfortunately people cant tell the difference between economic and social left and right. You can be Authoritarian and have left or right economic views or you can be Libertarian and also have left or right economic views.
But most people are closer to center then they like to admit.
Um no. All the way left is communism. All the way right is anarchism. Who has authoritarian control with no government or laws?
authorianism is not "social right" and liberalism is not "social left". They are called just authoritarianism and liberalism. If you define right wing something like "state/public should not set restrictions on market and should interfere as little as possible with free market economy" (as I understand left is pretty much defined by want of heavy regulation and even direct involvment on market by things like public housing, heavy taxation and such. Naturally right should be defined by the opposite of that) then there by definition really cannot be authoritarian right, because restrictions on things like freedom of speech and authoritarian social regulation like "sunday is a mandatory free day for every person (expect like nurses and firefighters)" is directly effecting to the free market. It is like you cannot at the same time save and eat the cake, you either have to let people do things as they want or you have to interfere with market economy
@@lassenikulainen6722 Absolutely right. For whatever reasons, people have deeply fallen for the fallacy that economics and politics are separate. Society is economic in nature, the very existence of a larger society is done on the express need for human beings to cooperate so the members can meet their needs, that's what an economy is. You can't separate the politics of a system from the economy of the system. There is no such thing as a free market under an authoritarian state, just as there's no such thing as a politically free people under control of a monopolistic power elite.
@@velraven8944 It should be noted that the Left/Right; Libertarian/Authoritarian political spectrum was concocted by Marxists, who are notorious liars. It was made specifically to place socialists such as Hitler (Racial Socialist) and Mussolini (Nationalistic Sindicalist Socialist) in the "Right".
A more honest spectrum would look like this:
Left/Right
Collectivist / Individualist
Central Plan Economy / Free Market Economy
Statism / Minarchism (extremes being Totalitarianism / Anarchism).
I think it is comical on one part, that anyone would call Nazis socialist, and on the other part not once explain, define, or speak of state capitalism. I mostly agree with Dr Kurlander, but again no talk of the mixed state and private capitalism. I totally disagree with the definition of socialism by Dr Zar. Socialism has always been about society owning the means of production, not the state ownership of the means of production. Lenin was very clear in his speech about what the Soviet Union had achieved. HE clearly said they had achieved State Capitalism although he considered it a different State Capitalism than the bourgeois state capitalism. It was Stalin that redefined socialism for strategic means. He claimed socialism was when the workers take over the state, with no transition on a micro level of the economy. This became canon unfortunately and it is at a great loss to all of us. The argument or discussion about socialism meaning more state control or capitalism being less state control, is an old, worn-out, stale argument that has been settled long ago. Obviously you can have more or less state control in either mode of production. That isn't what defines them. Capitalism is the employer (state or private) and employee dichotomy with wage labor. That is how it is organized and no other mode of production organizes that way. Socialism is when you eliminate that by merging owner and worker together. When workers are also the owners of the means of production! Hence, society/community owning the means of production and controlling production and distribution. I agree with the laughter that came out of Tipsyfish, when asked if Nazis were socialist. I didn't listen to Cynical, sorry. Will try and do that later. Thanks for this discussion and glad I found this channel.
I think this conversation would have benefited a lot from the speaker defining what he considered capitalism in addition to his definition of socialism. At one point he refers to, effectively, a command economy as "organized capitalism". To me this doesn't make any sense but maybe it would if he had been more clear with his terms. It sounds similar to the term "state capitalism" which is a term I've only heard used by socialists and never by capitalists.
Nazi economics were supposed to be a "third way" system that retained private property , individual initiative and profit but had state guidance toward regime goals like national autarky ( making the nation economically self sufficient ) and imperialism ( building a war machine - the Nazi's main economic goal ). The closest fascism had to an economic ideology was Corporatism which is a system of economic and social organization that fostered class cooperation , coordinated national development and replaced parliamentary politics ( in the case of political Corporatism - which wasn't used in fascism ).
@@z2z3z45 In other words:
Nazism was Socialism.
Fascism was also Socialism.
They were different from each other and from communism, but they are all socialism in the end.
In pursuing your discussion of "Were the NAZI socialists" your guest ignore the defining aspect of socialism which allows your UA-cam historians to answer the question, "Were NAZI socialist?" with the resounding, Absolutely Not!"
What that last "historian" touches on is an aspect of socialism when he say socialism means that the state controls the means of production. After which he devolves into a lecture of right-wing and nationalism. While the aspect of "controlling the means of production" can be used to further explain the further the definition of socialism it is only part of explaining what a socialist is. Despite implied denials NAZIs "controlled the means of production" in NAZI Germany. Business owners may retain titlar ownership the NAZI Party decided how the business was run or replaced the owner with a party member. Private ownership was a disguise for state ownership. The true definition for socialism is the State owns and controls everything including the people who are not citizens but subjects. The fact a subject may have title to his business is just a fraud as ownership exists to the State, This is the Progressism we have seen in our United States. The difference is Right wing or Leftwing is the difference between a Red Delicious Apple and a Honeydew Apple, difference only in taste. Progressives or Socialists want people to believe there is only "apples" or state control. The true difference in governments in who hold power each individual or a small core of elites known as the State. Aristocracy is an Oligarchy both "Kings" and "Presidents for Life" depend a relatively small group of associates to control and hold power. To say that the differences between Fascist and Maxist aren't superficial is perpetuating a fraud. Marxists and Fascists may have fought in Germany but Marxist and Maoists fought in Asia. The fact they fought doesn't mean the groups were different in any substantive wsy.
Dude I was scolded for this recently, you're brave.
Going to pop some popcorn then go through the comments.
The commentary from Dr. Kurlander is what I’ve been looking for. I find that anyone who simply says “no, the Nazis weren’t socialist” seems overly dismissive of any statements to the contrary, while those who say “actually the Nazis were socialist” seem to have an agenda of equating Communists with Nazis. Very refreshing to hear some nuance on this subject, and acknowledgment that we all might have to confront our biases if we want the most accurate information.
In terms of "Does the system suck ass?" National Socialism, Communism, Fascism and other forms of socialism are equal. Waving a flag with a hammer and sickle should be seen as much as taboo symbol as waving a flag with a swastika.
This is one of the great debates on the left. Is whether nazis are socialist. It's same with the Soviets. If they are socialist and communists. Such ideologies are in name only but not in practice.
Followed by "next time socialism will work"
@@Nickle314 lol
It's simple, they called themselves socialists in order to win votes, THEY WERE NOT. There is no debate, Hitler was a con man...
@@Harrier_DuBois A socialist. You only have to look at his declaration that he's a socialist.
Then you look at his policies, and he's a socialist.
Then we have the killing. Done for the same reasons that other socialists killed millions.
@@Nickle314 By the way, Hitler talked shit
And his policies were not socialist
Hitler says his movement was socialist ( a racial national socialism), historians say otherwise, is kind of like Edison saying he invented a light bulb but historians say it was a heater.
Thats the problem. Everyone hates the Nazis (well, except for lunatics). Equating anyone to a Nazi is the ultimate slur.
Socialists don't want any association with the Nazis, hence the complete denial of any socialism within the National Socialists.
Capitalists don't want any association with the Nazis, hence denial of private ownership.
The truth is the Nazis were racists. Thats where their true horror manifested.
Racism isn't left or right.
@za12 _"that's because he never did anything soci alist "_
Wrong. He did. You cannot be an advocate for cent ralized planning and strong gover nment controls without being a soc ialist. That's what made Hi tler a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bol sheviks, but he was still a soc ialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitl er outright declared himself a socia list in Mein Kampf, just not the Ma rxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to disting uish his soci alism from the rest of the Ma rxist crowd.
His definition of socialism had nothing to do with socialism. He just appropriated the term to lure voters away from socialists and Marxists. He hate socialists and Marxists with a burning zeal considering them to be harbingers of the end of civilization and in no small parts due to socialism and Marxism being founded and supported by /drumroll Jews.
He loved big industry capitalists though.
Hitler said a lot of things and made a lot of statements. Thankfully most of it is not the truth. Political statement doesn't always mean truth, especially made by radical movements which choose to annihilate the complete world order or annihilate itself in trying.
kim jong un calls korea democratic
"brown before red" was Hitler's response to the question: will Germany unite with the ussr toward the goal of one world socialist rule? This is in reference to his brown shirts and Lenin's red shirts. The fascist aspect is always going to be present in socialism. The elites will always put their friends and family in charge of factories, etc... "The first duty of the powerful, is to retain power" -machiavelli
Should have had on TIK history instead of those last two clowns who were only parroting the main stream left's narrative that was thoroughly shot down by the first guy. Fascism litterally refers to a latin metaphor for a labor union yet its far right. The first was by far the most credible and well reasoned.
Really leaning into the controversial questions eh? ;)
Yes, I want to do an off and on series on controversial topics in modern history like "What actually caused the Civil War?" "Determining genocide in the conquest of the Americas" and etc.
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 It shouldn't be. Thank you for making this video.
@@NineNoRouge agreed friend! Thanks for watching!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 The Armenian genocide has been in the news lately, that might be a good one.
"It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism-in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism" -Giovanni Gentile
“I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit,” that “the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx,” - Adolf Hitler
Nazism had socialists in the party, but guess what happened to them later on. I’ll give you a hint, a bullet just so happened to enter the back of their skulls
@Mark Smith You're just being pedantic now. Trotskyism is what you are calling socialism.
Socialism first used in 1833 as;
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Socialism;
• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism
• any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
• a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
• a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Synonyms;
syndicalism, welfarism, social democracy, progressivism
@Mark Smith I'm sorry sorry sir but you are incorrect socialism never existed prior to 1800's. You are confusing social, Socialize and social norms with socialism. The definition you were trying to pawn off It is classic misdirection to get people to believe that socialism isn't socialism. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. Doesn't matter what you think the definition is the simple fact of the matter is globally within the population and academia socialism means exactly what I have provided in my previous post.
@Mark Smith AGAIN the etymology of socialism dictates you are wrong.
You continuously confuse socialism and social. They are entirely different words. You see it's the "ism" that is key.
ism;
• a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
Social;
• relating to society or its organization
Socialism;
• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
You see one just has to do with society and its organization. The other because of the "ism" is a practice, system, philosophy, ideology or movement.
Your contrived attempts to pass off social as socialism lacks any real substance or understanding of language .
Read literally just one of his speeches and come back and tell me how he loved Marx (who was JEWISH). You can argue that maybe some other earlier Nazis were a form of socialist but to argue Hitler, of all people, was a MARXIST is asinine
The guy who explained the difference between revolutionary socialist and reform socialists was near spot on, but I feel nowadays people just use socialist and communist interchangeable and now there are varying levels of socialist who are liberty based or authority based as well as violent revolution, moderate revolution, somewhat peaceful revolution, and the varying levels of reform that socialists support if that makes sense.
in fact Marx used the terms in an almost interchangeably way. Socialism is usually understood as the lower phase of communism... so it should be a transiction between Capitalism ans Communism, yet we identify as socialism other philosophical positions wich exists outside of Marxism. Often socialism is understood as the utopian socialism, wich would bring social change without class struggle or revolutions, as in intentional communities (wich would be like seeds willing to mature and develope). In a Marxist context i would prefer to avoid confusion by addressing everything as Communism in different phases.
@@mavrospanayiotis Marx specifically called for violent revolution.
The more openly utopian version of socialism (all forms of socialism are utopian as they are rooted in gnosticism) are only ever used to fool idiots into supporting totalitarianism or to be maliciously disingenuous when the fact that socialism is totalitarian by design is pointed out, or that the regimes implemented by socialists were, well, socialist regimes. "That wasn't true socialism" is almost invariably used as well.
@@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf @IsmaelSantos-xv9qf i can understand Marx since, in fact, bourgeoise revolutions were violent and were the only way to create the capitalist regime we live in today, changing the ruling class from aristocracy to bourgeoise.
You are simply confusing primitive christianity with socialism: like when apostles asked the faithful people to renounce to all personal property and give it to them. Marxism doesn't ask you to give to a person your whole wealth and that person decides what you need and how much to give you back (that is closer to capitalism, in wich the value of your work is kept by your owner who gives back a part of it as wage). Some utopian socialist were actually inspires by Acts and Gospels into giving people this lifestyle back, they were ingenuous, but the difference is the right to democratically choose what to do. And no, for me it wasn't "true" socialism, as it wasn't still "true" capitalism what came before the expropriation of public land to give it to private owners in England. Russia, China etc. were in fact under siege from a capitalist world around them and had to act accordingly implementing some socialism but in fact they were still in a transictioning phase in wich they were applying more likely a mixed economy with some moments of vague socialism. They started to move toward socialism, but the need to sustain a war economy to defend themselves didn't allow to really move much in that direction.
@@mavrospanayiotis
1- No, it specifically asks you to give up everything. That's what "abolishing private property means". You know what's also Private Property? Your body and mind.
Also, there's no such thing as "capitalist regime", in fact, regimes fight to prevent capitalism from arising because it takes power away from the central powers (the state, the feudal lords, the aristocrats) and puts it in the hands of the people (the most honest and true forms of vote are the ones you do with your wallet and your feet, not with ballots).
2- Socialism is a form of Gnosticism, a parasitic religion that latches on to anything and corrupts it from within. It corrupted christianity early on and christians at times have tried to excise the corruption, such as when the Inquisition was formed to purge the gnostic cathar heretics.
Atheists are not inmune to this corruption, as Socialism shows, being a gnostic cult but presenting itself as a secular political ideology/economic system to fool the intellectuals who think themselves above superstitions, while embracing them.
3-"That wasn't true socialism!" said by every socialist when confrontedf with the reality that socialism is totalitarian in nature. Your pitiful attempt at using that excuse do not work.
@@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf really Marx clearly states that private property is private property of the means of production, while personal property is another thing wich isn't touched. In fact owners of means of production hoard your personal wealth directly produced by yourself by possessing privately the means of production you use. It's really the basics, i suggest to actually read Marx to make a critique.
The speaker doesn't explain why nationalist socialists (Nazis and Fascists) could not accept international socialism (Marxism) and why the Jew was such a potent theme.
The principle of the shrinking market was extremely important and worrisome to industrialised nationstates concerned that food producing larger states (China) would eventually industrialised, outcompete the older economies and dictate food supply to them (Ukraine/Russia).
The market for industrial goods would dry up as agrarian economies industrialised (Japan's decline and the rise of China and Vietnam).
Hitler's lebensraum was an attempt to create a self reliant enlarged Germany that could feed itself and draw on natural resources for its industrial base from a larger land area.
The Jew, having been denied the ability to own land, and being permitted to charge interest on loans (the pope decreed this was anti Christian usary and banned interest) was compelled to rely on international trade (free market capitalism) and the expansion of finance beyond state borders. Hitler therefore viewed them as the epitome of globalism and the antithesis of nationalism.
Thanks for this, interesting guests. It is difficult to talk about socialism with Americans when in the current political discourse they talk about Denmark and Sweden as being socialist which is ridiculous. In Europe for the most part there is a difference between social and socialist. So, to talk about these things you need to be more precise.
Saying that they used big corporations to their own end is a fair point, but the question is was it because they believed in free enterprise or because they needed them to produce for the war effort. I'd say it is purely the latter. I don't think H would hesitate for a second to get rid of them if he could. They saw what we consider capitalism as a problem, not a solution, so they were anti-capitalist. I'm not sure what to think of the term "organised capitalism" - if it's organised by the state and it's producing for state's needs - is it really capitalism?
Regarding them being conservative, I find that ridiculous on its face. H hated the old social order with a passion and wanted to remake it, so he was revolutionary in a way.
The only thing I would object to in the video is talking in terms left-right and through the prism of modern American politics (by some of the guests). It's a complicated enough question without it.
So you could say with relative certainty that they were anti-capitalist and anti-conservative. You could also say that they were against any form of internationalism and certainly Marxism. Whether they were socialist, depends whose definition you use and whether it's used colloquially.
Thankfully we never found out what the final implementation would look like.
Excellent points.
👏👏
Capitalism isn't when "the state doesn't do stuff", it's main characterization is the existence of the big capitalist class, the capitalist mode of production,the existence of private property as opposed to collective ownership of property and the maximisation of profits. In N*Zi Germany, the case was not just that all of these core characteristics of capitalism still exist, but also, the Naz*s themselves were brought into power by the rich capitalists and were funded by them. So it's no surprise that th N*Zi regime ended up implemented policies that heavily favoured the capitalist class and even appointed then to position of power within their regime
It’s in the name, National Socialist German Workers Party. Socialism comes in many forms but they all want top down state control of the economy and control over all areas of society. Socialist apologists and there arguments always make me cringe when they have to perform mental gymnastics to conclude that no Nazis aren’t socialists because they hate Marxists. Real Nazis don’t like Marxists because they aren’t “real socialists”. Marxists don’t like nazis because they aren’t “real socialists”. They both push for human suffering for the hated group (The Bourgeoisie and for Nazis the Jews). So really they share a lot in common and very few differences.
Right at the start, Dr. Kurlander mentions "utopic socialists". This is classic marxist vocabulary, and shows how distorted are his views. (Note that marxism has no commitment to History, Sociology or whatever;, only to political activism, 11th thesis on Feuerbach.) The doctor gets many things so obviously so wrong, but it is amazing how strong is the Socialist message in fascism that even this misguided doctor cannot help but identify it.
You should first of asked your guests their political positions then you know how honest they argue their opinions on historical issues.
Nick: let's have a nuanced discussion about history with actual historians
Commenters: JUST WATCH THIS ONE UA-cam VIDEO BY PEPE836
there is objective truth and facts and it doesnt care if you're "actual historian" or "normal person". it only matters if you're correct or not. also saying that something is true only because expert say so is logical fallacy
@@gst9325 LMAOO go back to watching Pepe 836 moron
@@gst9325 if you think consulting experts about their expert opinions is a logical fallacy you are beyond saving. Unironic dunning-kruger affect
@@maxl2778 either you are low intelligence person or you don't understand meaning of written language. also I bet you're running around youtube using the d-k effect argument on every video
@@gst9325 "Actual historian" can provide insight and explanation a "normal person" is unlikely to even adress beyond simple assertion. That's why people look up to experts.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy but suggesting that it's relevant or being employed here is an implication of your own.
You gotta love the, "nazis and communists hated each other" argument that means the nazis weren't socialists.
There are countless examples of people that have almost identical ideals that hate each other. The Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Does the fact that they hated each other mean that one or the other is not Christian?
Socialists and communists were the first ones in the Nazi's concentration camps because they're the last line of defense against fascism. First they came for the socialists...
Not only did the Nazis murder the socialists within their own party in order to consolidate power, they murdered academics, teachers, trad unionists, . The Nazi Partyntok millions from industrialists like I.G. Farben, Siemens and Krupp. They privatized what were public services under the Weimer Republic. Hitler wrote that the name itself " National Socialist Workers Party was meant to undermine the left and attract workers. They fought a war against " International Bolshevism" which just antisemitic dog whistle for the left and the Jews who had undermined the war effort during WW1...its fucking hilarious this myth of Nazis being socialist persists...
@@YFNA1978 Now do what Lenin did when he took power in Russia (USSR). Rule #1 of revolution is, "when you take power, kill all the revolutionaries".
So it's not a shock that the Nazis would take out anyone who would seek to overthrow them. You can see the same pattern in any of the "socialist" utopias throughout history. The French Revolution, USSR, China, Cuba, Angola... I could go on, but the point is that the fact they killed the opposition doesn't make the Nazis "not" socialist. It just means they followed the same pattern that all socialist dictatorships did.
I guess the reason why the left has to de-socialize the Nazis is that it allows them to cling to the notion that socialism isn't the only system that kills it's own people in wholesale numbers. If they can make the Nazis capitalists, then Communist countries can be excused for the same behavior. But there is no example of a capitalist nation committing the kind of atrocities that socialism has wrought, Sure, the start of the industrial revolution had it's exploits and it's poor working conditions, but that is more due to the nature of a new system being developed than it does a design to impoverish the masses. As capitalism gained it's feet, innovation and the spread of wealth led to improved working conditions and greater safety and freedom and standard of living for everyone.
The truth is, centralized control is by it's nature exploitative. Capitalism encourages the masses to improve themselves, an opportunity that socialism denies it's citizens.
@@rising3813 _"Soci alists and comm unists were the first ones in the Na zi's concent ration cam ps"_
And they also were the first ones in Gulags. Your point being?
Short answer is yes and the long one is too
I feel like he should write a book on this.
Gaslighting 101. "So the German socialist workers party was not... (Checks notes) ... socialist. Riiiight 😂😂😂 what clown shoery
An empty word salad. A bunch of socialists tell us why nazis are not Marxist lol.
Slow the video down next time you watch it and try and pay attention.
@@devos3212 Why? Like he said nothing but socialists trying to distance themselves from the Nazi party. Nazis were socialist like Democrats.
1:02:00 The Nazis were able to market themselves with a strong brand?
If you read the diaries of German soldiers you will appreciate many Germans had bought into the ideology and were quite capable of criticising the party when it failed to go far enough.
It was not its failure to achieve results, but its failure to maintain ideological integrity that German's were most critical of in their private musings.
Purity and hygeine of ideology could excuse any immoral act or hardship.
This is a religion not a party people followed purely out of self intrest.
All forms of Socialism are religious in nature.
Today's progressives are not different. Whenever they say "Hate Speech" just replace it with "Blasphemy". It becomes very obvious they are religious puritans.
The Nazis were socialists, not capitalists, and they took over not only the means of production, but every other sector of the German economy (with some exceptions in churches and army). The Nazis asserted their power through their representatives at every level of the German economy, including industry. No opposition or individual thought was permitted outside of the party machine, which is the hallmark of capitalism. Socialism was merely a compromise between the property owners, who could still profit, and the will of the state, who imposed their will on all Germans.
"Workers of the world, unite!" doesn't work if you add in racism.
You are confusing the political ideology of marxism with the economic idea of socialism your simply saying that they couldn't be mark sustained you are correct but they could be socialists
It should be workers of the world unite, and then create horrible products that no one will buy
At levels that won’t even satisfy the needs of their own citizens
@@henryperez3559 evidence or shut up
@@luispaiva9619
Take a look at the cars that were built in east Germany such as the Trabant compared to Porsche Mercedes Audi BMW Volkswagen
And by the way the people that built the cars in west Germany could afford a nice apartment and food some thing that could not happen in east Germany
@@luispaiva9619
How about north and South Korea
South Korea is a first world country they may have produced the phone that you use they build modern wonderful cars refrigerators washing machines on and on and off computers.
Name a consumer good produced in North Korea.
I guess you need to shut up
This was an interesting discussion. I have one criticism : none of the speakers discussed to what degree the support of Germany's economic elites was essential for Hitler to take power. Could he have become chancellor without the backing of the oligarchs? One member of the German Resistance wrote that "Hitler was hoisted into power by a cabal of Rhineland steel magnates, Westphalian bankers and East Prussian land barons." How true is this? And this goes to the heart of this dispute. The "Nazis were Socialists Crowd" never, EVER answer the question: why would reactionary plutocrats bankroll a left wing party? Germany's conservatives worked tirelessly to undermine the moderate Social Democrats, the party that had protected the Conservatives lives and property during the Spartakist Uprising. And then they turn around and fund the "Leftist" Nazis? Please....
It’s called propaganda and an elitist class. Hitler actually viewed himself as not being very well off. You’ve never been truly manipulated (or at least realized it) before.
Like not understanding why a career criminal would kill someone who is complying? It’s because they don’t think like normal people. Their are people who will literally do anything to get what they want all while calling themselves saints.
There was a guy I worked with who thought he bought something made out of crystal. Paid like $800 for it. Well there were bubbles in it. Crystals don’t have bubbles. Why would someone do that to someone that’s so nice?
To understand Hitler, you need to compare what he said in public and in private. He had many contractions. One thing he consistently said was that he was a socialist. He never ever claimed to be a fascist. He consistently opposed capitalism as he agreed with Marx to be directly linked to Jews.
The American left has tried to cover up their links to Fascism ever since FDR’s admiration of Mussolini. Take control of the markets via partnership of big corporations and governments. The left is all for this. The right believes you should keep what you earn. The left says that’s selfish. I wonder if Jim Carrey is Will to give up his millions yet? I’m not holding my breath.
Hitler would have gone nowhere without big capital, as evident in the fact that prior to bit capitalist support the NSDAP was an irrelevant party that was ignored by the overwhelming majority o Germans and only reached low single digit numbers during early elections.
He misses one definition, which the first speaker has given: any party or organisation that fights for workers rights, as e.g. today's social-democrats.
Read Ludwig von Mises
"Omnipotent Government"
to understand the differences
between Hitler's and Lenin's
types of Socialism.
The first guest was the closest to really answering the question. The rest were dead wrong in defining socialism in a solely Marxist lens. Cynical historian actually hits upon the problem but blames it all on the "right" what ever that is. Neither conservatives, liberals, or socialists like it when the Nazis said or did something they agree. As the first guest the conservative historians tended to lump all totalitarianism into one thing, the Marxist have done the same thing. Marxist for 70 years have been trying to say Nazism had no socialist elements. So the guest after Kurlander all oversimplify to Marx more precisely Trotsky was the only socialist and Nazism doesn't meet. Cynical talks about the Nazis resisting the KDP and only glosses over the SPD that fought them too. So if the Nazis couldn't be socialist because they resisted the KPD then the SPD couldn't be socialist either. An absurd proposition.
There are several problems here. First defining socialism. Even socialists never have a clear definition of socialism. The econ 101 definition is a cold war definition that just compared the USSR to the West. Kurlander was right it is a broad philosophy. However, National Socialism was a form of socialism as was Fascism. Fascism was based on syndicalism and National Socialism grew out of older Prussian socialism. This is all a red herring that you can't have private property, although the Nazis had nationalized industry like VW which Dr. Dax doesn't know was state owned and Reichswerk Hermann Goering which to this day is still the biggest state owned enterprise to ever exist, or that it has to be international. Communism in practice was never international. Trotsky lost that battle and it still is highly nationalist in practice. If you look at definitions of socialism like Grey, Bourgin, etc. there is no denying Nazism was a form of socialism that was an alternative to capitalism and Marx not organized capitalism. Socialism is nnti-liberal rejecting natural rights for collective rights granted by the collective. Socialism rejects individualism for collectivism to create a utopia of a "classless" society. Nazism was collectivism on race that sought a utopia with no class conflict they just defined class by race not economic class as Marx did.
There are so many red herrings here because socialist try to distance themselves from any socialist points the Nazis had and conservatives want to distance themselves from the conservative points. So we get this silly either or where the goal post constantly moves from goals to actual practice to ideas to ideas don't matter it is what they did. The entire discussion ignores the political situation in Germany which was very divided. The Nazis never got more than 37% of the vote and that was the biggest chunk of the vote anyone got in the period. You had to appear to be capitalist and socialist and never deny you were either. The practice was often compromise to keep power. This is nonsense that Rohm was killed for being the left. He was Freikorps fighting Eisner's Bavarian Soviet that Hitler served under before the Nazi party was formed. It was Hitler who was served a communist state and men like Rohm who fought it. The debate wasn;t over socialism, it was that Hitler was compromising for power while Rohm wanted to take the brownshirts into revolution. It wasn't left versus right it was how to implement the vision. This is total fabrication that the night of Long Knives was left vs. right. It was about Rohm being critical of Hitler and having a literal army of brownshirts who were loyal to him.
national socialism VS international socialism
Always the clothes. The SA wore dresses.
13:47 so basically what the soviets were doing.
It's all socialism, no matter how much the left today deny it.
I have a hope that material won't be stupid as title may suggest
I thought the same, but so far (I'm at 11:30) it's quite reasonable!
I know it’s hard not to get frustrated but please keep in mind that not everyone knows what socialists, national socialists , etc are so for some people this may be an eye opener. Not everyone knows communists and socialists were targeted by N@zi’s.
@Will Aden that's not what makes them different. They're not really very similar on any sort of realistic basis. Did you actually watch the video? What did you find wrong with it?
"Historians" attempt to rewrite history* there i fixed your title for you.
sorry you misspelled the capitalist west.
More like right-wingers try to distance themselves from their ideology. The denialism on the right-wing about this is crazy , the Nazis were right-wing populists , deal with it...
@@z2z3z45 _"the Na zis were rig ht-wi ng populists , "_
Wrong. Nazi sm was a total itarian f ar-le ft, socia list ideology. They were rig ht from marxi sm, not "rig ht-win g" by any means.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. " Nazi sm was a total itarian f ar-le ft, socia list ideology." Wow you really cannot help yourself and post BS all day long.
33:31 Big, privately owned companies had all the freedom within the boundaries that were set by the NationalSocialists. There were price-kommissars and now and then company owners or directors were replaced with ones that were more in line with the NationalSocialists. This happened to the Junkers company for instance. It's neither capitalist nor socialist. It's a third position.
You bring up junkers because its only example. T
@@TheTokkin I only know of IG Farben and Junkers where this happened. These were large companies. There probably were more lesser known companies to which this also happened. The IG Farben director was Jewish, must be said.
@@TheTokkin It just goes to show how the idea of private ownership was a sham in N*zi Germany. There may have been private owners on paper but they were completely subordinate to the state, so effectively the state owned the means of production. Enterprises were given to party officials. They removed private property rights early on and the fuhrer was quoted as being against them.
A bit disappointed as subscriber. I joined for "history of antiquity and middle ages", no for "modern perspectives on historical narratives".