People asked for a condensed and updated version of my 5 hour Hitler’s Socialism video, so here it is. A lot’s been cut out, but it also has new evidence, so enjoy and please share with others! The script and source list can be found in this PDF: drive.google.com/file/d/1D76xf4yemsN25A21jpw-GokPq47IijPd/view?usp=share_link
Ok i though t was going mad you first piece was a master piece on this subject case closed, Although you probably are dealing with the learning impaired i wish you well in that endeavour
can't get buy-in from the stupid worthless proles implementing mass murder for profit unless you cut them in on some of that sweet blood stained national SOCIALIST swag!
Hey Tik do you have an opinion about a video by socialist UA-camr called Second Thought where he tried to explain that Nazis were not Socialist but he gave a very weak argument like Nazis were not socialist because they killed other socialist. ua-cam.com/video/X9ez6w5BUMM/v-deo.html
My favourite form of "free trade" is when a guy with a gun tells me what and whom I may trade with and promply puts me into a slave labour or death camp if I disagree with him. A truly free market....
Which is why i say actual free trade pretty much never existed throughout history. Things close to free trade did though, and in general, the free-er the market was, the faster progress and leaps forward in human well being where made.
@@TheImperatorKnight im a socialist. I believe that the market is not free in the first place. I'll explain an example of why. Since the poor do not have the freedom to buy the expensive, even if they really need to (expensive medicine for example) If you'd like to place an other counterargument to what i just said, feel free to do so, but please don't just rush to drop me off. Consider what im trying to say. A socialist economy isn't centrally planned. That's something you didn't quite get. Again I'm fully interested on having an honest conversation free of sarcasm, because i think there might be some kind of misinformation from your part. I hope you receive my criticism in a calm manner!
Oh really? smells like BS to me and obvious the right is desperate to compare environmentalism and climate activism to Nazi ideology, jumping on the RW gravy train pays well these days and instantly gets you access to huge media platforms. TIK is a sell out like the rest of you, easy to manipulate data and facts to suit your bias, Funny how the right is so obsessed by war and "God" because mostly they are a death cult making money off war and death, but at least that death is in smart uniforms and killing machines made by their corporations to kill other young people in foreign countries, why they constantly encourage the human race to keep out breeding every other species on Earth, even IVF research is conservative, so we can have endless consumers and endless war until nature, the planet wipes us off her face like the ungrateful scum we are.
"The Germans viewed private property as conditional" I mean you could argue that is the case for every country in the world. How often do plutocrat governments seize private property for their own uses? In fact Britain did it quite a lot in 1939. There's no such thing as "fundamental rights" especially not given by a government.
@@colebehnke7767 The point is existing rules are often bent, worked around with loopholes, or often changed. There’s no difference between abolishing law and actively working against it, civil liberties are at the mercy of every single governing power.
The more I hear TIK, the more I realise how little I know about the subjects he covers and how much I need to learn. As for your comment, I don't understand what Goebbels meant but it sounds good. BTW my comments are _masked_ by UA-cam so I will get not indication if you reply to my Reply here.
@@Jean-rg4sp Goebbels was saying that Marxism, especially as practiced by the Bolsheviks was entirely material in nature while Nazism was a spiritual endeavor
@@danstone8783 Thank-you. I changed my Settings so that I got notification of your Reply. It has been turned off but not by me. I see what Goebbels meant now.
@@Jean-rg4sp Another way to understand what Goebbles was saying is that they saw Marxism as an evolutionary means to the equality of mankind (ostensibly) and Nazism as an evolutionary means to the purity of mankind.
Does anyone know any modern capitalist corporations that are staffed with governmental political party members dressed in military style uniforms? I seemed to have missed that part of modern day capitalism
Uuuuuuggggggh... Man, I... Ughj. I don't know what how to break it to you, but have you seen the Twitter "ex"-FBI members scandals lately? I mean, they don't flaunt the uniforms (and that's a shame), but I don't think, say, States are much Capitalist in many ways.
most countries are not party political states (where governance is limited to legal, governing parties) germany and china are two examples of party political states. britain and usa are 2 examples of non-party states.
I've read F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman extensively and came across nothing like that. Also nothing about government mandated and imposed production quotas for factories.
I think one of the major issues of discussing Socialism in America is that Americans tend to conflate "Socialism" with Marxism/Bolshevism. Many of the arguments I've heard against German National Socialism being "not true socialism" are really arguing that it isn't Marxist.
Not just America, unfortunately. There is a belief among many Marxists that if marx didn't write it himself, then it isn't true socialism. This is why when you ask a Marxist to define socialism, they'll go on about a society without a hierarchy, which is explicitly for the benefit of the working class. They've added those parts to it to allow them to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany were not real socialists. (The funny part is, of course, that they do not understand that in Hitlers mind, Hitler was trying to save the working class and that it is what his anti-Semitism was.)
@@user-ss3nk5fz6n Also, a looooot of people supported BLM even tho blm uses the same core foundations of National Socialism. All you have to do to make it more obvious than it is already is to change "black/poc" for "german" and "white" for "jew" and then it clicks in the minds of normies and leftists alike, the former going "oh, oh, OH I see it now!" and the later simply raging because it defies the cult's doctrine.
It's narcissist arrogance that those individuals think it can be done better and should be tried. Who cares about the current body count, get it 'right' and you're good 👀
I don’t think it’s conflation, both the Nazis and Communists openly used this term themselves. (Na) Zi = Socialist (US) S (R) = Socialist Lenin himself said, “the goal of Socialism is Communism.”
My grandfather was a Nazi. He was Croatian so by proxy he was a Nazi, at the end of the war Tito said to all Yougoslav Nazis that if they defected and fought for him they would get a full pardon. I asked him once how he could go from being a Nazi to being a Communist and he said. "Well beside the obvious, that was to save my own neck, there isn't really that much difference between them. Both demands total obediance to the Leader and the Party ideals. Both have "work camps" and in one you go because of race, in the other because of ideology... One wants the whole world to be socialists, "International Socialism" the other just want them to be socialists, "National Socialism". Both of the hates "the small hats" So you see there isn't really that much of a difference. All i really need to do now is to remember to close my fist when I salute..." So yeah...
No, your grandfather is just an uneducated person who only knows how to follow orders and is a lowly one at that. And the fact somehow you can link your grandfather stupidity with someone's mercy toward a Nazi (which is totally wrong) is absurd. In short, you are just as stupid as your grandfather, I guess stupidity does run in the family's blood.
@@viethoangtruong54 Then other than the race, class classification different what’s the practice difference between Nazism and Communism in Yugoslavia? If both Nazism and Communism demands uneducated people who only know how to follow orders, what would be their difference between their mode of production?
@@oscartang4587u3it was the exact opposite under Tito, he pushed for mass education and literacy. In pre WWII Yugoslavia, illiteracy was as high as 45%, with illiteracy in some parts like Bosnia higher than 80%. Under Tito those illiteracy rates dropped dramatically as part of a targeted effort to dramatically improve education and literacy.
Tried convincing ChatGPT that Hitler was a socialist purely by asking for definitions, siting what he said and did, and requesting logical conclusions on that basis. Not only were the answers very different than from what I'd get by asking flatly if Hitler was socialist, but the damn bot crashed right when I thought it would make the conclusion. It may have been a coincidence but I've made it crash multiple times now and it's always on that controversial step
It is pretty crashy because reasons, but I am willing to bet everything coded in that thing is from hard lefties and elitist pets. I wouldn't be surprised if when you asked it what a Woman is, if it answered: I'm not a biologist.
A better color description for Socialism would have been: "This is Socialism...it is Red. This is Marxism...it is Orange. This is National Socialism...it's Brown. And this is Fascism...it's Purple. Now, these three colors aren't Red, *but they all have Red in them and cannot be made without it."*
@@digitalis2977 That's not accurate. All of this socialism is red. Calling red crimson, then cardinal, then rouge, does not change the color. All are abrogating the same specific human rights of unqualified private property and free assembly. All are based on the collective - that's government being entrusted by collective for violence (enforcement) - taking control or ownership of the means of production. These are the same color, no matter how you tint the collectivism. This minutia of worker collective versus German collective versus Chinese peasant collectivr is not relevant in socialist praxis. It is all national socialist in practical history. Germany was so pronounced due to the pride German philosophers of socialism took in their antisemitic bigotry and the fact Germany was the only developed nation to implement it.
You vill own Nutzink, und be happy. Ze Stakeholders (WEF members) vill own eferytink... including you. Rather like socialism does. The WEF wants central control of the world economy, the dissolution of private property, the end of capitalism, one world government, control and ownership of the means of production... The WEF even wants a Communist Chinese style world government... Sounds like socialism, without Marx's classism.
@Millennium Vintage. It absolutely is. Minus the racial aspect. He still wants a central state/organization to control the economy. He wants us all to "rent" from that central state. When you "rent" and don't "own"....you have no private property. If you do not own private property, you have no ability to live outside that central state/organizations control. Klaus Schwab wants the entire world to look like China, with the WEF talking the position of the CCP.
MAAAN, you KNOW the stuff! As a German I thought I was fairly knowledgeable, but YOU have it MUCH CLEARER. THANK YOU! THE WORLD has a lot to learn from you if they want to avoid another falling back into the dark ages of Socialism/Communism.
He was a socialist, not a communist or marxist, a socialist is an umbrella term, many socialist ideologies are very different, but in the idea of collectivization of the people Hitler was clearly a socialist
Yes, it's true, socialist ideologies can differ while having the same foundation and many similar symptoms. It seems most of the critics in this comment section are arguing that Nazism was not a particular branch of Socialism they think is the only one, like Bolshevizm.
@@MisterS. yes, anyone who studied history knows they were socialist, but they werent marxist or communist, nor bolshevics, they were national socialists politically, a mix of capitalism and socialism economically, and culturally were a mix of liberal and conservative views on certain issues, National Socialism is an extremely complex system, it takes in many things from many different places, people are very narrow minded when u try to explaim this issue to them
i dont see the capitalist aspects of national socialism at all , despite maybe inner party rivalry to sell the Führer on the next big crazy Wunderwaffe.
Hitler was not a socalist dumbass, i privatezed everything, should u spend any brain cells on actualy education yourselfs on the most basic shit you would not have stage 4 brain rot
But Hitler and the Nazis were explicitly anti socialist and anti leftist. Hitler and Mussolini both stated over and over that what they thought was done right by the socialists was their style of rhetoric, their impassioned speeches, their populist message. They took the aesthetic of a socialist movement, and crushed German socialists while doing it.
The whole idea of the Nazis and Hitler being right-wing originated from Stalin and supported by leftists in Europe and America during WWII who wished to draw an ideological distinction between the soon to be allies and soon to be enemies. The distinction is/was convenient and stuck like chewing gum to the sole of one's shoe--however erroneous. A few have responded to me by saying, "Yes, Hitler was leftist in economics but not in social and international views." All I can answer is "WHAT?!?!" How does one define a Totalitarian approach to government as Left or Right? How does one divorce the means and manner of producing, supporting and otherwise providing the population from any other national acts or aims? Economics are the basis of all national endeavors.
The terms left and right are pretty vague, but when you boil them down it usually comes down to a struggle between hierarchy and nature (right) vs equality and nurture (left). It’s more so about the ends rather than the means. Means are usually just power to be used towards an end. Hitler was a socialist to enact nationalistic ends, marxists are socialist to rape the upper classes and redistribute wealth.
National Socialists were marginally right wing. Not Socialists! Ask a Historian/Poltical Scientist to explain why. Hitler killed as many Socialists as he could find!
@@njbrx for the very simple reason it isn’t history. This garbage is mostly funded by US “libertarian” think tanks serving corporate interests. Useful idiots like him make a buck peddling this crap to the gullible who never read a book. They like to pretend “right” means freedom, so they recast 20c fascism as left wing big govt. But the right is always the same. Consumed by racism, toxic nationalism, militarism, violence, ignorance and fear. Its just that now all the same suckers who loved Hitler and Mussolini are being asked to believe these folks were socialists so you can feel a bit better as you accept govt by corporates. But the joke is on you because corporates are the biggest fascists of all, given the opportunity. The only freedom they are offering the likes of you is the freedom to work till you drop, from access to healthcare, from peace, from decent wages and job security, from public services, from having a vote to chose politicians who aren’t bought paid for. And when this fool calls these fascist pigs socialists he just spits on the graves of the millions of decent socialists they systematically murdered, and the memories of most of the anti nazi resistance groups across Europe (who were almost all left wing groups too) - they certainly were not weasels like this idiot. He would have been wearing a blackshirt I suspect. Assuming the thick bast@rd could button one up.
It's one of those things that is so hard for a normal person to believe that even my brother - who loves most of your work and has a masters in history - has a hard time stomaching this one. He hasn't identified any specific flaws in your sources or reasoning, so I think it's more just, how unthinkable it is to him in his worldview. I appreciate your hard work in this front and hope it gets recognized!
I'm curious what it would take for your brother to accept this idea. I'm also curious to know if he thinks free market guys are all fascists, or trying to trick him somehow? I know when I was a Lefty, I feared that the evil secret-Right-wingers were trying to trick me, so I didn't listen to their arguments. It makes me wonder if all the Left are like that.
@@TheImperatorKnight My understanding is he has nothing against the free market - it's mostly that he takes a "stricter" view of the term socialism, I think - one that requires direct state ownership rather than being distributed among a social class or being associated with state control. I think that's the barrier most people have with it. The parallels to today are very interesting with the various influence systems the government has developed and continues to develop over private corporations.
@@Edax_Royeaux He directly addresses that in the video: the state cowed the business owners into line, or else seized the businesses and then gave it to ideolgoical allies. It was creating a "german" social class of superiority, in other words. It may not have had DIRECT control but it was pretty damn close.
@@Edax_Royeaux "In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, *mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party."* Now, read that again.
The German definition of "privatization" means taking farms and business OUT of the speculative market, as in (private limited) as opposed to public PLC. Hitler correctly called himself a "National Socialist". Quoting speech by Hitler on December 28, 1938: "A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false." (- Speech given on December 28, 1938, quoted in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93.) Quoting "The Red Network" 1934: "Fascism, the bitterest enemy of Socialism-Communism, resembles Socialism in the respect that it gives great power to the State and dictatorship over all industry, employment, education, freedom of the press, etc . The points of difference which make it violently hated by the Reds are : its opposition to the "class struggle" and the subjugation of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat . Rather, it seeks a harmony between all classes and concedes to industrialists, white collar, professional, as well as laboring workers, a place in the social order as necessary parts, not "class enemies," of the whole, but under State control . It defends some property rights and religion . It opposes Marxist philosophy and the Communist and Socialist Marxian parties . Fascism in Italy is not anti-Semitic . The problem of the large number of revolutionary Russian Jews in Germany doubtless contributed toward making Fascist Germany anti-Semitic. Fascism arose in Italy and Germany as the result of the weakness of Democracy in combating the Marxian poison which had been allowed to disintegrate the entire social fabric of these nations with agitations for strife and disunity. It took over power at a time in both countries when the choice lay between Fascist or Red dictatorship . It is the only enemy feared by the Reds, because it is the only system which opposes militancy with militancy and puts down one dictatorship by means of another. The price of Democratic freedom is eternal vigilance . When a people are too indifferent to the loss of their liberty, too blind to see that unchecked Marxism will result in complete chaos, disunity and national helplessness, too lazy to bother to protect their form of government, or to govern themselves, then some form of dictatorship will arise to take over the task for them. Unless large numbers of Americans (and Europeans) shake off their present indifference to fast disappearing liberty and to danger from within, and combat Socialism-Communism vigorously, some form of Fascism will arise in America to do battle with Socialism for the dictatorship over the indifferent. As the strength of Socialism-Communism increases, the chance to preserve Democracy decreases, until eventually Fascism becomes the only alternative to Socialism-Communism. It is late, but not too late to save American Democracy if Americans will awaken-now/ Where are America's leaders?".
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, which I do not hesitate to admit. The difference is that I have actually put into practice everything these hustlers and scribblers timidly hinted at. All National Socialism is based on this" - Hitler "President of the Reichstag, Paul Löbe, a social democrat, despite being briefly imprisoned twice by the National Socialists, received a pension from the Third Reich for his role in replacing the monarchy with a republic." "The only good thing the social democrats did" - Joachim Ribbentrop creatively developed the leader's thought - "is the abolition of the monarchy." "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than divides us. - A bourgeois social democrat or trade union leader will never become a national socialist, but a communist will infallibly." - Hitler “I just visited the concentration camps in Austria. Jews and aristocrats sit in them. Some are ugly and too mobile, others are beautiful and too incompetent” - noted Heinrich Himmler in 1937. "Jacob Bainville was afraid of the idea of a German Republic (demanded by the German socialist Karl Liebknecht). He was sure that it would follow the example of the Jacobins and, in the name of Germany "united and indivisible", would become aggressively nationalistic - he was not wrong. See : his article in Action Française (Sept. 29, 1914). Goebbels saw in German National Socialism an analogy with the French Revolution and boasted in Der Angriff (December 6, 1931) that his party represented "the German Left." "But it wasn't the true socialism" 🤣
Wow, your last paragraph literally happened in my country of Ghana, the minute we went communist and private businesses were bought up by the government things started to fail and eventually a coup happened bringing a facist leadership. I really see the prediction you made for America coming true, many democrats like Bernie Sanders are already pushing for socialist reforms and when that inevitably fails a military leader from the right will emerge. If you ask many Americans what their most trusted institution is most say the military so it's not out of the questions.
As an Italian, I would say that the most profound philosophical imprint on Fascism was not the actualism of Gentile (too cerebral, complicated and known by very few) but the ideology of D'Annuzio, who was a great communicator and has been a true and influencial "superstar" for decades.
@@romulusmars3766 Rome was a product of it's Hero's not it's political structure, so I hope it doesn't shape your view of how we should organize our governments today
@@romulusmars3766 So what every modern government tries to be? The question is how to do it - the answer isn't the triumph of a brother over brother or the rule of oligarchs. Romulus Mars lol, that can be encapsulated by both Caligula and Caesar but both men stood for every different things. The best men of Rome were always those who reformed the state that was set up to embellish the equestrians and the senate to the detriment of the republic or the empire.
My grandfather and his brother owned vineyards on the Rhine. When the Nazi came to power, they told my grandfather he had to give over his land. He tried to refuse but his brother agreed to it. My Grandfather fled Germany and was chased down by the Nazis. He got away but only after having his heel shot during the escape. He came here, to Australia. When war broke out, he was put in a prison camp and remained there until the end of the war.
I watched the original 5h video twice. Very eye opening and very much in line with what i learned in school about how fascist Spain operated, how they controlled the unions, the media, people's private lives and means of production, etc. It was taboo to point out the similarities between all these ideologies, partly due to the cold war , that being a fierce anti-comunist doesn't mean that your goals and methods are not in fact quite similar.
It's funny because when I did my video on Franco's Spain, I was criticised for my stance, and told I didn't know what I was talking about. But as you've just said, it's true! Stalin (a socialist) killed Trotsky (a socialist). That doesn't mean Stalin wasn't a socialist. You can hate others of your own ideology, and that's fine. Men hate other men - doesn't mean they're not men. So Franco might have been anti-Communist or anti-Socialist, but that doesn't mean that his regime wasn't socialist in nature.
Bingo. Franco's Spain was lightweight fascism and Nazi Germany was heavy duty fascism. That's why the similarities are so striking. Of course the Spanish did their genocide in the 1500s not the 1900s......
Claiming Hitler wasn't a socialist because he killed Röhm is like claiming Lenin wasn't a socialist because his Bolsheviks killed Mensheviks and he banished Martov
@@thenarkknight278 There are none to claim 3rd Reich was not socialist political economy by 1935. By that time, at Hitler's order, German government had taken full control and ownership of the German means of production, means of exchange and means of distribution.
@@soulcapitalist6204 Because it was a war economy the goal to win the war required it. Their idiological incentive was to win the war not to abolish capitalism. They didnt really care that much about the economics aslong as they economy produced enough weapons. By that means you could argue that it was an simular case in the UK. What socialist they were to rationise resources food and they forced the economy to produce weapons. All this gouverment Intervention! The first thing that always disapears in a war is the freedom. There we're still factory owners/capitalists who earned A LOT with the war but It was ONLY reasonable for Nazi Germany to force them to produce weapons. Russia is doing simular things right now. Wow look Putin and the Oligarchy are sich socialists XD
@@AverageAlien Because he cooperated with capitalist. He didnt even tried in the slightest to dissolve the capitalist system, no he even reinforced it, although he put it under the nazi ruling parties will. The nazis dissolved labour unions and grouped them together so that the state could more easily controll those unions without sparking a loud fuss. This was important to keep the people working during and for the upcoming war. Many capitalists profited of the collaberation with the nazis. They had cheap slave labour, participated in "plundering" the occupied states. Most importantly: The means of production werent in the hand of the public.
You know you've touched a nerve when Facebook suspends your account for sharing this video. Double thumbs up and continue the awesome work you do. Never surrender.
Personal timestamps: 5:13 Nazi and Soviet economy 11:42 Planned economy 17:49 Labour policy 19:03 War as a means to export inflation 25:59 Socialist rational regulation 26:57 Pre-Marxist socialism 27:59 Race socialism 28:48 Nazism without racism is plain socialism 31:02 National VS international socialism 32:03 Marx's anti-Semitism 32:51 Hitler's anti-Semitism 33:47 Hitler's opposition to Marxism 36:53 Hitler's ideological war 38:24 The (German) People's State 39:24 Nazi revolution 42:33 Hitler is a socialist
"Meanwhile on February 20, 1920, the German Workers’ Party switched its name to the [more euphemistic] National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeitpartei, called the N.S.D.A.P. for short). [The Führer] did not like the addition of the term ‘Socialist’ but acquiesced because the executive committee thought that it might be helpful in attracting workers from the left‐wing." -Samuel W. Mitcham
@@randomuser3481 A chair is a chair and a Socialist is a Socialist. Hitler was a Socialist, even if he didn't want to associate with the Marxists. The argument was over optics. Not policy. The policy was Socialism.
They were nationalists first and foremost, they saw welfare for every member of the community as a natural consequence of nationalism. Everybody could contribute according to his own talents. Hitler described this in his speech "Freedom or slavery".
@@0944clayton That would be a great idea. Wilson too, which could be tied into both FDR and inspiring elements and strategies of Nazism pretty easily. Really, a historical breakdown of Fabian socialism and progressivism would go a long way
@@TheImperatorKnight Dear TIK. Please, do read on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a Libertarian utopia which very demonstrably went south. No roads, no bridges, no taxes, very weak standing army, *extremely* rich citizens. Just for a quick example - The whole of Prussia was *poorer* than Poznan region alone. Yet they went under. I admire your journey. It's just that ignoring PLC when discussing libertarian ideals is like ignoring Soviet Union when discussing communism, so I want you to have a bite of this piece of history too.
Have you read Nathan Otto’s contemporary analysis on the Nazi Economic system (it’s a primary source)? It’s so detailed and gives so much information on the economic interventionist behaviour of the Third Reich.
@@TheImperatorKnight Sadly, few physical copies of the source remain. My 1971 hardcover edition is a relic of a bygone era. Nevertheless, a digital version of a similar source written by the same author can be found on the website NBER called Nazi War, Finance and Banking.
"State‐owned plants were to be avoided wherever possible. Nevertheless, sometimes they were necessary when private industry was not prepared to realize a war‐related investment on its own. In these cases, the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it. Even the establishment of Reichswerke Hermann Göring in 1937 is no contradiction to the rule that the Reich principally did not want public ownership of enterprises. The Reich in fact tried hard to win the German industry over to engage in the project." "Available sources make perfectly clear that the [Third Reich] did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible." -Christoph Buchheim & Jonas Scherner
@Buster Crabbe This is false, Hitler was in fact opposed to central planning: ""I tried to accomplish my mission by impressing on the Führer and the Party as a whole that private initiative, the self‐reliance of the business man, and the creative powers of free enterprise should be recognized as the basic economic policy of the Party. The Führer personally stressed time and again, during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state‐economy and of so‐called “planned economy”, and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production." -Walther Funk Your definition of socialism is also incorrect, socialism is not when the government owns the means of production, it is when the workers own the means of production
@@randomuser3481 Tik has already addressed every point you have made in this entire comments section in his other videos. It's actually your definition of socialism that is wrong. Workers owning the means of production is Marxism which is a brand of socialism. The socialism Buster refers to is the definition that existed before Marxism, Marx just added class as Tik has already talked about before. Quoting Hitler saying he doesn't like central planning doesn't change the fact that they did control the economy, otherwise they wouldn't be a totalitarian government.
Socialism and/or communism is a necessary condition for dictatorship if not sufficient. No matter how the left spins socialism today, state control and bureaucracy will take you towards dictatorship. Thanks for laying that out.
This is my FAVORITE topic of yours. Including the videos on Fascism, Public vs Private, Hitler's Vampire Economy, and the follow up supplemental and reaction videos etc. They've helped me understand, to the point that I've actually changed a few minds myself. Please keep at it, if you have more. Any and all information and evidence on this topic is especially important in our modern day. This giant historical misunderstanding/lie is possibly THE key to having a "mass awakening" to the control and oppression that socialism/Marxism/fascism/collectivism have held and still hold over the modern world.
I agree. It was this topic that made me wake up from the socialist religion, so it stands to reason that if socialists understand this argument, then they will also abandon the faith.
@TIKhistory. It definitely fires me up (in an excited kind of way.) I have been slowly watching those around me adopt collectivist ideas over the past decade, like many others have. And people like me didn't have the resources to really combat it before. But thanks to you and people like James Lindsey and Peter Bogghosian, I feel very comfortable going into "battle" and actually winning over minds back to real classical liberalism and the merits of capitalism as the solution to many of the problems and "unfairness" that the modern left are so concerned about. Very glad you had you're own conversion.
@@TheImperatorKnight It was a similar study of the causes of the World Wars, the interwar years and the Spanish Civil War that lead me to much the same conclusions. For me, it was the Spanish Civil War that made no sense and caused me to go back and look at the sources with a more critical eye. This, the most bloody portion of human history - is a single ongoing Socialist Civil War.
@@TheImperatorKnight I know Ive said this to you before. When I was younger I met with a WWII veteran who after the war became a Major in the British Army. He told me you'll never win an argument with "the Communists" a/ they change the goal posts b/ they'll never accept it "was socialism" unless it reached perfect utopian conditions. He told me, you cant argue with them, just shoot them in the head, yes every time they stick their heads up shoot them in the Head. Or else they are going to remove your freedom to choose. The Labour MP for Norwich South says (Clive Lewis) He wants second homes seized and private Schools abolished because it prevents equality. Guys like this MP will ban children from listening to "bed time" stories only to impose their aspiration of equality
Fascist economics isn’t capitalism, but it isn’t socialism either. Marxist economics is meant to be democratically run by workers, not the state. I’m not a socialist or talking abt “not real socialism” that’s just how it is.
@@evanmoreno360 You're exactly the person my post refers too. Marx doesn't have a monopoly on what is 'socialist' or not. He's not the founder of 'socialism', he's just the guy who had the MOST radical form of socialism. You're falling for the no true scotsman hypothesis.
@@BrutusAlbion I’m not a socialist in the modern sense or otherwise. But I get what you mean. First of all I’d say Lenin had the most radical form of socialism, not Marx. Second, whether Hitler is a socialist depends on which definition of socialism you use. If it’s the democratic workplace-type socialism, (not exclusive to Marx) where the public also decides where money is spent rather than the state, Hitler was absolutely not a socialist.
@@evanmoreno360 Notice the words you are using ... ''If it’s the democratic workplace-type socialism'' It's all still different flavors of socialism. I don't have anything against socialism on a surface level. I'm a centrist if anything but it's hilarious to see leftists bend over backwards in order to not make nazism anything else than what it is. It's socialism but on a 'ethnic' level focused around the 'nation' as compared to communist socialism which is focused on an international theme that transcends the nation or the ethnicity. I think it's because there's a brain meltdown taking place when they shout 'fascist and nazi' and associate those with the 'extreme right' when in truth these are just different flavors of 'extreme left'. The extreme right has its own niche evils but they are not the historical ones we like to shout slurs at with people. It's the horseshoe effect really. Bend backwards far enough and you'll end up with your head up your ass. Not saying that is you tho, my bad if I made it sound like that.
@@evanmoreno360 The state and the people are the same thing.. in theory that is. In practice, corruption takes over immediately, but you get the point.
This is literally the funniest video I’ve seen on your channel. In a world where people can fight over who’s the football GOAT, but never define or agree on what the qualifications are required to be said GOAT, I can’t imagine how hilarious the comments are gonna be.
Hi TIK as a native German speaker I wanted to ad that "Gleichschaltung" is even more than synchronization. It means more something like making everything the same as the word is made up of two words which mean Gleich = same and Schaltung = switching. So I would interpret "Gleichschaltung" as incooperation into to the nazi and state agenda and the interest of the state.
By the way, I've posted your comment onto the channel's community tab to inform others, so you should check it out. www.youtube.com/@TheImperatorKnight/community
Thank you for addressing Reddit's badhistory post about you. I find it ironic when they try to say that you are a liar but then they don't even bother to cite anything disproving your claims and your evidence and references. It just is a massive whinge post.
@@verscarii3238 For who? For T.H? Here is one proof of many: in his Hegel video he claim that both fascism and Marxism are based on Hegelian idealism. But if Google Marx's philosophy you'll soon discover that Marxism is based on materialism, which is literally the opposite of idealism (Hegelian or any). So now a question to you - do you think he didn’t know that? He went that far as to research Hegel and yet somehow missed this part, something that is as basic as it only can be? It just not possible. So either he is simply stupid or he is a liar. I think it's both, but you are free to choose between stupidity or deceiph. And I'm not even gonna go in to all the small lies and stupid things he says in his video. Like in the same Hegelian video less than a minute in he clames "food is a commodity, there is no commodity in socialism thus there is no food". Well, the food is a PRODUCT unless it's deliberately made for profit and is ought to be selled on the market, then it's a commodity. And he doesn't know that)) He is just a f.o.o.l.
"But if Google Marx's philosophy you'll soon discover that Marxism is based on materialism, which is literally the opposite of idealism (Hegelian or any)." In that very video, I quoted Marx in the video saying this. You don't need to "Google it" because I literally quoted the exact passage where he says this. Try to actually watch the full video before commenting. - What you've missed is that Marx is a dialectical materialist. Dialectical, meaning "transcendence". And "materialism" being the belief that reality is fake. Thus, Marx believes in the transcendence of the fake reality. This is, practically speaking, no different that what Hegel said. The only difference is that Marx things reality shapes the mind, which then produces God, whereas Hegel things God shapes the mind and that produces material reality. It's not "literally the opposite" - it's reliant on the exact same principle: the idea that reality is fake. - "So either he is simply stupid or he is a liar." Neither. You're the ignorant one here, not me. - "Well, the food is a PRODUCT unless it's deliberately made for profit and is ought to be selled on the market, then it's a commodity. And he doesn't know that)) He is just a f.o.o.l." Since you love Google so much, a quick search will show you that both a product and a commodity can be bought and sold. A commodity is merely a raw material, whereas a product is usually the end product. Without commodities you don't have products. So, my point still stands. Without commodities you do not have food, and therefore a commodity-less society is a food-less society.
Hitler was a socialist at first, but after the long knifes night he became a imperialist too. To support the idea that he was in fact a socialist i can tell histories of my own family. My Grandfather was a portuguese farmer of Madeira Island he was very poor, until waves of german tourists started to take vacations on the island in the middle 30´s. Consequences of Kraft durch Freude and other workers benefits programs. He became a tourist guide and make a lot of money to buy some land. When he came to Brazil on the late 90´s, he shared a lot of german nazis histories that he heard before war
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production. The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates the surplus product produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics") The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source. "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, p. 10) Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) “Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.) In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.) Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system. (Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.) “Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.) I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory... (Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.) There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ” ( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.) Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government. "A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
As an argentinian, I encourage everyone who thinks socialism is a fair and humanitarian way of redistributing money: NO, DONT FALL FOR THAT SHIT, NO, YOUR PUTTING TO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICIANS HANDS, GIVE AS LITTLE MONEY AS POSSIBLE TO THE STATE, DONT LET THEM CONTROL YOU
I thank you for your warning - I really wish that I could find a way to program that into my fellow American Gen-Z kid's heads. Greetings from the USA! :)
I wish Brazilians would've listened to this advice a few years ago. Now we might be past the point of no return where our government is currently making a point to finance socialism all over Latin America, especially Argentina. They're also seeking revenge at the Brazilian population because they fr@uded their election (and we have private Argentinian specialists to thank for providing the first incontestable piece of evidence on that).
I lived in a former socialist country, Romania, and I confirm that in true SOCIALISM workers couldn't just change jobs, they had to ask the party to approve the "transfer" to the other state owned firm. Workers cannot even quit their job easily, If a worker dared to quit his job, he was considered a harmful "element", a bad example for workers. This act was recorded in the "work card" as an indelible stain. Also there were almost no strike, the unions were merely tools of the party and secret service.
There is no point attempting to debate with Socialists/Marxists. They only have one mode and that is to keep changing and arguing the definitions. This is how you know you are dealing with dishonest people.
@@subsamadhistate controlled capitalism is socialism you absolute troglodyte State Controlled Capitalism is a contradictory statement If there is no free market, there is no capitalism A state controlled market IS socialism
Friend, Wether Fascist Communist, Nazi ( National Socialist), Bolshevik, or FascoCommunist such as the present Globalist elites as Gorge Soros or Klaus Schwab? It always comes down to a dystopian hell, filled with cult’s of Death for the masses in the end! Mayhap I should suggest that we pray for these poor souls, as they have never had to live under these Regimes? Where it’s good to be king, but suck’s to be the rest of the serf’s! Where your daughters are toys of the elites at will. Even your son’s, God forbid! Where, your future offspring are to be raised in indoctrination centers. Your progeny , sired in Laboratory‘s and gestated in birthing pods. And those in whom are found defective? To be recycled to feed the embryos. Ahhh yes, something evil, this way comes! These poor outcasts from the promised land of the future LibTardia, have not a clue! For them all is… Bread and Circus! Brainwashed or brain dead? Victims of their Government funded, public education. Enlightened by and through their electronic devices. gods of their own making. Blind leading the blind, and being lead by the blind. Slaves of invisible chains of their own making. And sheep to the slaughter. They have no concept of what it’s like to exist under the boot of total tyranny, forever in constant fear. Fear that you boss, neighbor, or even family members will turn you in for as little reward as a higher social credit score! Or even a pat on the head. And worst of all, it’s already here in the United States. Though in its infancy. Its here! The Machine has yet, obstacles to overcome? The biggest problem being that of the 2nd Amendment? Once they have successfully disarmed us? Oooohh yeah, baby! It’s 90% population reduction time, and that’s just the beginning! Now I, myself don’t wish them any harm. Heck, I’d suggest and vote in favor to relocate them to rule on their own Continent. You guessed it? Antarctica! Where they can fulfill their every desire to lord over everyone and thing there! Still we should keep them in our prayers. That sanity mayhaps one day return back to them? Respectfully submitted from a disabled Veteran and Gold Star dad… Semper Fi and DeOpresso Liber, friend
Whenever you hear someone say "but that isn't REAL socialism" well that argument is redundant because it's clear that Marxism isn't REAL socialism either. Socialism is a spectrum within itself
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.” - Martin Neimoller 1946
@@TheImperatorKnight Easy to ignore the right is more guilty of this under the guise of protecting the women and children, and appealing to base emotion, like fear and blind nationalism, the idea of an invisible supernatural being that favors only those who think and look like you.
"Easy to ignore the right is more guilty of this under the guise of protecting the women and children, and appealing to base emotion, like fear and blind nationalism, the idea of an invisible supernatural being that favors only those who think and look like you." It may come as a surprise to you to know that I'm (mostly) in agreement with you. Remember, I'm a free market guy, so I'm not on the "Right". I'm not a Commie-servative, or a tradcon, or a racist. I'm against totalitarianism in all forms, regardless of which part of the "political" (statist) spectrum it's from. In fact, I'm not on your political spectrum at all. There's no room for me here images.app.goo.gl/Br34rwiHAfjoSSFQ7 I might be on this one though images.app.goo.gl/HbFUCVKgGUGjKxUg6
@@TheImperatorKnight You're not on the right, yet you just happen to push a narrative that was invented by the right to absolve themselves of all blame for the Holocaust
In addition to the national/ethnic pride element, (and despite National-Socialists not waging class warfare per se), Hitler clearly had his fondest feelings towards the workers, and considered them to be the paragon of German virtue, as opposed to the exploitative wealthy and aristocrats. In a speech he stated his goal that all Germans would/should spend at least some time doing noble physical labor to build infrastructure for the greater good in the RAD.
Hitler killed the trade-unionists and canceled the trade unions, and went on to strip the working class of it's labor rights and lowered their salaries on top of that. Almost as if Hitlers fertilization of the working class where just empty words....
Hayek argues in Road to Serfdom that National Socialist anti-semitism was part of the underlying anti-capitalist sentiment... most German merchants were Jewish... being hated for doing the things others don't want to do... National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy were essentially grassroots responses to existing socialist policies...
@@js290 It's worth noting that socialism in General and certainly in Germany stemmed from racial collectivism, then notions of classes other than race were introduced by Marx. Marxism was poorly received in Germany, but history seems to indicate that antisemitic racial collective was a popular notion of German working class since their midieval period.
Ah, yes. He said so, it must be true. It is not like he murdered tons of workers because they did not agree with him or send millons of workers to slaughter. And the workers that he loved so much whom did not get sent in to the meat grinder worked more hours with a low hourly wage. That really sounds like love too me.
Socialists: Capitalism has to conquer their neighbors because they will run out of food and wealth. Capitalists: We are having a serious obesity crisis, and everyone thinks we're bad because we produce more than what we need. Socialists: Inmediately run out of food and wealth, start conquering their neighbors.
Leftard: hitler was not a socialist Hitler: NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD! NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS THIS! NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS THAT! I LOVE NATIONAL SOCIALISM! totally not a socialist...
Rainer Zitelmann's book is a great book, one of the few that bother to delve into Hitler's thought. I would also add Thomas Weber's biography, it shows how Hitler in 1919 sympathized with social democracy. and since before the army sent him to spy on the DAP, he voluntarily tried to join the German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei, DSP).
It's a race - ie Germanic - based Socialism. In other words, it's Socialism based on kinship and ties of blood. He saw the Germans as being members of one big happy family, related to each other as blood relations. Socialism from that angle - the group thing - doing everything together as a group whether in work or outside of work, melding together as a particular race, which would exclude the outsiders who are not seen as being of the same blood; that would also exclude Internationalism or the world brotherhood or we are all one, idea. Hitler said that "Socialism is dealing with the common weal, is an ancient Aryan, Germanic Institution". Nothing to do with Marxism or Communism which is internationalist in its outlook. "and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic" and he also said: "Socialism unlike Marxism does not repudiate private property". He also said: "We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of the race solidarity". This is what he said in 1923. It'a a peculiar form of socialism with do with the advancement of a particular race.
@@directAction3389 Socialism is a form of fascism then. All socialist philosophers justified socialism - control of the means - on the basis of specifically antisemetic racism until Marx changed his tune from his zur Judenfrage by publishing Manifesto without racial basis. All of his anarchist and socialist colleagues were antisemitic national socialists before, during and after his career.
I watched the 5 hour version of this video. It took a long time but I finished it and enjoyed it. I am now going to watch this one. I find it so funny how people will not even bother to watch it and then say you're wrong and stupid. If you do not listen to someone how can you state that they are wrong.
They have their excuses. Did you see the video where someone "debunked" me? He hadn't watched the video and even admits it ua-cam.com/video/8rWnuuEN024/v-deo.html
This is a great example of what is called rationalism. People want to believe in the feel good features of Socialism so badly that they can’t believe that it’s tarnished by unmitigated and clearly recognized evil. Nietzsche had a saying that madness in individuals is rare but in societies it is a rule and Socialism is a good example of this.
Ah, yes, the typical "Lets use one-sided facts, ignore everything that happened which doesnt support our agenda and at last lets twist some definitions to make everything fit". Far-right classic
Great info here. Have you guys looked into Stephen Hicks Nietzsche and the Nazis? He explores the philosophical underpinnings of collectivist ideology and the various factors that led to Nazism. One thing which he pointed out and which would seem irrefutable to anyone who read it, was that 14 out of 25 tenets of national socialism would universally be considered Socialist today.
@@bengreen171 Concise is one way of putting it. I find the possibility that he intended to say "condensed" and simply missed the 'd' somehow to be a more likely situation. Occam's razor and such.
@@bengreen171yes I have and well most of them were from the German Workers Party before it added new tenets based on the inclusion of nationalism and an ethnocentric slant to the fundamental Socialist principles. The inclusion of those things didn't remove the fundamental socialism, it just differentiated it from class based socialism (Bolshevism) I'm pretty sure the 'far right' tag comes from the addition of the ethnocentric/nationalist elements of national socialism.. For those without subtle intellect they may accept that, but a cursory look into the elitism and love of eugenics in English Socialism, or American Progressivism will remedy that. Nazi thought didn't appear in a vacuum, but as the full flowering of an era many have conveniently forgotten. Some even say they were inspired by the eugenics programs of America, whatever the truth, America was very keen to collect nazi scientists who then continued their work in the US.. (operation paperclip) Also, I thought Hicks made a great point about the collectivist underpinnings of Nazism. Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel with their German Supremacism, anti-democracy, anti-individualism, anti capitalism, selective breeding programs and so on. They were the main Philosophers influencing nazi thought and elements of them can be seen throughout. . German supremacy can even be traced back to Hegel. His idea was that Germany was the most advanced civilisation and should rule the world.. Marx associated Jewishness with capitalism.. Nietzsche saw no problem with subjugation of inferiors and of a war for dominance.. Also, they weren't stupid or unthinking capitalists driven by profit.. Goebbels had a Phd in Philology from Heidelberg University, they had three Nobel Prize winners as well as Heidegger who were all staunchly nazi. They were grass roots funded radical idealists.
@@bengreen171 I tend to hold a maybe controversial view that Zionism aided the nazi argument because it created the idea of a Jewish People (or the invention of one as Tel Aviv University Professor Shlomo Sand says) Prior to that people only thought themselves religious jews.. Marx own father converted to Lutheranism, as did many others. Before the obfuscation we have today, Judaism was still known to be the first large scale proselytising Abrahamic religion of the West. In fact, Rome banned conversions because Judaism was too competitive with Christianity.. Luther obviously grew impatient with many Jews not converting enough to Christianity and that was the basis of his Anti-jewishness. This combination of Marx association of Jewishness with capitalism, nazi anti capitalism, the long standing resentment of Jews in Lutheranism, the rise of nationalism, German Supremacism, eugenics . It was the perfect storm. I had other problems with Hicks than those you mentioned., For example, i thought he had an ambiguous opinion of Nietzsche, but so do people like Jordan Peterson. But I guess that's typical of Nietzsche, who has influenced all kinds of people and for different resaons, from Foucault to Heidegger.. But Nietzsche and the Nazis is the only Hicks book I've read. I personally don't like much about Nietzsche.. Hicks is certainly a centrist crusader as you say. I'm not sure I'm completely opposed to that as i don't want us to succumb to wholesale collectivism, but I'm no fan of libertarianism either.. That's the pull yourself up by your bootstraps side of Nietzschianism so dare to Peterson and Hicks haha
Hitler was a Socialist, but he was also a Fascist. Its a particular blend which led to his censorship of the opposition, but also the redistribution of resources. Therefore Nationalising the resources was very socialist, however advocating for ultra nationalism and ethnic discrimination was the Nazi’s particular brand of control.
@Florentino Perez it can be argued that the ideologies are similar, but i don’t think the same. Socialism and Fascism is very different. For one Socialism is motivated by inequity, Fascism is motivated by Nationalism, and thus take control of the state. They have similar ideologies, but Fascism is more race and military motivated than Socialism that is more Class motivated. Both ideologies use authoritarian methods, but Socialism can at times be different. National Socialism is however almost the complete same as Fascism. It’s the fact that there should only be one ethno-state. Only Nazis are more extreme. Not really capitalists, but not exactly socialists either. Edit; *Note; the Nazis did have Very socialist policies, but there is a big difference when you view other people as vastly inferior to the original German citizens. I mean, it kinda meant, All Germans are equal, except everyone else is beneath them. Thus; National Socialism, if it makes any sense.
@Florentino Perez "Fascism is therefore opposed to socialism, to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon." - The Doctrine of Fascism
Though not a historian, I love all things historical. Like many of those who comment on your videos, I too was confused about why Nazi Germany took the steps they did if they were simply a fascist state controlled by big business and the military. Your narrative ties it up quite neatly (and more coherently) than any I have heard. Socialism based on Nazi racism really is the simplest explanation for all their actions.
The Nazis were not fascists. Fascism was/is a form of nationalism, whereas Hitler cared little for the nation state, basing everything instead on what we now call 'ethnic' divisions. That is why he conquered other parts of Europe, and that is why he persecuted actual German citizens in Germany whom he considered not to be racially pure, and not just his political enemies (fascists do not do this). The idea that he was a front for the capitalists was a bit of propaganda by the Communists, although they no doubt believed it.
Your mistake - Fascism is a form socialism. Socialism is worker *OR state* control/ownership of the means of production. Fascism is specifically state control/ownership (or marriage as Mussolini called it) of the means of production. Socialism doesn't have a cultural prescription which is why it's been tried multiple times all over the world. "Racism" doesn't have anything to do with it unless it's an ingredient in that particular dictator's flavor of imposed cultural engineering.
Socialism was their fundamental basis, of fascism and communism. Karl Marx says socialism are the first steps to a communist Utopia. (A ruthless criticism of everything.)
It’s funny because there are ideologues who will do all sorts of esoteric mental gymnastics to make the text support their failed ideology. It’s the Hegelian Dialectic played out in a comment section.
@Trevor Brannon its hard to tell if you are being sarcastic, or applying this to current events, because it is happening again not even 100 years later... so to those who think we need to social ize everything..... did you miss the part where they started the war in order to gain resources from other countries in an attempt to alleviate the inflation? You can only spend other people's money until they runout of money. Printing more to cover your costs makes your money worth less, which also leads to conflict... because war is profitable for those who supply it, not for those (like yours truly) who fight in it. This economic miracle is nothing more than throwing money at building up to start a war, which starts when the money runs out.
Well heres a better one ua-cam.com/video/hUFvG4RpwJI/v-deo.html Tbh honest. I didnt finish the video yet but there are already some points that arent right or atleast not evidence for socialism. Three Arrows further ellaborates in this video why expropriation and state run organizations dont mean that the gouverment is socialist. The definition that many relate socialism with "the more the state does stuff the more socialist it is is" is also quite wrong. Its also quite wrong that the companies were state owned. They had guidelines to fullfill but could still act independintly. And this wasnt done out of idiologicy but rather because you have to TO WIN A FCKING WAR. Britain did the same the USA had also guidelines for their industry, it was more or less normal to do this in war economy. And the Labor Union wasnt really a socialist Labor Union it was there to enact more power to be an alternative to socialist believes and strives for better working conditions and you didnt have anything to say in this unions. Well you could rally and try to protest for higher loans if you wanted to end in a KZ. More on the topics in the video. :) I hope you watch it and get to hear some opposing arguments.
Don't worry Socialist will just reject the definition of State, and claim Socialism has nothing to do with the State, or fall back on "Socialism is Worker Controlled!" Which is the issue I actually had the other day. Two days of back/forth discussion, and the guy's final defense really was "Definitions change over time rawr!" Which would mean no Socialist was ever a Socialist as Socialism's definition is always changing. He was so bankrupt in his defense that when I brought up Utopian Socialism, and later Ferdinand Lassalle when referring to Socialist who either always had or eventually rejected the Marxist Class view of the State. He used the word "Gay" and how the meaning of that word changed over time. Even though I can still use the word in proper context like "The man won the sweepstakes and gayfully ran down the street." And you and I would understand it completely. ie the Meaning hasn't changed, it just has alternate uses now, and it's old meaning just became less common. What is worse, he also admits that Socialism for one movement may not mean the same thing for the other. So it was easy to ask "Since when did Marxist have a monopoly on the Word Socialism?" Of course he didn't answer that question. The person basically rejected the idea that Socialism is anything but Worker Control of the Means of Production, even though there is so much evidence that proves otherwise. Even Social Democrats advocate for State Control, not "Worker Control" and guess which is the most popular socialist movement? Social Democracy. Then when resorted to mentioning he is only proving Ludwig Mises right by claiming the definition is ever changing. Of course by even mentioning the name Mises was like a sin and the guy used the fact I even said the name Mises as a Rebuttal in spite I mentioned him knowing Socialist consider him a hack and that he was only supporting Mises by holding his position. He used the fact I mentioned his name even in the slightest as a form of proof I had no idea what I was talking about. That I did a rebuttal to myself by even saying the name Mises. So I just gave up after that. The level of denialism is just nuts. I literally brought up many of the arguments you presented in this video. All this because the guy mentioned you and called you a Hack and I begged the differ.
Yeah I'm also at a loss on how to get through to them. The mental gymnastics they employ to wriggle their way out of reality is astounding. I genuinely have exhausted myself trying to figure out how to get them to just stop and consider the possibility that they might have got things wrong. But they think we're "secret fascists" who are trying to trick them, so they're suspicious of everything we say, and thus look for quick and easy "gotcha" counter-points to dismiss us and declare victory. It's frustrating as anything.
I know. I've just had a conversation with a guy who cant see that government buying public stock through the stock market (for a government retirement plan, eg) fills the socialism definition of "public ownership of the means of production," which in turn makes the stock market itself a mechanism for creating socialism (albeit one that co-incidentally allows for private ownership). He adamantly holds that stocks are always 'private property' despite saying outright that property owned by government is 'public property'. His only addressing of this obvious contradiction is that "the government doesnt exercise control." Something I know for a fact to be false, since I know people who work for state funded investment plans, which absolutely do things like vote during AGMs, elect the BOD, etc. I'm not sure if hes so locked into "capitalism is everything thats not the perfect socialist utopia" or "capitalism is this pure uncorruptable thing," and "never the twain shall meet", that its derailed his ability to see contradiction. edit: unclear wording
@@elLooto They'll likely fall back on "It's State Capitalism!" Even though Socialist are fighting eachother still whether China is Market Socialism or State Capitalism which implies the difference is so vague that there is no difference and it's just in the context of whether they like that regime or not.
Arguing with socialists on this topic is the most frustrating thing to do. You could point out the most damning proof that national socialism was more than a brand name, namely the nationalization of Hugo Junkers' company, his imprisonment, and eventual loss of life, and their response will be, "But they had corporations!" And around and around you go, trying to point out that those corporations had no real power or autonomy of their own, but all you will get out of them is the longform version of, "But they had corporations!" It's the inevitable result of someone being educated past the point of his own capacity for rational thought. The worst part? These staunch "antifash" individuals are probably voting for people who are, wittingly or no, bringing back the natsoc model one backroom deal at a time.
TIK I love the way you can cite your discussions from written sources and authors, then converse them into a sensible and based argument. You are a scholar and gentleman. Although I enjoy your battlefield discussions, I commend your efforts to educate people that nazis, marxists, fascists, and communists are all based from socialism and to correct the misconceptions that capitalism and free market economies are attributed to nazism and fascism, are much more critical and important discussions to have considering our current events.
Though it encourages the argument that "Hitler was left wing", as if anti-capitalism=left wing, which is definitely not historically true. Prussian socialism =/= marxism.
Right off the bat, I never heard of Hitlers second book. Already pulled it up, funny that it was first published in 1961 - not exactly something "new".
Yeah yeah, it shows that he isn't different than every socialist who always claims the others did not do it right, but they have the right way. Even though it's all the same nonsense.
Italian fascism is socialist, a national socialism, according to zeev sternhell, one of the most important historians of italian fascism. There is a Hispanic channel called "el gentilhombre", where he summarizes and explains his syndicalist and nationalist origins of Italian fascism
Sternhell's work is useful to trace the ideological origins of fascism, but his work not only neglects the specifically Italian dimensions of fascism, but it also reduces it to a "counter-Enlightenment" which is not appropriate. The works of Renzo de Felice, James Gregor and David Roberts (which also critiqued Sternhell on both counts) are preferable.
Fascism is one of the forms of socialism. Communism is another. One of the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that in socialism individual considered to be a part of the state and the state becomes the only important factor in any individual function. Any individual right can be sacrificed for the good of the state. Private property isn't protected. Capitalism, on the other hand, consider private property as the basis for political and economic life of any individual. Remember JFK: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country. Hitler would sign under that statement.
Dude, even 'Oversimplified' has videos about n-zis and h-tler literally famously and historically-documented go to a Communist-Gathering, meaning to sabotage it, realizing they are the opposite and then joining them and making them larger.
@@colebehnke7767that argument is true, though. The SU never managed to achieve the type of civilization socialists strive for, and while we can argue that comunism doesnt work on practice, which might be true, we cant ignore that the ideology doesnt defend any of that, and that socialism isnt actually that
Hi TIK Great video. Not sure how much you know about the Quisling regime in Norway during WW2. The only legal party was the "Nasjonal Samling", lead by Vidkun Quisling. They had a uniformed paramilitary organisation much like Hitlers SA, called "Hirden". Not sure what that translates to in english. They had naturally their own songs, often performed during marching. Some lines of one particular song lyrics goes: Løftet om Quislings Norge lever i Hirdens tro, vernes av sosialister, ungdom av nordisk blod. Translates to something like this: The promise of Quisling's Norway lives in " Hirdens" beliefs/faith, protected by socialists, youth of nordic blood. They are themself using the term socialists. Strange no one here in Norway or anywhere else mention this fact. Keep up the great work Sincerely
@Van Brighouse Italian Fascism, when it emerged in late teens and early 20s, was recognized by International Socialism as a somewhat heretical variation, because Fascism recognized that both private interest and nationalism were better psychological motivations of the masses than altruistic internationalism. But ultimately, the Fascist dictum was "Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State, nothing opposed to the State". The Gnazis took this principle and added in the accelerants of racism and and antisemitism Hitler's loathing of Socialists and Communists was primarily because they were *traitorous internationalists" who rejected both German patriotism and racism, NOT because they demanded the State control of production and State direction of culture (including religion and ethics). In the State control of industry and agriculture, Nazism only departed in some means from Soviet Collectivism, preferring to make initial deals with industrialists, such as Krupp and Farben, but as soon as the Reich could, reducing these industrial barons to well paid off pensioners (rather than liquidating them) while the Reich, per the video, directed production, set price and wages, working conditions, etc ..
@Van Brighouse yada yada yada, you're wedded to the narrative that Fascism and Nazism were "right", so by special pleading, they can't be socialist, so nothing I say or the video maker, however evidence based can make any difference. Goodbye.
@@TheBeatlesShow There were national socialist vanguards and parties all throughout especially northern europe until they faded with the German invasion of Poland putting them in a bad light. After the capitulation of 3rd Reich, they are in the doghouse.
Oooh! Saw my name in the donation scroll, and I am proud to say I was able to take a .0001% credit for the excellent content. I am just beginning to get the idea of socially (whether by class, religion, race) structures are still misrepresented and misunderstood based on current economic hooey. I started watching History for Thinkers, but I am not sure how to be so dismissed as to alter your own rational thoughts 🤔
People somehow think that "workers-unions" are a "socialist" thing, maybe because many workers see themselves as opponents of the "evil capitalists who run the companies they works in", and therefore "unions must be socialistic". But this is not logical. Companies are producers of services and goods that compete (in a free country) on a free marked, with supply and demand curves determining the price point. Workers are in fact also "factories" themselves that offer what ever work they do in the corporations. So, when they collect with each others to create private workers-unions, they are actually becoming capitalists themselves and try do push the corporations to give them 'higher prices for their goods'. It's a form of private, legal cartel. It makes sense to have, because one worker alone have very little power against a massive corporation and there needs to be negotiation between corporation-owners and workers. BUT, private unions haven't really anything to with the state (government), other than perhaps laws in a society giving workers the right to form unions. I don't think any workers unions today in the western world are either controlled or owned by the state. Hence, not socialism.
Its easy to understand where tik's bias is in these videos and it doesn't effect his opinion as much as the marxists seem to believe. Its also always stated as opinion lmao.
Nazi Socialism is a great example of how tribal humans still are. Nazis were CLEARLY socialsts, it doesnt mean socialists are or were nazis just because they share ideas on economy.
The tribal part of Nazi was actually the tolerable part. The Socialism part was really the main reason they killed millions of people. Just like all the Communist State, 100 millions of people died because they mix Marxist , a noble end goal, with Socialism. Socialism is the idea on economy, Socialism is the main cause of most of the atrocities happened in the last century.
@@oscartang4587u3 billions of people died because of socialism? 😂 im anti any socialism that was implemented in the 20th century but billions? Come on man
@@oscartang4587u3 "tribalism was not the bad part" Oh okay i guess killing millions of people because they weren't part of the "tribe" wasn't so bad then
@@colebehnke7767 YES it's almost like almost every radical group thinks that is fine being that being said being extremly focused on racial purity doesn't help that does it?
I get my definition from the four individuals responsible for the term socialism. Louis Auguste Blanqui, Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon coined the term anarchy, Blanqui is the one who made communism. Karl Marx/ Engels was commissioned to write the communist manifesto. They tell you in there writings where and who they got the information to create socialism. The used tribalism as a base.
I just now found your content and subbed. I'm catching up now on some of the ridiculous critic drama. I was looking for a better definition of fascism and found your content to be extremely helpful. Online forums are magnet for the ideologically driven narcissist and sociopath so I'd simply give no weight to anyone who can't be civil. I immensely appreciate your time, effort and citations. My dad was a history major and a govt intelligence analyst. He used to say "If you want to know what is in someone's head, look at what they say then how they spend their money. " Keep up the great work!
fascism is a very simple concept. it is a government of one voice. one man the dictator has total control, and everyone else contorts to fit his view, or assasinates him to take power.
It’s certainly an easy definition: Fascism, and communism of the same thing, and anything that involves any government regulation is fascism and communism. Essentially anarcho libertarians are the only people who are not fascist and communist. LOL
@@walterbailey2950 Fascism socialism and communism are when the state seizes the means of production IE all private business, commerce, and all property- then dictates how it will be distributed. To do this, someone ultimately needs to be in charge of everything, and who gets what - and now you have fascism. Hitlers socialists blossomed into fascists. Stalins communism was in fact fascism. Everytime there is a communist leader, he becomes a fascist, its in the very nature and design of top down managment. No human being is going to be able to resist ultimate power when you literally hand it to them. They reward their friends, and punish their enemies and thus you have a tyrant, a despot, a FASCIST who nobody can disagree with, speak or go against and a system inferior to a REPUBLIC where everyone has rights that cant be violated.
Yet if the "allies" who gave their lives so quickly and heroically by the millions would see what they fought for today, they'd not just turn in their graves but spin at 7000 RPM!
Your videos are goldmine... so valuable to the point if people made aware of this could avoid history from repeating itself. Thank you, it's sacred for humanity for you to have more views and awareness to shine light on the dark censored info treasure troves. God bless you.
@Van Brighouse What cult lol It's you guys who go on to spout shit like nazism = communism, or that free universities are "literally Venezuela", and now apparently also that Roosevelt was a socialist, which lemme guess, makes him no different to a commie in your eyes? Your understanding of politics is so surface level and lacking nuance that it's impossible to have a good faith discussion.
Ironically, I watched a video, on Fascism/fascism (upper case, as that video depicted the capitalization for Italy specific), stating that he wasn't a Socialist, and was only fascist, because he privatized things and killed the unions. It is like nobody can think independently, from everything written. This is why I appreciate your work, TIK. You use sources, but you don't parrot the sources.
@@executivedirector7467 No, they wouldnt. The authors might disagree, but the facts they cite all point towards the nazis being extreme socialists. Frankly, any form of nationalism is a far-left idea anyways.
@@rtg5881 OMG, no, please read a political theory book. Nationalism is the opposite of leftish. You really haven't got the slightest notion of these ideas.
Hi TIK, a longtime fan here. One thing I've been thinking a lot about recently is ideological Nazism, Volkish Blood and Soil Philosophy, and the link between it and the socialism of the Nazis. You explained this a little bit in a previous video, talking about how, unlike Marxism which focused on class struggle. Nazism focused on racial struggle. In this vein, I've been reading Darre and other volkish philosophies. and they strike me as inherently collectivist and lend themselves to a socialist worldview. I think this link between the philosophical underpinnings of Nazism and the practical economic realities, presents a cohesive worldview that the Marxists can't explain. Why would a philosophy grounded in the group Aryan identity and continuation of the race via "blood and soil" be some hyper-individualistic, pro-capitalist, "the individual matters" in economics? These aren't compatible worldviews, and the philosophy and racial theory of these leading Nazi thinkers directly support social (racial) ownership of the economy.
The German capitalists turned to the NAZI's as a way to save themeselves from a workers revolution where the workers took control of Industry unlike the NAZI who were handed control of the capitalist state by the big capitalist bosses and President General Hindenburg. .
You're suffering from what I call the American Brain Disease. It's the implicit belief that any worldview that does not adopt unregulated capitalism is leftism. Nazis were right wing. Go cry about it.
Before volkism, one has to give regard to Strasbourg pogram. We see the impetus of socialist thought in Europe's mid ages and that it was race-indexed and antisemitic. It was workers organized in guilds which sought racial collective and implored government to affect the prejudice versus foreigners and jews as policy. Centuries later, Germans made this into some intellectual matter of Judenfrage. Marx is indulged in it in his "zur Judenfrage", Adolf Stoeker is crystal clear as to socialism being an art of racism. Before any of these men, American socialist George Fitzhugh clearly rationalizes slavery for white collectivism. German mittelstandism underscores that it is race notwithstanding economic class which comprised the traditional german collective idea, or one could just read Tonnies who recognized race is human collective #1. Globally, nation and race are linked. There's a reason why Germany is named after germanics and their language. This is how most nations founded before the 19th century are.
@@soulcapitalist6204 The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite! From the end of the Communist Manifesto. Nothing about a superior Germanic Race like Hitler. In fact Marx mocks the True "German" Socialism. "While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things. " From the Communist Manifesto. It was in fact not the working class but the German middle class who were Hitler's base. A class being driven into a frenzy by the economic crisis of German capitalism caused in part by the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon them. It is common knowledge that "Henry Ford was an anti semite who published "The International Jew" and that the only American mentioned favorable in Mein Kampf is Henry Ford who also received a NAZI medal just before war broke out.
Why should a business owner in capitalism get all (most) of the profit? Yes, he has an initial investment money (often inherited from parents, but not slways ofc), he risked that sum to invest in business and had an idea. But his company wouldn't be successful on the market, or even exist, if it wasn't for his workers/employees dedication and hard work. They invest their life (time) and work, to get a wage in return (often fixed) while the owner swoops all the extra profit for himself
Okay now this is based lol. It's hilarious, anytime you try to point out that "Hitler was a socialist" people genuinely lose their minds and want to make a lot of excuses. But you've done a great job explaining it
Because it would be like looking in the mirror and a vampire can not see his image, speaking of which King Charles is a direct descendant of Vlad Tepesh, or Count Dracula.
@@randomuser3481 Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, murdered twice as many people as Nazi Socialist, and Chinese Socialist killed twice as many as Soviet Socialist,80,000,000 dead.
There's a lot of people out there who desperately do not want to believe that socialism can exist within an authoritarian and malevolent society. They want to believe that there is something so inherently virtuous about the ideology that it is impossible for evil to be done under its name. I do understand that some may feel linking nazism with socialism will be used as a kind of "gotcha" against socialism, which would be short sighted, great evils have been committed under pretty much every shade of political ideology that has been popular in history. It's certainly not fair to say socialism or communism are evil just because Hitler or Stalin were subscribed to those ideologies.
Socialism and communism are evil (immoral government based on human rights abrogation, like per UNHCR). 3rd Reich is an important historical case of socialist political economy because it is not marxist socialism and because it is the only example of socialism in a developed nation which we will likely ever see. There is no way to achieve socialism without evil government. Socialism is "collective ownership/control of the means of production in an economy". Because collective is democracy - government authority - this abrogates the human rights entailed in personal autonomy of private individuals over means of production and their interaction with it. The term totalitarian refers to socialism which has achieved the definition of socialism through some enforcement.
The staunchest advocates of genocide in the 20th century were socialists, they know that in order for this system to be implemented, certain people would have to be eradicated because they wouldn't be able to convince them to go along with it. Socialism in practice is either just immoral or outright evil.
The problem with the term is that the GOP calls Europe socialist which it’s just not. They’re confused when we tell them we think they’re socialist. They’re capitalistic countries that redistribute a lot. The GOP has stripped the term of any meaning at all. Literally applied when people wanted a public option, like most other advanced countries in the world. (Including a lot of capitalistic ones).
@@evanmoorman3828 Most of Europe does not have a public option and Americans don't desire a public option. Most European medicine is based on employee mandated private insurance because they copied United States over the last 40 years. All these systems except for Finland and Russia were underwritten by United States after WW2 as the #1 implication of Marshall plan. GOP calls Bernie Sanders socialist. European nations are social democracies like United States. Bernie Sanders calls for a ban on private pay and insurance for healthcare as the major implication of his Medicare for All and this is forcing the largest economic sector of the largest economy on earth into a state run means of production.
@@soulcapitalist6204 "Scaling... you could be a libertarian at a state level and communist at the commune level and it's not incompatible... what works in Norway (size of NYC borough) won't work for 300M people." ua-cam.com/video/Dn_XEDPIeU8/v-deo.htmlm8s
"I tried to accomplish my mission by impressing on the Führer and the Party as a whole that private initiative, the self‐reliance of the business man, and the creative powers of free enterprise should be recognized as the basic economic policy of the Party. The Führer personally stressed time and again, during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state‐economy and of so‐called “planned economy”, and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production." -Walther Funk "National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." - Adolf Hitler
@Van Brighouse The channel owner is deliberately pushing an ideological agenda, he's a libertarian buffoon who thinks that he himself was a socialist because he once believed in welfare
Same people who say N@21s weren't socialists are the same people who say the soviet union wasn't socialist. That should instantly discredit any claims they make about what is and isn't socialism...
Socialism is just huge scam, and gullible people are falling for it. A group of conmen saying to all people: "yeah, just give us everything you have and we know what is best for everyone". And once they get in power, they take everything legally and by force and call it "nationalization", and crush all opposition.
TIK, I just want to say that I've been subscribed to you for several years. Your content has really changed my perspective on politics and economics. I like to listen to your videos including your 5 hour one when I'm doing long hours of work on my computer. I even downloaded it as a back up in the event that it gets taken down or your channel gets terminated.
If you want to suck at economics, read the Economist. Back then I studied a undergraduate course on EU institutions. The whole thing made me realize the entire organization was a propaganda body for unrepresented centralization.
@@TheImperatorKnight What can’t you believe, Obergruppenführer Tik. Reich’s media New York Times till this day has not apologized for its passionate endorsement of the Soviet Russia in 1930s. It still refuse to acknowledge Chinese Coronavirus as a lab product and bioweapon. Search “war is not far from us Chi Haotian Chinese century”
Ive had conversations with people where I tell them the Nazis were socialist and they immediately shout back, "no they were facist." I would then tell them, "you are not ready for this conversation."
Labelling fascists as socialists only suits the current far-right narrative. Socialism was very popular during the 1930s, including in the UK. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes should not be confused with Socialism or Democratic Socialism. The political and economic spectrum is extremely broad - who's ever heard of anarcho-syndicalists for example. Do people understand the difference between classic liberalism and libertarianism. My point being - it's too easy to use simplistic labels to push a particular agenda, that's the job of Populists.
Except the Fascists literally WERE socialists. Their entire system was built of Giovanni Gentile’s socialist theory and the need to unify state control with business capital to creat syndicalism in which the state controlled everything. Everything within the state, nothing outside it, nothing against it. Seriously, haven’t you studied ANY of the history of socialism? By redefining it to only cover modern Democratic Socialism and the early French Utopian Socialism you install fall prey to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You don’t get to only pick the “nice” versions of socialism and pretend the rest don’t count.
@@hectordiaz1575 How is free market capitalism going these days? I do remember socialism bailing the banks out in 2008, so it's not all bad. While Mussolini may have started his political career as a socialist - he died a fascist.
I thought the excesses of Captain Rohm was one of the reasons he had to be removed because he was soo revolutionary socialist and Hitler did not wish for Germany to be in a state of constant revolution.
There's also the pogroms racially and commercially, the politburo/fuhrerprincip being the same polity, the charismatic leadership principles, the brainwashing education...
I like this version. I've seen the 5 hours version three times and it's great but tough for new people and difficult to share with friends. In the end, people need to read more so they can it understand better. Love your work TIK.
TIK, how about an in-depth video on Robert Owens' socialism, explaining how it predates Marxist Socialism. What commonalities it shares, and what differences Marx and Engels tacked onto it?
The movement towards socialism/communism/fascism/ nazism was being pushed world wide before Hitler and Stalin, Hitler got ideas from all over the world and the States. The nazis lost WW II but the cult that is a mix of all the different branches of socialism has continued and your presentation is excellent.
You need to think about that generalization a little harder. What are America's neo-Nazi's? Not socialists. Fascism can include many of the conservative military dictatorships we've had across the globe, not to mention the conservatives banning books or trying to restrict voting rights. It comes in many colors.
@@dannysullivan3951 America featured socialists (George Fitzhugh, Victor Berger), Progressive Leftists (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, New Freedom and New Deal political slates (fascist corporative state with apartheid), unionists (whites-only AFL and state labor segregation through NIRA and NLRB), Liberals (Tammany Hall - appointed all our slaving (Dredd Scott) and jim crow (Plessy v Ferguson) supreme court justices and slaver lawmakers (MO Compromise, KS-NE Act, supporting the Dredd Scott decision) and jim crow law makers (James Eastland, Jim Eagleman, Joe Biden, Bob Byrd, Jesse Helms...) and these were always combated by American conservatives. Slaving people and making elaborate apartheid schemes is radicalism, fella. That's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is the opposite role of government than is needed for the government to slave people by law or abrogate rights prejudicially. This is why conservative appointments to the SCOTUS have been on record since and including Dredd Scott, arguing against national socialist ideation of Tammany Hall liberal lawyers in all of the civil rights cases in the US until conservative Warren court settled de jure jim crow. Hitler's on record as having recognized and admired American state bigotry, but the nationalist, national socialist and nazbol (Strassers et al) philosophical traditions in Germany were just as well established if not moreso.
@Van Brighouse And what are you saying? " must try harder" you are the perfect definition of talking so much but saying yet so little. That only communists can be socialists? The whole point flew above your head
@Van Brighouse " who is hated communists" are one of the first words in your broken ass sentence. Dont talk to me about my comprehension, cupcake. Instead of repeating your point to validate your shitty opinion you just call me a cultist, back to reddit 🚪🚶♂️
@Van Brighouse All communists are socialists but not at all socialists are communists, they can be social democrats, national socialists ( nazi ) etc. You get what I'm saying now? Just because they were anti communist doesnt mean they werent socialist themselves.
The fact that, even in the comments of this video, people are still trying to argue that Nazi Germany was capitalist, says more about what modern society thinks capitalism is than what they think Nazi Germany is.
Have you considered typing this up publishing it into some type of article? It’s a lot easier for people to write this off as “just a UA-cam video”, as opposed to being presented with an academic paper. Just found your channel, it’s great!
It'd be ripped apart. Hitler privatised the national banks, railways, utilities etc. Which country didn't have a planned economy in WW2? This video is very well informed factually, but with sub-GCSE reasoning.
Of course not. The reason he resorts to UA-cam is that his work wouldnt stand to scrutiny. Dont take that seriously. He's better off doing UA-cam videos anyway, and it is a better venue to spread his opinions to lay people than an academic paper. Lay people rarely read an academic paper in a subject they're interested in. I would even be willing to bet that they only become interested in a subject when UA-cam shows them a video about it, and then forget it until another video shows up.
People asked for a condensed and updated version of my 5 hour Hitler’s Socialism video, so here it is. A lot’s been cut out, but it also has new evidence, so enjoy and please share with others! The script and source list can be found in this PDF: drive.google.com/file/d/1D76xf4yemsN25A21jpw-GokPq47IijPd/view?usp=share_link
"But is this really the case?" for the win!
Ok i though t was going mad you first piece was a master piece on this subject case closed, Although you probably are dealing with the learning impaired i wish you well in that endeavour
can't get buy-in from the stupid worthless proles implementing mass murder for profit
unless you cut them in on some of that sweet blood stained national SOCIALIST swag!
@@scotty101ire trying getting people to watch a 5hr video when their mind is made up other wise. I think you know that though.
Hey Tik do you have an opinion about a video by socialist UA-camr called Second Thought where he tried to explain that Nazis were not Socialist but he gave a very weak argument like Nazis were not socialist because they killed other socialist.
ua-cam.com/video/X9ez6w5BUMM/v-deo.html
My favourite form of "free trade" is when a guy with a gun tells me what and whom I may trade with and promply puts me into a slave labour or death camp if I disagree with him.
A truly free market....
Their counter-argument will be "capitalism isn't a free market, bro!" 😂
Ah, you mean the good ol' arbeit-macht-frei-matket?
@Buster Crabbe protective tariffs are a classic example of over-regulation.
Which is why i say actual free trade pretty much never existed throughout history. Things close to free trade did though, and in general, the free-er the market was, the faster progress and leaps forward in human well being where made.
@@TheImperatorKnight im a socialist. I believe that the market is not free in the first place. I'll explain an example of why. Since the poor do not have the freedom to buy the expensive, even if they really need to (expensive medicine for example)
If you'd like to place an other counterargument to what i just said, feel free to do so, but please don't just rush to drop me off. Consider what im trying to say.
A socialist economy isn't centrally planned. That's something you didn't quite get. Again I'm fully interested on having an honest conversation free of sarcasm, because i think there might be some kind of misinformation from your part.
I hope you receive my criticism in a calm manner!
"Farmers were encouraged to stop producing meat and eggs." Waaaaait a minute....
If I have to choose, I'd rather have grain than bugs to eat.
underrated little gem of a comment here.
Fear is big business.
Yep, woke is left and all left is socialism, they are just too stupid to question left wing doctrine.
Oh really? smells like BS to me and obvious the right is desperate to compare environmentalism and climate activism to Nazi ideology, jumping on the RW gravy train pays well these days and instantly gets you access to huge media platforms. TIK is a sell out like the rest of you, easy to manipulate data and facts to suit your bias,
Funny how the right is so obsessed by war and "God" because mostly they are a death cult making money off war and death, but at least that death is in smart uniforms and killing machines made by their corporations to kill other young people in foreign countries, why they constantly encourage the human race to keep out breeding every other species on Earth, even IVF research is conservative, so we can have endless consumers and endless war until nature, the planet wipes us off her face like the ungrateful scum we are.
"The Germans viewed private property as conditional"
I mean you could argue that is the case for every country in the world. How often do plutocrat governments seize private property for their own uses? In fact Britain did it quite a lot in 1939. There's no such thing as "fundamental rights" especially not given by a government.
Most of those have rules on how they can take property, the Nazis suspended those rules.
@@colebehnke7767 Those rules mean nothing when an oppressive bureaucracy can change them on a whim. Guaranteed rights are an illusion.
@@kabedonovan5555 what?
@@colebehnke7767 The point is existing rules are often bent, worked around with loopholes, or often changed. There’s no difference between abolishing law and actively working against it, civil liberties are at the mercy of every single governing power.
@@kabedonovan5555 so your arguing that all countries are socialist? I don’t get why you are telling me this.
Goebels called Marxist socialism 'socialism of the belly' and National Socialism "socialism of the soul".
The more I hear TIK, the more I realise how little I know about the subjects he covers and how much I need to learn. As for your comment, I don't understand what Goebbels meant but it sounds good. BTW my comments are _masked_ by UA-cam so I will get not indication if you reply to my Reply here.
@@Jean-rg4sp Goebbels was saying that Marxism, especially as practiced by the Bolsheviks was entirely material in nature while Nazism was a spiritual endeavor
@@danstone8783 Thank-you. I changed my Settings so that I got notification of your Reply. It has been turned off but not by me. I see what Goebbels meant now.
@@Jean-rg4sp Another way to understand what Goebbles was saying is that they saw Marxism as an evolutionary means to the equality of mankind (ostensibly) and Nazism as an evolutionary means to the purity of mankind.
@@danstone8783 ... or the purity of the Aryan race.
Does anyone know any modern capitalist corporations that are staffed with governmental political party members dressed in military style uniforms? I seemed to have missed that part of modern day capitalism
Uuuuuuggggggh... Man, I... Ughj. I don't know what how to break it to you, but have you seen the Twitter "ex"-FBI members scandals lately? I mean, they don't flaunt the uniforms (and that's a shame), but I don't think, say, States are much Capitalist in many ways.
Oh I know some ones...
In China, which Wikipedia itself lists as "market socialism". So much for capitalism
most countries are not party political states (where governance is limited to legal, governing parties)
germany and china are two examples of party political states. britain and usa are 2 examples of non-party states.
SCIENLOLOGY!
the srsly wear uniforms lololol cos con artist hubard's sole claim to be not scum is his shitty cray cray "service" record
I've read F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman extensively and came across nothing like that. Also nothing about government mandated and imposed production quotas for factories.
I think one of the major issues of discussing Socialism in America is that Americans tend to conflate "Socialism" with Marxism/Bolshevism. Many of the arguments I've heard against German National Socialism being "not true socialism" are really arguing that it isn't Marxist.
Not just America, unfortunately. There is a belief among many Marxists that if marx didn't write it himself, then it isn't true socialism. This is why when you ask a Marxist to define socialism, they'll go on about a society without a hierarchy, which is explicitly for the benefit of the working class. They've added those parts to it to allow them to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany were not real socialists. (The funny part is, of course, that they do not understand that in Hitlers mind, Hitler was trying to save the working class and that it is what his anti-Semitism was.)
@@user-ss3nk5fz6n Also, a looooot of people supported BLM even tho blm uses the same core foundations of National Socialism. All you have to do to make it more obvious than it is already is to change "black/poc" for "german" and "white" for "jew" and then it clicks in the minds of normies and leftists alike, the former going "oh, oh, OH I see it now!" and the later simply raging because it defies the cult's doctrine.
It's narcissist arrogance that those individuals think it can be done better and should be tried. Who cares about the current body count, get it 'right' and you're good 👀
I don’t think it’s conflation, both the Nazis and Communists openly used this term themselves.
(Na) Zi = Socialist
(US) S (R) = Socialist
Lenin himself said, “the goal of Socialism is Communism.”
@@SabotAndHeat75 Lenin said that because he was a Marxist, hence Marxist-Leninism
My grandfather was a Nazi.
He was Croatian so by proxy he was a Nazi, at the end of the war Tito said to all Yougoslav Nazis that if they defected and fought for him they would get a full pardon.
I asked him once how he could go from being a Nazi to being a Communist and he said.
"Well beside the obvious, that was to save my own neck, there isn't really that much difference between them.
Both demands total obediance to the Leader and the Party ideals.
Both have "work camps" and in one you go because of race, in the other because of ideology...
One wants the whole world to be socialists, "International Socialism" the other just want them to be socialists, "National Socialism".
Both of the hates "the small hats"
So you see there isn't really that much of a difference.
All i really need to do now is to remember to close my fist when I salute..."
So yeah...
No, your grandfather is just an uneducated person who only knows how to follow orders and is a lowly one at that. And the fact somehow you can link your grandfather stupidity with someone's mercy toward a Nazi (which is totally wrong) is absurd. In short, you are just as stupid as your grandfather, I guess stupidity does run in the family's blood.
@@viethoangtruong54 Then other than the race, class classification different what’s the practice difference between Nazism and Communism in Yugoslavia? If both Nazism and Communism demands uneducated people who only know how to follow orders, what would be their difference between their mode of production?
@@oscartang4587u3it’s a death cult
@@oscartang4587u3it was the exact opposite under Tito, he pushed for mass education and literacy. In pre WWII Yugoslavia, illiteracy was as high as 45%, with illiteracy in some parts like Bosnia higher than 80%. Under Tito those illiteracy rates dropped dramatically as part of a targeted effort to dramatically improve education and literacy.
@@KyonXycloneNazi Germany also provided free education for German people.
Tried convincing ChatGPT that Hitler was a socialist purely by asking for definitions, siting what he said and did, and requesting logical conclusions on that basis. Not only were the answers very different than from what I'd get by asking flatly if Hitler was socialist, but the damn bot crashed right when I thought it would make the conclusion. It may have been a coincidence but I've made it crash multiple times now and it's always on that controversial step
🤨 That's one way to use it.
AI isn't thinking if its censoring itself or you based on what its Programmer's desire politically.
It's just an authoritarian mouthpiece.
Just like people that aren't bots that argue that nonsense. Beep boop but about privatization bop beep
Have you tried one of the jailbreaks though?
It is pretty crashy because reasons, but I am willing to bet everything coded in that thing is from hard lefties and elitist pets.
I wouldn't be surprised if when you asked it what a Woman is, if it answered:
I'm not a biologist.
A better color description for Socialism would have been:
"This is Socialism...it is Red.
This is Marxism...it is Orange.
This is National Socialism...it's Brown.
And this is Fascism...it's Purple.
Now, these three colors aren't Red, *but they all have Red in them and cannot be made without it."*
This was reference to colours of movement
Red comunism Brown national socialism (Brownshirts SA) Black fascism (Blackshirts)
@@digitalis2977 That's not accurate. All of this socialism is red. Calling red crimson, then cardinal, then rouge, does not change the color. All are abrogating the same specific human rights of unqualified private property and free assembly. All are based on the collective - that's government being entrusted by collective for violence (enforcement) - taking control or ownership of the means of production.
These are the same color, no matter how you tint the collectivism. This minutia of worker collective versus German collective versus Chinese peasant collectivr is not relevant in socialist praxis. It is all national socialist in practical history. Germany was so pronounced due to the pride German philosophers of socialism took in their antisemitic bigotry and the fact Germany was the only developed nation to implement it.
This is exactly what Klaus Schwab preaches today. It's beyond me why people can't see this.
because its (D)ifferent
Because it’s not true
Here we go
You vill own Nutzink, und be happy.
Ze Stakeholders (WEF members) vill own eferytink... including you.
Rather like socialism does.
The WEF wants central control of the world economy, the dissolution of private property, the end of capitalism, one world government, control and ownership of the means of production... The WEF even wants a Communist Chinese style world government...
Sounds like socialism, without Marx's classism.
@Millennium Vintage. It absolutely is. Minus the racial aspect. He still wants a central state/organization to control the economy. He wants us all to "rent" from that central state. When you "rent" and don't "own"....you have no private property. If you do not own private property, you have no ability to live outside that central state/organizations control. Klaus Schwab wants the entire world to look like China, with the WEF talking the position of the CCP.
MAAAN, you KNOW the stuff! As a German I thought I was fairly knowledgeable, but YOU have it MUCH CLEARER. THANK YOU! THE WORLD has a lot to learn from you if they want to avoid another falling back into the dark ages of Socialism/Communism.
He was a socialist, not a communist or marxist, a socialist is an umbrella term, many socialist ideologies are very different, but in the idea of collectivization of the people Hitler was clearly a socialist
Yes, it's true, socialist ideologies can differ while having the same foundation and many similar symptoms. It seems most of the critics in this comment section are arguing that Nazism was not a particular branch of Socialism they think is the only one, like Bolshevizm.
@@MisterS. yes, anyone who studied history knows they were socialist, but they werent marxist or communist, nor bolshevics, they were national socialists politically, a mix of capitalism and socialism economically, and culturally were a mix of liberal and conservative views on certain issues, National Socialism is an extremely complex system, it takes in many things from many different places, people are very narrow minded when u try to explaim this issue to them
i dont see the capitalist aspects of national socialism at all , despite maybe inner party rivalry to sell the Führer on the next big crazy Wunderwaffe.
Hitler was not a socalist dumbass, i privatezed everything, should u spend any brain cells on actualy education yourselfs on the most basic shit you would not have stage 4 brain rot
But Hitler and the Nazis were explicitly anti socialist and anti leftist. Hitler and Mussolini both stated over and over that what they thought was done right by the socialists was their style of rhetoric, their impassioned speeches, their populist message. They took the aesthetic of a socialist movement, and crushed German socialists while doing it.
It’s scary how much the current Democratic Party is following this game plan.
they follow the world economy forum, like every country does, and the wef follows the 3rd reich and calls it 4th industrial revolution
100%, only they're not just radical left but mixed in with a lot of Globalism and Satanism on top of it all!
I believe they took a lot of their ideas from the dems, but not the one drop rule, which even they thought was a bit to much
The whole idea of the Nazis and Hitler being right-wing originated from Stalin and supported by leftists in Europe and America during WWII who wished to draw an ideological distinction between the soon to be allies and soon to be enemies. The distinction is/was convenient and stuck like chewing gum to the sole of one's shoe--however erroneous. A few have responded to me by saying, "Yes, Hitler was leftist in economics but not in social and international views." All I can answer is "WHAT?!?!" How does one define a Totalitarian approach to government as Left or Right? How does one divorce the means and manner of producing, supporting and otherwise providing the population from any other national acts or aims? Economics are the basis of all national endeavors.
The terms left and right are pretty vague, but when you boil them down it usually comes down to a struggle between hierarchy and nature (right) vs equality and nurture (left). It’s more so about the ends rather than the means. Means are usually just power to be used towards an end. Hitler was a socialist to enact nationalistic ends, marxists are socialist to rape the upper classes and redistribute wealth.
@@reeseman1932 "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H.L. Mencken
So National Socialism was Socialism. Duh. As a youth in Germany I wondered why this was never explained.
Because socialists still govern our government, and they don't want to be associated with that era and ideology.
yup, it was never mentioned when i took history in school
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic with leaders chosen by the people?
National Socialists were marginally right wing. Not Socialists! Ask a Historian/Poltical Scientist to explain why. Hitler killed as many Socialists as he could find!
@@njbrx for the very simple reason it isn’t history. This garbage is mostly funded by US “libertarian” think tanks serving corporate interests. Useful idiots like him make a buck peddling this crap to the gullible who never read a book. They like to pretend “right” means freedom, so they recast 20c fascism as left wing big govt. But the right is always the same. Consumed by racism, toxic nationalism, militarism, violence, ignorance and fear. Its just that now all the same suckers who loved Hitler and Mussolini are being asked to believe these folks were socialists so you can feel a bit better as you accept govt by corporates. But the joke is on you because corporates are the biggest fascists of all, given the opportunity. The only freedom they are offering the likes of you is the freedom to work till you drop, from access to healthcare, from peace, from decent wages and job security, from public services, from having a vote to chose politicians who aren’t bought paid for. And when this fool calls these fascist pigs socialists he just spits on the graves of the millions of decent socialists they systematically murdered, and the memories of most of the anti nazi resistance groups across Europe (who were almost all left wing groups too) - they certainly were not weasels like this idiot. He would have been wearing a blackshirt I suspect. Assuming the thick bast@rd could button one up.
It's one of those things that is so hard for a normal person to believe that even my brother - who loves most of your work and has a masters in history - has a hard time stomaching this one. He hasn't identified any specific flaws in your sources or reasoning, so I think it's more just, how unthinkable it is to him in his worldview. I appreciate your hard work in this front and hope it gets recognized!
I'm curious what it would take for your brother to accept this idea. I'm also curious to know if he thinks free market guys are all fascists, or trying to trick him somehow? I know when I was a Lefty, I feared that the evil secret-Right-wingers were trying to trick me, so I didn't listen to their arguments. It makes me wonder if all the Left are like that.
@@TheImperatorKnight My understanding is he has nothing against the free market - it's mostly that he takes a "stricter" view of the term socialism, I think - one that requires direct state ownership rather than being distributed among a social class or being associated with state control. I think that's the barrier most people have with it. The parallels to today are very interesting with the various influence systems the government has developed and continues to develop over private corporations.
@@Edax_Royeaux He directly addresses that in the video: the state cowed the business owners into line, or else seized the businesses and then gave it to ideolgoical allies. It was creating a "german" social class of superiority, in other words. It may not have had DIRECT control but it was pretty damn close.
@@Edax_Royeaux "In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, *mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party."*
Now, read that again.
@@Edax_Royeaux Great job on not watching the video. This quote was addressed pretty damn early, dude. It's a complete non-sequitir.
The German definition of "privatization" means taking farms and business OUT of the speculative market, as in (private limited) as opposed to public PLC. Hitler correctly called himself a "National Socialist". Quoting speech by Hitler on December 28, 1938:
"A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false."
(- Speech given on December 28, 1938, quoted in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93.)
Quoting "The Red Network" 1934: "Fascism, the bitterest enemy of Socialism-Communism, resembles Socialism in the respect that it gives great power to the State and dictatorship over all industry, employment, education, freedom of the press, etc . The points of difference which make it violently hated by the Reds are : its opposition to the "class struggle" and the subjugation of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat . Rather, it seeks a harmony between all classes and concedes to industrialists, white collar, professional, as well as laboring workers, a place in the social order as necessary parts, not "class enemies," of the whole, but under State control . It defends some property rights and religion . It opposes Marxist philosophy and the Communist and Socialist Marxian parties . Fascism in Italy is not anti-Semitic . The problem of the large number of revolutionary Russian Jews in Germany doubtless contributed toward making Fascist Germany anti-Semitic.
Fascism arose in Italy and Germany as the result of the weakness of Democracy in combating the Marxian poison which had been allowed to disintegrate the entire social fabric of these nations with agitations for strife and disunity. It took over power at a time in both countries when the choice lay between Fascist or Red dictatorship . It is the only enemy feared by the Reds, because it is the only system which opposes militancy with militancy and puts down one dictatorship by means of another. The price of Democratic freedom is eternal vigilance . When a people are too indifferent to the loss of their liberty, too blind to see that unchecked Marxism will result in complete chaos, disunity and national helplessness, too lazy to bother to protect their form of government, or to govern themselves, then some form of dictatorship will arise to take over the task for them.
Unless large numbers of Americans (and Europeans) shake off their present indifference to fast disappearing liberty and to danger from within, and combat Socialism-Communism vigorously, some form of Fascism will arise in America to do battle with Socialism for the dictatorship over the indifferent. As the strength of Socialism-Communism increases, the chance to preserve Democracy decreases, until eventually Fascism becomes the only alternative to Socialism-Communism. It is late, but not too late to save American Democracy if Americans will awaken-now/ Where are America's leaders?".
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, which I do not hesitate to admit. The difference is that I have actually put into practice everything these hustlers and scribblers timidly hinted at. All National Socialism is based on this" - Hitler
"President of the Reichstag, Paul Löbe, a social democrat, despite being briefly imprisoned twice by the National Socialists, received a pension from the Third Reich for his role in replacing the monarchy with a republic."
"The only good thing the social democrats did" - Joachim Ribbentrop creatively developed the leader's thought - "is the abolition of the monarchy."
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than divides us. - A bourgeois social democrat or trade union leader will never become a national socialist, but a communist will infallibly." - Hitler
“I just visited the concentration camps in Austria. Jews and aristocrats sit in them. Some are ugly and too mobile, others are beautiful and too incompetent” - noted Heinrich Himmler in 1937.
"Jacob Bainville was afraid of the idea of a German Republic (demanded by the German socialist Karl Liebknecht). He was sure that it would follow the example of the Jacobins and, in the name of Germany "united and indivisible", would become aggressively nationalistic - he was not wrong. See : his article in Action Française (Sept. 29, 1914). Goebbels saw in German National Socialism an analogy with the French Revolution and boasted in Der Angriff (December 6, 1931) that his party represented "the German Left."
"But it wasn't the true socialism" 🤣
Wow, your last paragraph literally happened in my country of Ghana, the minute we went communist and private businesses were bought up by the government things started to fail and eventually a coup happened bringing a facist leadership.
I really see the prediction you made for America coming true, many democrats like Bernie Sanders are already pushing for socialist reforms and when that inevitably fails a military leader from the right will emerge. If you ask many Americans what their most trusted institution is most say the military so it's not out of the questions.
This is why I’m going to run for office.
Well one potential leader is likely a fascist and dictator-wanabe and the other is old, ineffective, and caught up in the status quo
Shit's illegal in the US at the constitutional level.
As an Italian, I would say that the most profound philosophical imprint on Fascism was not the actualism of Gentile (too cerebral, complicated and known by very few) but the ideology of D'Annuzio, who was a great communicator and has been a true and influencial "superstar" for decades.
I suggest Georges Sorel was this most profound influence on Italian fascism, but I have not read D'Annuzio directly, to be honest.
Gentile is based
@@romulusmars3766 Rome was a product of it's Hero's not it's political structure, so I hope it doesn't shape your view of how we should organize our governments today
@4⃣H I want a government that represents its population and is required to do things on its behalf and for the benefit of its populous.
@@romulusmars3766 So what every modern government tries to be? The question is how to do it - the answer isn't the triumph of a brother over brother or the rule of oligarchs. Romulus Mars lol, that can be encapsulated by both Caligula and Caesar but both men stood for every different things. The best men of Rome were always those who reformed the state that was set up to embellish the equestrians and the senate to the detriment of the republic or the empire.
My grandfather and his brother owned vineyards on the Rhine. When the Nazi came to power, they told my grandfather he had to give over his land. He tried to refuse but his brother agreed to it. My Grandfather fled Germany and was chased down by the Nazis. He got away but only after having his heel shot during the escape. He came here, to Australia. When war broke out, he was put in a prison camp and remained there until the end of the war.
I watched the original 5h video twice. Very eye opening and very much in line with what i learned in school about how fascist Spain operated, how they controlled the unions, the media, people's private lives and means of production, etc. It was taboo to point out the similarities between all these ideologies, partly due to the cold war , that being a fierce anti-comunist doesn't mean that your goals and methods are not in fact quite similar.
It's funny because when I did my video on Franco's Spain, I was criticised for my stance, and told I didn't know what I was talking about. But as you've just said, it's true!
Stalin (a socialist) killed Trotsky (a socialist). That doesn't mean Stalin wasn't a socialist. You can hate others of your own ideology, and that's fine. Men hate other men - doesn't mean they're not men. So Franco might have been anti-Communist or anti-Socialist, but that doesn't mean that his regime wasn't socialist in nature.
@@TheImperatorKnight Easy-peacy lemon squeezy - QED
Bingo. Franco's Spain was lightweight fascism and Nazi Germany was heavy duty fascism. That's why the similarities are so striking. Of course the Spanish did their genocide in the 1500s not the 1900s......
@@TheImperatorKnight everything is possible when you lie.
@@cyberputo you mean modern socialists?
Claiming Hitler wasn't a socialist because he killed Röhm is like claiming Lenin wasn't a socialist because his Bolsheviks killed Mensheviks and he banished Martov
Yeah there are many better reasons why you cant call him a socialist.
@@thenarkknight278 There are none to claim 3rd Reich was not socialist political economy by 1935. By that time, at Hitler's order, German government had taken full control and ownership of the German means of production, means of exchange and means of distribution.
@@soulcapitalist6204 Because it was a war economy the goal to win the war required it. Their idiological incentive was to win the war not to abolish capitalism. They didnt really care that much about the economics aslong as they economy produced enough weapons.
By that means you could argue that it was an simular case in the UK. What socialist they were to rationise resources food and they forced the economy to produce weapons. All this gouverment Intervention!
The first thing that always disapears in a war is the freedom. There we're still factory owners/capitalists who earned A LOT with the war but It was ONLY reasonable for Nazi Germany to force them to produce weapons.
Russia is doing simular things right now. Wow look Putin and the Oligarchy are sich socialists XD
@@thenarkknight278 name them
@@AverageAlien Because he cooperated with capitalist. He didnt even tried in the slightest to dissolve the capitalist system, no he even reinforced it, although he put it under the nazi ruling parties will. The nazis dissolved labour unions and grouped them together so that the state could more easily controll those unions without sparking a loud fuss. This was important to keep the people working during and for the upcoming war. Many capitalists profited of the collaberation with the nazis. They had cheap slave labour, participated in "plundering" the occupied states.
Most importantly: The means of production werent in the hand of the public.
You know you've touched a nerve when Facebook suspends your account for sharing this video. Double thumbs up and continue the awesome work you do. Never surrender.
I would say I'm sorry, but losing Facebook is actually a blessing.
Maud'Dib
poor fascist, can't take fascism
That's actually a fallacious argument 🤣
@@Joshua-dc4un cope
Personal timestamps:
5:13 Nazi and Soviet economy
11:42 Planned economy
17:49 Labour policy
19:03 War as a means to export inflation
25:59 Socialist rational regulation
26:57 Pre-Marxist socialism
27:59 Race socialism
28:48 Nazism without racism is plain socialism
31:02 National VS international socialism
32:03 Marx's anti-Semitism
32:51 Hitler's anti-Semitism
33:47 Hitler's opposition to Marxism
36:53 Hitler's ideological war
38:24 The (German) People's State
39:24 Nazi revolution
42:33 Hitler is a socialist
Goebbels would be proud of you
@@user-qw6zj5ix9k Do you not understand the meaning of "personal"? Get lost!
Thank you, Kilophilos!
Kronie spotted
now it is OUR timestamps
people get so mad at me when I call Nazis socialists, they literally called themselves socialist what more do they want?
Yes, they will come unglued, amazing..
They, like all Socialists, just want to find something to blame for their own failure. Their entire ideology is an excuse.
"Meanwhile on February 20, 1920, the German Workers’ Party switched its name to the [more euphemistic] National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeitpartei, called the N.S.D.A.P. for short). [The Führer] did not like the addition of the term ‘Socialist’ but acquiesced because the executive committee thought that it might be helpful in attracting workers from the left‐wing."
-Samuel W. Mitcham
@@randomuser3481 A chair is a chair and a Socialist is a Socialist. Hitler was a Socialist, even if he didn't want to associate with the Marxists. The argument was over optics. Not policy. The policy was Socialism.
They were nationalists first and foremost, they saw welfare for every member of the community as a natural consequence of nationalism. Everybody could contribute according to his own talents. Hitler described this in his speech "Freedom or slavery".
This is prob my favorite topic that gets discussed on the channel.
Mine too! I like the war stuff, but this is even more interesting to me. Learning more about how the Nazis screwed their economy up is eye-opening
I find I listen to far more of the economics of war on this channel than I do the battles and strategies. It's good stuff.
@@TheImperatorKnight it would be really awesome if you did a video like this on FDR because I’m pretty sure he’s a fascist in everything but name
@@0944clayton That would be a great idea. Wilson too, which could be tied into both FDR and inspiring elements and strategies of Nazism pretty easily. Really, a historical breakdown of Fabian socialism and progressivism would go a long way
@@TheImperatorKnight Dear TIK.
Please, do read on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a Libertarian utopia which very demonstrably went south. No roads, no bridges, no taxes, very weak standing army, *extremely* rich citizens.
Just for a quick example - The whole of Prussia was *poorer* than Poznan region alone.
Yet they went under.
I admire your journey. It's just that ignoring PLC when discussing libertarian ideals is like ignoring Soviet Union when discussing communism, so I want you to have a bite of this piece of history too.
So the next time they label you as "far right" take it as a compliment... It really is!
Who's here for the comparison to Starmer in 2024?
Have you read Nathan Otto’s contemporary analysis on the Nazi Economic system (it’s a primary source)? It’s so detailed and gives so much information on the economic interventionist behaviour of the Third Reich.
I haven't read that. I've just searched around and couldn't find a physical copy anywhere. Do you know where I could get a copy?
I would also love to here if there's a place to get a physical copy. (Commenting to hopefully see an answer)
@@TheImperatorKnight Sadly, few physical copies of the source remain. My 1971 hardcover edition is a relic of a bygone era. Nevertheless, a digital version of a similar source written by the same author can be found on the website NBER called Nazi War, Finance and Banking.
www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf
@@TheImperatorKnight in libgen.?
The Nazis and the communists had exactly the same economic model. They are two sides of the same coin.
"State‐owned plants were to be avoided wherever possible. Nevertheless, sometimes they were necessary when private industry was not prepared to realize a war‐related investment on its own. In these cases, the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it. Even the establishment of Reichswerke Hermann Göring in 1937 is no contradiction to the rule that the Reich principally did not want public ownership of enterprises. The Reich in fact tried hard to win the German industry over to engage in the project."
"Available sources make perfectly clear that the [Third Reich] did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible."
-Christoph Buchheim & Jonas Scherner
@Buster Crabbe This is false, Hitler was in fact opposed to central planning: ""I tried to accomplish my mission by impressing on the Führer and the Party as a whole that private initiative, the self‐reliance of the business man, and the creative powers of free enterprise should be recognized as the basic economic policy of the Party. The Führer personally stressed time and again, during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state‐economy and of so‐called “planned economy”, and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production."
-Walther Funk
Your definition of socialism is also incorrect, socialism is not when the government owns the means of production, it is when the workers own the means of production
@@randomuser3481 Tik has already addressed every point you have made in this entire comments section in his other videos. It's actually your definition of socialism that is wrong. Workers owning the means of production is Marxism which is a brand of socialism. The socialism Buster refers to is the definition that existed before Marxism, Marx just added class as Tik has already talked about before. Quoting Hitler saying he doesn't like central planning doesn't change the fact that they did control the economy, otherwise they wouldn't be a totalitarian government.
Socialism and/or communism is a necessary condition for dictatorship if not sufficient. No matter how the left spins socialism today, state control and bureaucracy will take you towards dictatorship. Thanks for laying that out.
This is my FAVORITE topic of yours. Including the videos on Fascism, Public vs Private, Hitler's Vampire Economy, and the follow up supplemental and reaction videos etc. They've helped me understand, to the point that I've actually changed a few minds myself. Please keep at it, if you have more. Any and all information and evidence on this topic is especially important in our modern day. This giant historical misunderstanding/lie is possibly THE key to having a "mass awakening" to the control and oppression that socialism/Marxism/fascism/collectivism have held and still hold over the modern world.
I agree. It was this topic that made me wake up from the socialist religion, so it stands to reason that if socialists understand this argument, then they will also abandon the faith.
@TIKhistory. It definitely fires me up (in an excited kind of way.) I have been slowly watching those around me adopt collectivist ideas over the past decade, like many others have. And people like me didn't have the resources to really combat it before. But thanks to you and people like James Lindsey and Peter Bogghosian, I feel very comfortable going into "battle" and actually winning over minds back to real classical liberalism and the merits of capitalism as the solution to many of the problems and "unfairness" that the modern left are so concerned about. Very glad you had you're own conversion.
@@TheImperatorKnight It was a similar study of the causes of the World Wars, the interwar years and the Spanish Civil War that lead me to much the same conclusions. For me, it was the Spanish Civil War that made no sense and caused me to go back and look at the sources with a more critical eye. This, the most bloody portion of human history - is a single ongoing Socialist Civil War.
Have you checked out Dr. James Lindsay?
@@TheImperatorKnight I know Ive said this to you before. When I was younger I met with a WWII veteran who after the war became a Major in the British Army. He told me you'll never win an argument with "the Communists" a/ they change the goal posts b/ they'll never accept it "was socialism" unless it reached perfect utopian conditions. He told me, you cant argue with them, just shoot them in the head, yes every time they stick their heads up shoot them in the Head. Or else they are going to remove your freedom to choose. The Labour MP for Norwich South says (Clive Lewis) He wants second homes seized and private Schools abolished because it prevents equality. Guys like this MP will ban children from listening to "bed time" stories only to impose their aspiration of equality
Hitler: I'm a socialist.
Modern Socialists: NoOOOooo! It can't be!
Fascist economics isn’t capitalism, but it isn’t socialism either. Marxist economics is meant to be democratically run by workers, not the state. I’m not a socialist or talking abt “not real socialism” that’s just how it is.
@@evanmoreno360
You're exactly the person my post refers too.
Marx doesn't have a monopoly on what is 'socialist' or not. He's not the founder of 'socialism', he's just the guy who had the MOST radical form of socialism.
You're falling for the no true scotsman hypothesis.
@@BrutusAlbion I’m not a socialist in the modern sense or otherwise. But I get what you mean. First of all I’d say Lenin had the most radical form of socialism, not Marx. Second, whether Hitler is a socialist depends on which definition of socialism you use. If it’s the democratic workplace-type socialism, (not exclusive to Marx) where the public also decides where money is spent rather than the state, Hitler was absolutely not a socialist.
@@evanmoreno360 Notice the words you are using ... ''If it’s the democratic workplace-type socialism''
It's all still different flavors of socialism.
I don't have anything against socialism on a surface level. I'm a centrist if anything but it's hilarious to see leftists bend over backwards in order to not make nazism anything else than what it is. It's socialism but on a 'ethnic' level focused around the 'nation' as compared to communist socialism which is focused on an international theme that transcends the nation or the ethnicity.
I think it's because there's a brain meltdown taking place when they shout 'fascist and nazi' and associate those with the 'extreme right' when in truth these are just different flavors of 'extreme left'. The extreme right has its own niche evils but they are not the historical ones we like to shout slurs at with people.
It's the horseshoe effect really. Bend backwards far enough and you'll end up with your head up your ass. Not saying that is you tho, my bad if I made it sound like that.
@@evanmoreno360 The state and the people are the same thing.. in theory that is. In practice, corruption takes over immediately, but you get the point.
National Socialism was socialism and far-left.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Lmfao, what a mentally insane take 😂😂
This is literally the funniest video I’ve seen on your channel. In a world where people can fight over who’s the football GOAT, but never define or agree on what the qualifications are required to be said GOAT, I can’t imagine how hilarious the comments are gonna be.
Hi TIK as a native German speaker I wanted to ad that "Gleichschaltung" is even more than synchronization. It means more something like making everything the same as the word is made up of two words which mean Gleich = same and Schaltung = switching. So I would interpret "Gleichschaltung" as incooperation into to the nazi and state agenda and the interest of the state.
Thank you! That's important information, as many of the books gloss over the translation 👍🏻
By the way, I've posted your comment onto the channel's community tab to inform others, so you should check it out. www.youtube.com/@TheImperatorKnight/community
@@TheImperatorKnightthat's great thanks!
Thank you for addressing Reddit's badhistory post about you. I find it ironic when they try to say that you are a liar but then they don't even bother to cite anything disproving your claims and your evidence and references. It just is a massive whinge post.
Libtards never provide evidence, they just bitch
He is a liar, it so easy to proove. The problem is that he delete all the critical comments and the comments when he is called out.
@@Jenseduca What a convenient excuse.
@@verscarii3238 For who? For T.H?
Here is one proof of many: in his Hegel video he claim that both fascism and Marxism are based on Hegelian idealism. But if Google Marx's philosophy you'll soon discover that Marxism is based on materialism, which is literally the opposite of idealism (Hegelian or any). So now a question to you - do you think he didn’t know that? He went that far as to research Hegel and yet somehow missed this part, something that is as basic as it only can be? It just not possible. So either he is simply stupid or he is a liar. I think it's both, but you are free to choose between stupidity or deceiph.
And I'm not even gonna go in to all the small lies and stupid things he says in his video. Like in the same Hegelian video less than a minute in he clames "food is a commodity, there is no commodity in socialism thus there is no food". Well, the food is a PRODUCT unless it's deliberately made for profit and is ought to be selled on the market, then it's a commodity. And he doesn't know that)) He is just a f.o.o.l.
"But if Google Marx's philosophy you'll soon discover that Marxism is based on materialism, which is literally the opposite of idealism (Hegelian or any)."
In that very video, I quoted Marx in the video saying this. You don't need to "Google it" because I literally quoted the exact passage where he says this. Try to actually watch the full video before commenting.
-
What you've missed is that Marx is a dialectical materialist. Dialectical, meaning "transcendence". And "materialism" being the belief that reality is fake. Thus, Marx believes in the transcendence of the fake reality. This is, practically speaking, no different that what Hegel said. The only difference is that Marx things reality shapes the mind, which then produces God, whereas Hegel things God shapes the mind and that produces material reality. It's not "literally the opposite" - it's reliant on the exact same principle: the idea that reality is fake.
-
"So either he is simply stupid or he is a liar."
Neither. You're the ignorant one here, not me.
-
"Well, the food is a PRODUCT unless it's deliberately made for profit and is ought to be selled on the market, then it's a commodity. And he doesn't know that)) He is just a f.o.o.l."
Since you love Google so much, a quick search will show you that both a product and a commodity can be bought and sold. A commodity is merely a raw material, whereas a product is usually the end product. Without commodities you don't have products. So, my point still stands. Without commodities you do not have food, and therefore a commodity-less society is a food-less society.
Hitler was a socialist at first, but after the long knifes night he became a imperialist too. To support the idea that he was in fact a socialist i can tell histories of my own family. My Grandfather was a portuguese farmer of Madeira Island he was very poor, until waves of german tourists started to take vacations on the island in the middle 30´s. Consequences of Kraft durch Freude and other workers benefits programs. He became a tourist guide and make a lot of money to buy some land. When he came to Brazil on the late 90´s, he shared a lot of german nazis histories that he heard before war
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, the Nazi economic system was able to achieve social ownership of the means of production.
The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocates “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriates the surplus product produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics")
The surplus product produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source.
"Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, p. 10)
Nazi Germany did gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
As an argentinian, I encourage everyone who thinks socialism is a fair and humanitarian way of redistributing money: NO, DONT FALL FOR THAT SHIT, NO, YOUR PUTTING TO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICIANS HANDS, GIVE AS LITTLE MONEY AS POSSIBLE TO THE STATE, DONT LET THEM CONTROL YOU
I thank you for your warning - I really wish that I could find a way to program that into my fellow American Gen-Z kid's heads. Greetings from the USA! :)
Hitler: "I am a socialist."
Perón: Harbors Nazi war criminals in his country.
No omg don't take the money from the billionaires please. SOMEONE THINK OF THE RICH AND WEALTHY I BEG YOU.
I wish Brazilians would've listened to this advice a few years ago. Now we might be past the point of no return where our government is currently making a point to finance socialism all over Latin America, especially Argentina.
They're also seeking revenge at the Brazilian population because they fr@uded their election (and we have private Argentinian specialists to thank for providing the first incontestable piece of evidence on that).
the people that need to hear this message are too retarded to even consider it
I lived in a former socialist country, Romania, and I confirm that in true SOCIALISM workers couldn't just change jobs, they had to ask the party to approve the "transfer" to the other state owned firm. Workers cannot even quit their job easily, If a worker dared to quit his job, he was considered a harmful "element", a bad example for workers. This act was recorded in the "work card" as an indelible stain.
Also there were almost no strike, the unions were merely tools of the party and secret service.
There is no point attempting to debate with Socialists/Marxists. They only have one mode and that is to keep changing and arguing the definitions. This is how you know you are dealing with dishonest people.
They only debate until they figure out how to dispose of you.
Yeah except it wasnt socialism you fucking idiot. It was absolutely state controlled capitalism. Cope
@@subsamadhistate controlled capitalism is socialism you absolute troglodyte
State Controlled Capitalism is a contradictory statement
If there is no free market, there is no capitalism
A state controlled market IS socialism
Brother you don't even know the definition of socialism
Friend, Wether Fascist Communist, Nazi ( National Socialist), Bolshevik, or FascoCommunist such as the present Globalist elites as Gorge Soros or Klaus Schwab?
It always comes down to a dystopian hell, filled with cult’s of Death for the masses in the end!
Mayhap I should suggest that we pray for these poor souls, as they have never had to live under these Regimes? Where it’s good to be king, but suck’s to be the rest of the serf’s! Where your daughters are toys of the elites at will. Even your son’s, God forbid!
Where, your future offspring are to be raised in indoctrination centers. Your progeny , sired in Laboratory‘s and gestated in birthing pods. And those in whom are found defective? To be recycled to feed the embryos.
Ahhh yes, something evil, this way comes!
These poor outcasts from the promised land of the future LibTardia, have not a clue! For them all is… Bread and Circus!
Brainwashed or brain dead? Victims of their Government funded, public education. Enlightened by and through their electronic devices. gods of their own making. Blind leading the blind, and being lead by the blind.
Slaves of invisible chains of their own making. And sheep to the slaughter.
They have no concept of what it’s like to exist under the boot of total tyranny, forever in constant fear. Fear that you boss, neighbor, or even family members will turn you in for as little reward as a higher social credit score! Or even a pat on the head.
And worst of all, it’s already here in the United States. Though in its infancy. Its here! The Machine has yet, obstacles to overcome? The biggest problem being that of the 2nd Amendment? Once they have successfully disarmed us? Oooohh yeah, baby!
It’s 90% population reduction time, and that’s just the beginning!
Now I, myself don’t wish them any harm. Heck, I’d suggest and vote in favor to relocate them to rule on their own Continent. You guessed it? Antarctica! Where they can fulfill their every desire to lord over everyone and thing there!
Still we should keep them in our prayers. That sanity mayhaps one day return back to them?
Respectfully submitted from a disabled Veteran and Gold Star dad…
Semper Fi and DeOpresso Liber, friend
Whenever you hear someone say "but that isn't REAL socialism" well that argument is redundant because it's clear that Marxism isn't REAL socialism either. Socialism is a spectrum within itself
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.”
- Martin Neimoller 1946
Yep, that's why it's important to speak out against the totalitarian state at all opportunities, and is why censorship is inherently bad.
@@TheImperatorKnight Easy to ignore the right is more guilty of this under the guise of protecting the women and children, and appealing to base emotion, like fear and blind nationalism, the idea of an invisible supernatural being that favors only those who think and look like you.
"Easy to ignore the right is more guilty of this under the guise of protecting the women and children, and appealing to base emotion, like fear and blind nationalism, the idea of an invisible supernatural being that favors only those who think and look like you."
It may come as a surprise to you to know that I'm (mostly) in agreement with you. Remember, I'm a free market guy, so I'm not on the "Right". I'm not a Commie-servative, or a tradcon, or a racist. I'm against totalitarianism in all forms, regardless of which part of the "political" (statist) spectrum it's from.
In fact, I'm not on your political spectrum at all. There's no room for me here images.app.goo.gl/Br34rwiHAfjoSSFQ7
I might be on this one though images.app.goo.gl/HbFUCVKgGUGjKxUg6
@@TheImperatorKnight You're not on the right, yet you just happen to push a narrative that was invented by the right to absolve themselves of all blame for the Holocaust
@@TheImperatorKnight You're completely ignoring that the point first people Hitler purged and put into concentration camps were socialists.
In addition to the national/ethnic pride element, (and despite National-Socialists not waging class warfare per se), Hitler clearly had his fondest feelings towards the workers, and considered them to be the paragon of German virtue, as opposed to the exploitative wealthy and aristocrats. In a speech he stated his goal that all Germans would/should spend at least some time doing noble physical labor to build infrastructure for the greater good in the RAD.
Hitler killed the trade-unionists and canceled the trade unions, and went on to strip the working class of it's labor rights and lowered their salaries on top of that. Almost as if Hitlers fertilization of the working class where just empty words....
So did John Lennon when he was high.
Hayek argues in Road to Serfdom that National Socialist anti-semitism was part of the underlying anti-capitalist sentiment... most German merchants were Jewish... being hated for doing the things others don't want to do... National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy were essentially grassroots responses to existing socialist policies...
@@js290 It's worth noting that socialism in General and certainly in Germany stemmed from racial collectivism, then notions of classes other than race were introduced by Marx. Marxism was poorly received in Germany, but history seems to indicate that antisemitic racial collective was a popular notion of German working class since their midieval period.
Ah, yes. He said so, it must be true. It is not like he murdered tons of workers because they did not agree with him or send millons of workers to slaughter. And the workers that he loved so much whom did not get sent in to the meat grinder worked more hours with a low hourly wage. That really sounds like love too me.
Socialists: Capitalism has to conquer their neighbors because they will run out of food and wealth.
Capitalists: We are having a serious obesity crisis, and everyone thinks we're bad because we produce more than what we need.
Socialists: Inmediately run out of food and wealth, start conquering their neighbors.
obesity crisis; CHEAP FEED NOT NOURISHİNG
@@selmakaplan1053 No. Calories. No fake diet propaganda. Fats have eaten too much calories.
yeah that china is starving hard, sure buddy
@@selmakaplan1053 who forces them to eat burgers instead of healthy diet tho?
@@selmakaplan1053 you cant get fat unless ur overnourished...
Leftard: hitler was not a socialist
Hitler: NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD! NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS THIS! NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS THAT! I LOVE NATIONAL SOCIALISM!
totally not a socialist...
Rainer Zitelmann's book is a great book, one of the few that bother to delve into Hitler's thought.
I would also add Thomas Weber's biography, it shows how Hitler in 1919 sympathized with social democracy.
and since before the army sent him to spy on the DAP, he voluntarily tried to join the German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei, DSP).
Mein Kampf also talks about his time with socialist democractic party. SDP created by marx.
It's a race - ie Germanic - based Socialism. In other words, it's Socialism based on kinship and ties of blood. He saw the Germans as being members of one big happy family, related to each other as blood relations. Socialism from that angle - the group thing - doing everything together as a group whether in work or outside of work, melding together as a particular race, which would exclude the outsiders who are not seen as being of the same blood; that would also exclude Internationalism or the world brotherhood or we are all one, idea. Hitler said that "Socialism is dealing with the common weal, is an ancient Aryan, Germanic Institution". Nothing to do with Marxism or Communism which is internationalist in its outlook. "and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic" and he also said: "Socialism unlike Marxism does not repudiate private property". He also said: "We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of the race solidarity". This is what he said in 1923. It'a a peculiar form of socialism with do with the advancement of a particular race.
Yup. That's a pretty good description of fascism you made there friend.
Kinda funny how smiliar socialism and fascism is@@directAction3389
@@directAction3389 Socialism is a form of fascism then. All socialist philosophers justified socialism - control of the means - on the basis of specifically antisemetic racism until Marx changed his tune from his zur Judenfrage by publishing Manifesto without racial basis. All of his anarchist and socialist colleagues were antisemitic national socialists before, during and after his career.
Ethno National Socialism.
@@soulcapitalist6204
That's how I see it too. Agreed.
I watched the 5 hour version of this video. It took a long time but I finished it and enjoyed it. I am now going to watch this one. I find it so funny how people will not even bother to watch it and then say you're wrong and stupid. If you do not listen to someone how can you state that they are wrong.
They have their excuses. Did you see the video where someone "debunked" me? He hadn't watched the video and even admits it ua-cam.com/video/8rWnuuEN024/v-deo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes that was very good. I watched it right after I saw the 5 hour one.
This is a great example of what is called rationalism. People want to believe in the feel good features of Socialism so badly that they can’t believe that it’s tarnished by unmitigated and clearly recognized evil.
Nietzsche had a saying that madness in individuals is rare but in societies it is a rule and Socialism is a good example of this.
Ah, yes, the typical "Lets use one-sided facts, ignore everything that happened which doesnt support our agenda and at last lets twist some definitions to make everything fit". Far-right classic
Lenin / USSR signed cooperation protocols with Weimar Germany in 1922, so Adolf did the same. Their same goal is - violate Treaty of Versailles.
I have watched your 5 hour video three times. So much there to digest. Great videos!
Awesome! I'm glad you liked it! This one's more condense, but hopefully just as useful
Great info here. Have you guys looked into Stephen Hicks Nietzsche and the Nazis? He explores the philosophical underpinnings of collectivist ideology and the various factors that led to Nazism. One thing which he pointed out and which would seem irrefutable to anyone who read it, was that 14 out of 25 tenets of national socialism would universally be considered Socialist today.
@@bengreen171 Concise is one way of putting it. I find the possibility that he intended to say "condensed" and simply missed the 'd' somehow to be a more likely situation. Occam's razor and such.
@@bengreen171yes I have and well most of them were from the German Workers Party before it added new tenets based on the inclusion of nationalism and an ethnocentric slant to the fundamental Socialist principles. The inclusion of those things didn't remove the fundamental socialism, it just differentiated it from class based socialism (Bolshevism)
I'm pretty sure the 'far right' tag comes from the addition of the ethnocentric/nationalist elements of national socialism.. For those without subtle intellect they may accept that, but a cursory look into the elitism and love of eugenics in English Socialism, or American Progressivism will remedy that. Nazi thought didn't appear in a vacuum, but as the full flowering of an era many have conveniently forgotten. Some even say they were inspired by the eugenics programs of America, whatever the truth, America was very keen to collect nazi scientists who then continued their work in the US.. (operation paperclip)
Also, I thought Hicks made a great point about the collectivist underpinnings of Nazism. Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel with their German Supremacism, anti-democracy, anti-individualism, anti capitalism, selective breeding programs and so on. They were the main Philosophers influencing nazi thought and elements of them can be seen throughout. . German supremacy can even be traced back to Hegel. His idea was that Germany was the most advanced civilisation and should rule the world.. Marx associated Jewishness with capitalism.. Nietzsche saw no problem with subjugation of inferiors and of a war for dominance..
Also, they weren't stupid or unthinking capitalists driven by profit.. Goebbels had a Phd in Philology from Heidelberg University, they had three Nobel Prize winners as well as Heidegger who were all staunchly nazi. They were grass roots funded radical idealists.
@@bengreen171 I tend to hold a maybe controversial view that Zionism aided the nazi argument because it created the idea of a Jewish People (or the invention of one as Tel Aviv University Professor Shlomo Sand says) Prior to that people only thought themselves religious jews.. Marx own father converted to Lutheranism, as did many others. Before the obfuscation we have today, Judaism was still known to be the first large scale proselytising Abrahamic religion of the West. In fact, Rome banned conversions because Judaism was too competitive with Christianity.. Luther obviously grew impatient with many Jews not converting enough to Christianity and that was the basis of his Anti-jewishness.
This combination of Marx association of Jewishness with capitalism, nazi anti capitalism, the long standing resentment of Jews in Lutheranism, the rise of nationalism, German Supremacism, eugenics . It was the perfect storm.
I had other problems with Hicks than those you mentioned., For example, i thought he had an ambiguous opinion of Nietzsche, but so do people like Jordan Peterson. But I guess that's typical of Nietzsche, who has influenced all kinds of people and for different resaons, from Foucault to Heidegger.. But Nietzsche and the Nazis is the only Hicks book I've read. I personally don't like much about Nietzsche..
Hicks is certainly a centrist crusader as you say. I'm not sure I'm completely opposed to that as i don't want us to succumb to wholesale collectivism, but I'm no fan of libertarianism either.. That's the pull yourself up by your bootstraps side of Nietzschianism so dare to Peterson and Hicks haha
Hitler was a Socialist, but he was also a Fascist. Its a particular blend which led to his censorship of the opposition, but also the redistribution of resources. Therefore Nationalising the resources was very socialist, however advocating for ultra nationalism and ethnic discrimination was the Nazi’s particular brand of control.
@Florentino Perez it can be argued that the ideologies are similar, but i don’t think the same. Socialism and Fascism is very different. For one Socialism is motivated by inequity, Fascism is motivated by Nationalism, and thus take control of the state.
They have similar ideologies, but Fascism is more race and military motivated than Socialism that is more Class motivated.
Both ideologies use authoritarian methods, but Socialism can at times be different.
National Socialism is however almost the complete same as Fascism. It’s the fact that there should only be one ethno-state. Only Nazis are more extreme. Not really capitalists, but not exactly socialists either.
Edit; *Note; the Nazis did have Very socialist policies, but there is a big difference when you view other people as vastly inferior to the original German citizens. I mean, it kinda meant, All Germans are equal, except everyone else is beneath them. Thus; National Socialism, if it makes any sense.
@Florentino Perez Ok, thank you, i will :)
@Florentino Perez "Fascism is therefore opposed to socialism, to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon."
- The Doctrine of Fascism
Though not a historian, I love all things historical. Like many of those who comment on your videos, I too was confused about why Nazi Germany took the steps they did if they were simply a fascist state controlled by big business and the military. Your narrative ties it up quite neatly (and more coherently) than any I have heard. Socialism based on Nazi racism really is the simplest explanation for all their actions.
The Nazis were not fascists. Fascism was/is a form of nationalism, whereas Hitler cared little for the nation state, basing everything instead on what we now call 'ethnic' divisions. That is why he conquered other parts of Europe, and that is why he persecuted actual German citizens in Germany whom he considered not to be racially pure, and not just his political enemies (fascists do not do this). The idea that he was a front for the capitalists was a bit of propaganda by the Communists, although they no doubt believed it.
Fascist states aren't controlled by big business. The govt is always the senior partner. Businesses must conform to "The Plan" in a fascist state.
Your mistake - Fascism is a form socialism. Socialism is worker *OR state* control/ownership of the means of production. Fascism is specifically state control/ownership (or marriage as Mussolini called it) of the means of production. Socialism doesn't have a cultural prescription which is why it's been tried multiple times all over the world. "Racism" doesn't have anything to do with it unless it's an ingredient in that particular dictator's flavor of imposed cultural engineering.
Fun fact - The nazees never called themselves nazees. It was a made up derogatory term from our side.
@@BobAgg-qr2methey did, however, call themselves national socialists. The contraction pronounced “not-see” obfuscates the obvious.
Socialism was their fundamental basis, of fascism and communism. Karl Marx says socialism are the first steps to a communist Utopia.
(A ruthless criticism of everything.)
This is absolutely one of the best breakdowns I’ve ever heard on UA-cam. You had me in stitches explaining things with colors. 😂
It’s funny because there are ideologues who will do all sorts of esoteric mental gymnastics to make the text support their failed ideology.
It’s the Hegelian Dialectic played out in a comment section.
@@leonardticsay8046 And they also hate when Hegel is mentioned.
Demons don't like when men know their True Names.
Sounds like current times. Makes me wonder if Klaus Shwab is Hitlers son?
@Trevor Brannon its hard to tell if you are being sarcastic, or applying this to current events, because it is happening again not even 100 years later...
so to those who think we need to social ize everything..... did you miss the part where they started the war in order to gain resources from other countries in an attempt to alleviate the inflation? You can only spend other people's money until they runout of money. Printing more to cover your costs makes your money worth less, which also leads to conflict... because war is profitable for those who supply it, not for those (like yours truly) who fight in it. This economic miracle is nothing more than throwing money at building up to start a war, which starts when the money runs out.
Well heres a better one ua-cam.com/video/hUFvG4RpwJI/v-deo.html
Tbh honest. I didnt finish the video yet but there are already some points that arent right or atleast not evidence for socialism. Three Arrows further ellaborates in this video why expropriation and state run organizations dont mean that the gouverment is socialist. The definition that many relate socialism with "the more the state does stuff the more socialist it is is" is also quite wrong. Its also quite wrong that the companies were state owned. They had guidelines to fullfill but could still act independintly. And this wasnt done out of idiologicy but rather because you have to TO WIN A FCKING WAR. Britain did the same the USA had also guidelines for their industry, it was more or less normal to do this in war economy. And the Labor Union wasnt really a socialist Labor Union it was there to enact more power to be an alternative to socialist believes and strives for better working conditions and you didnt have anything to say in this unions. Well you could rally and try to protest for higher loans if you wanted to end in a KZ.
More on the topics in the video. :)
I hope you watch it and get to hear some opposing arguments.
Don't worry Socialist will just reject the definition of State, and claim Socialism has nothing to do with the State, or fall back on "Socialism is Worker Controlled!" Which is the issue I actually had the other day.
Two days of back/forth discussion, and the guy's final defense really was "Definitions change over time rawr!" Which would mean no Socialist was ever a Socialist as Socialism's definition is always changing.
He was so bankrupt in his defense that when I brought up Utopian Socialism, and later Ferdinand Lassalle when referring to Socialist who either always had or eventually rejected the Marxist Class view of the State. He used the word "Gay" and how the meaning of that word changed over time. Even though I can still use the word in proper context like "The man won the sweepstakes and gayfully ran down the street." And you and I would understand it completely. ie the Meaning hasn't changed, it just has alternate uses now, and it's old meaning just became less common. What is worse, he also admits that Socialism for one movement may not mean the same thing for the other. So it was easy to ask "Since when did Marxist have a monopoly on the Word Socialism?" Of course he didn't answer that question.
The person basically rejected the idea that Socialism is anything but Worker Control of the Means of Production, even though there is so much evidence that proves otherwise. Even Social Democrats advocate for State Control, not "Worker Control" and guess which is the most popular socialist movement? Social Democracy.
Then when resorted to mentioning he is only proving Ludwig Mises right by claiming the definition is ever changing. Of course by even mentioning the name Mises was like a sin and the guy used the fact I even said the name Mises as a Rebuttal in spite I mentioned him knowing Socialist consider him a hack and that he was only supporting Mises by holding his position. He used the fact I mentioned his name even in the slightest as a form of proof I had no idea what I was talking about. That I did a rebuttal to myself by even saying the name Mises. So I just gave up after that.
The level of denialism is just nuts. I literally brought up many of the arguments you presented in this video.
All this because the guy mentioned you and called you a Hack and I begged the differ.
Yeah I'm also at a loss on how to get through to them. The mental gymnastics they employ to wriggle their way out of reality is astounding. I genuinely have exhausted myself trying to figure out how to get them to just stop and consider the possibility that they might have got things wrong. But they think we're "secret fascists" who are trying to trick them, so they're suspicious of everything we say, and thus look for quick and easy "gotcha" counter-points to dismiss us and declare victory. It's frustrating as anything.
This is why sane people will ultimately need arms for defense against the neo-Red Guards.
I know. I've just had a conversation with a guy who cant see that government buying public stock through the stock market (for a government retirement plan, eg) fills the socialism definition of "public ownership of the means of production," which in turn makes the stock market itself a mechanism for creating socialism (albeit one that co-incidentally allows for private ownership). He adamantly holds that stocks are always 'private property' despite saying outright that property owned by government is 'public property'. His only addressing of this obvious contradiction is that "the government doesnt exercise control." Something I know for a fact to be false, since I know people who work for state funded investment plans, which absolutely do things like vote during AGMs, elect the BOD, etc.
I'm not sure if hes so locked into "capitalism is everything thats not the perfect socialist utopia" or "capitalism is this pure uncorruptable thing," and "never the twain shall meet", that its derailed his ability to see contradiction.
edit: unclear wording
@@elLooto They'll likely fall back on "It's State Capitalism!" Even though Socialist are fighting eachother still whether China is Market Socialism or State Capitalism which implies the difference is so vague that there is no difference and it's just in the context of whether they like that regime or not.
@@Alte.Kameraden They have replied in exactly that fashion "Welfare Capitalism" was the phrase they used.
Arguing with socialists on this topic is the most frustrating thing to do. You could point out the most damning proof that national socialism was more than a brand name, namely the nationalization of Hugo Junkers' company, his imprisonment, and eventual loss of life, and their response will be, "But they had corporations!" And around and around you go, trying to point out that those corporations had no real power or autonomy of their own, but all you will get out of them is the longform version of, "But they had corporations!" It's the inevitable result of someone being educated past the point of his own capacity for rational thought.
The worst part? These staunch "antifash" individuals are probably voting for people who are, wittingly or no, bringing back the natsoc model one backroom deal at a time.
TIK I love the way you can cite your discussions from written sources and authors, then converse them into a sensible and based argument. You are a scholar and gentleman. Although I enjoy your battlefield discussions, I commend your efforts to educate people that nazis, marxists, fascists, and communists are all based from socialism and to correct the misconceptions that capitalism and free market economies are attributed to nazism and fascism, are much more critical and important discussions to have considering our current events.
Though it encourages the argument that "Hitler was left wing", as if anti-capitalism=left wing, which is definitely not historically true. Prussian socialism =/= marxism.
That's just nonsense. Much of the evidence cited contradicts the argument being made.
@@executivedirector7467 can you provide a sample?
@@colebehnke7767 Just trust him bro
@@colebehnke7767 Read what Adam Tooze really said.
Right off the bat, I never heard of Hitlers second book. Already pulled it up, funny that it was first published in 1961 - not exactly something "new".
The 4 hour long vid on Hitler “I am a Socialist” is my favorite vid in UA-cam.
Mine too. I mention that video at least once a week, and I’ve written out flashcards, because it’s that good.
Hitler was a HEAVILY right wing leader.
@Trevor Brannon agreed.
#EuropaTheLastBattleDocumentary
he called himself a 'non-marxian socialist' and said marxian socialism wasnt true socialism
Yeah yeah, it shows that he isn't different than every socialist who always claims the others did not do it right, but they have the right way. Even though it's all the same nonsense.
Italian fascism is socialist, a national socialism, according to zeev sternhell, one of the most important historians of italian fascism.
There is a Hispanic channel called "el gentilhombre", where he summarizes and explains his syndicalist and nationalist origins of Italian fascism
Sternhell's work is useful to trace the ideological origins of fascism, but his work not only neglects the specifically Italian dimensions of fascism, but it also reduces it to a "counter-Enlightenment" which is not appropriate. The works of Renzo de Felice, James Gregor and David Roberts (which also critiqued Sternhell on both counts) are preferable.
Fascism is one of the forms of socialism. Communism is another. One of the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that in socialism individual considered to be a part of the state and the state becomes the only important factor in any individual function. Any individual right can be sacrificed for the good of the state. Private property isn't protected. Capitalism, on the other hand, consider private property as the basis for political and economic life of any individual. Remember JFK: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country. Hitler would sign under that statement.
Dude, even 'Oversimplified' has videos about n-zis and h-tler literally famously and historically-documented go to a Communist-Gathering, meaning to sabotage it, realizing they are the opposite and then joining them and making them larger.
Completely wrong
@@Schnoz42069you could provide a better argument then “oh the Soviet Union wasn’t actually socialist”.
@@colebehnke7767that argument is true, though.
The SU never managed to achieve the type of civilization socialists strive for, and while we can argue that comunism doesnt work on practice, which might be true, we cant ignore that the ideology doesnt defend any of that, and that socialism isnt actually that
I think it’s best if we refer to National Socialism as right-winged socialism.
Yep.
Show me a NatSoc and I'll show you a temporarily embarrassed rightwinger with far-left economic beliefs
"Rightwing socialism" is a cope
Nah.
.
Call it National Socialism or Race Socialism.
.
Or even simpler 'Socialism'.
.
Hows it right wing?
literally got my Facebook restricted for 60 days for posting this
I posted a snapshot of Hitler and a quote of his on Socialism and Facebook removed it with a warning.
Hi TIK
Great video.
Not sure how much you know about the Quisling regime in Norway during WW2.
The only legal party was the "Nasjonal Samling", lead by Vidkun Quisling.
They had a uniformed paramilitary organisation much like Hitlers SA, called "Hirden". Not sure what that translates to in english.
They had naturally their own songs, often performed during marching.
Some lines of one particular song lyrics goes:
Løftet om Quislings Norge
lever i Hirdens tro,
vernes av sosialister,
ungdom av nordisk blod.
Translates to something like this:
The promise of Quisling's Norway
lives in " Hirdens" beliefs/faith,
protected by socialists,
youth of nordic blood.
They are themself using the term socialists. Strange no one here in Norway or anywhere else mention this fact.
Keep up the great work
Sincerely
@Van Brighouse Italian Fascism, when it emerged in late teens and early 20s, was recognized by International Socialism as a somewhat heretical variation, because Fascism recognized that both private interest and nationalism were better psychological motivations of the masses than altruistic internationalism. But ultimately, the Fascist dictum was "Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State, nothing opposed to the State". The Gnazis took this principle and added in the accelerants of racism and and antisemitism
Hitler's loathing of Socialists and Communists was primarily because they were *traitorous internationalists" who rejected both German patriotism and racism, NOT because they demanded the State control of production and State direction of culture (including religion and ethics).
In the State control of industry and agriculture, Nazism only departed in some means from Soviet Collectivism, preferring to make initial deals with industrialists, such as Krupp and Farben, but as soon as the Reich could, reducing these industrial barons to well paid off pensioners (rather than liquidating them) while the Reich, per the video, directed production, set price and wages, working conditions, etc ..
@Van Brighouse yada yada yada, you're wedded to the narrative that Fascism and Nazism were "right", so by special pleading, they can't be socialist, so nothing I say or the video maker, however evidence based can make any difference. Goodbye.
Nobody mentions it because it's misleading
@@TheBeatlesShow There were national socialist vanguards and parties all throughout especially northern europe until they faded with the German invasion of Poland putting them in a bad light. After the capitulation of 3rd Reich, they are in the doghouse.
This is what happening in Europe they destroyed there farming and now they want to loot Russia assets
Oooh! Saw my name in the donation scroll, and I am proud to say I was able to take a .0001% credit for the excellent content. I am just beginning to get the idea of socially (whether by class, religion, race) structures are still misrepresented and misunderstood based on current economic hooey. I started watching History for Thinkers, but I am not sure how to be so dismissed as to alter your own rational thoughts 🤔
@7:17 directly explains why Fascism is Socialism.
No it doesn't. Everybody can quote something and do the exact opposite.
@@ad3l547Its about prinicipal private property u dont understand it collectivist
People somehow think that "workers-unions" are a "socialist" thing, maybe because many workers see themselves as opponents of the "evil capitalists who run the companies they works in", and therefore "unions must be socialistic". But this is not logical. Companies are producers of services and goods that compete (in a free country) on a free marked, with supply and demand curves determining the price point. Workers are in fact also "factories" themselves that offer what ever work they do in the corporations. So, when they collect with each others to create private workers-unions, they are actually becoming capitalists themselves and try do push the corporations to give them 'higher prices for their goods'. It's a form of private, legal cartel. It makes sense to have, because one worker alone have very little power against a massive corporation and there needs to be negotiation between corporation-owners and workers. BUT, private unions haven't really anything to with the state (government), other than perhaps laws in a society giving workers the right to form unions. I don't think any workers unions today in the western world are either controlled or owned by the state. Hence, not socialism.
Its easy to understand where tik's bias is in these videos and it doesn't effect his opinion as much as the marxists seem to believe. Its also always stated as opinion lmao.
Nazi Socialism is a great example of how tribal humans still are. Nazis were CLEARLY socialsts, it doesnt mean socialists are or were nazis just because they share ideas on economy.
The tribal part of Nazi was actually the tolerable part. The Socialism part was really the main reason they killed millions of people. Just like all the Communist State, 100 millions of people died because they mix Marxist , a noble end goal, with Socialism. Socialism is the idea on economy, Socialism is the main cause of most of the atrocities happened in the last century.
@@oscartang4587u3 billions of people died because of socialism? 😂 im anti any socialism that was implemented in the 20th century but billions? Come on man
@@oscartang4587u3 "tribalism was not the bad part"
Oh okay i guess killing millions of people because they weren't part of the "tribe" wasn't so bad then
@@Admiral-General_Aladeen I mean socialists sure think it’s fine.
@@colebehnke7767 YES it's almost like almost every radical group thinks that is fine being that being said being extremly focused on racial purity doesn't help that does it?
I get my definition from the four individuals responsible for the term socialism. Louis Auguste Blanqui, Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon coined the term anarchy, Blanqui is the one who made communism. Karl Marx/ Engels was commissioned to write the communist manifesto. They tell you in there writings where and who they got the information to create socialism. The used tribalism as a base.
I just now found your content and subbed. I'm catching up now on some of the ridiculous critic drama. I was looking for a better definition of fascism and found your content to be extremely helpful.
Online forums are magnet for the ideologically driven narcissist and sociopath so I'd simply give no weight to anyone who can't be civil.
I immensely appreciate your time, effort and citations. My dad was a history major and a govt intelligence analyst. He used to say "If you want to know what is in someone's head, look at what they say then how they spend their money. "
Keep up the great work!
Your dad is a very wise man.
fascism is a very simple concept.
it is a government of one voice.
one man the dictator has total control, and everyone else contorts to fit his view, or assasinates him to take power.
It’s certainly an easy definition: Fascism, and communism of the same thing, and anything that involves any government regulation is fascism and communism. Essentially anarcho libertarians are the only people who are not fascist and communist. LOL
@Trevor Brannon well but hopefully not through authoritarian rule, followed by a war of genocide
@@walterbailey2950 Fascism socialism and communism are when the state seizes the means of production IE all private business, commerce, and all property- then dictates how it will be distributed. To do this, someone ultimately needs to be in charge of everything, and who gets what - and now you have fascism. Hitlers socialists blossomed into fascists. Stalins communism was in fact fascism. Everytime there is a communist leader, he becomes a fascist, its in the very nature and design of top down managment. No human being is going to be able to resist ultimate power when you literally hand it to them. They reward their friends, and punish their enemies and thus you have a tyrant, a despot, a FASCIST who nobody can disagree with, speak or go against and a system inferior to a REPUBLIC where everyone has rights that cant be violated.
New to your channel so maybe you have already but
Have you thought about making this a book?
How are all you gaming content people so based 😅
Yet if the "allies" who gave their lives so quickly and heroically by the millions would see what they fought for today, they'd not just turn in their graves but spin at 7000 RPM!
Your videos are goldmine... so valuable to the point if people made aware of this could avoid history from repeating itself.
Thank you, it's sacred for humanity for you to have more views and awareness to shine light on the dark censored info treasure troves. God bless you.
"God" is as big a grift as this video is.
@@steviewondek Cover your eyes and ears, historical truths like these completely undermine the false narrative that socialism is evil!
So history is going to repeat itself because Hitler had some socialist policies, therefore all socialists = Hitler? Lol
@Van Brighouse What cult lol
It's you guys who go on to spout shit like nazism = communism, or that free universities are "literally Venezuela", and now apparently also that Roosevelt was a socialist, which lemme guess, makes him no different to a commie in your eyes? Your understanding of politics is so surface level and lacking nuance that it's impossible to have a good faith discussion.
@Van Brighouse except the OP lol
Ironically, I watched a video, on Fascism/fascism (upper case, as that video depicted the capitalization for Italy specific), stating that he wasn't a Socialist, and was only fascist, because he privatized things and killed the unions. It is like nobody can think independently, from everything written. This is why I appreciate your work, TIK. You use sources, but you don't parrot the sources.
Well right, because if you parroted some of these sources they'd contradict the main argument being made here.
Italy was even congratulated by the USSR for becoming a fellow revolutionary.
So, in your opinion socialism is a wrong and evil ideology?
@@executivedirector7467 No, they wouldnt. The authors might disagree, but the facts they cite all point towards the nazis being extreme socialists. Frankly, any form of nationalism is a far-left idea anyways.
@@rtg5881 OMG, no, please read a political theory book. Nationalism is the opposite of leftish.
You really haven't got the slightest notion of these ideas.
"If you care about your own people you're a Nationalist and if you want to help them you're a socialist" - A HOI4 player
american's attempt at logic
"What's the difference between the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany? the soviets are proletarian; the nazis, prolet-aryan "
Hi TIK, a longtime fan here. One thing I've been thinking a lot about recently is ideological Nazism, Volkish Blood and Soil Philosophy, and the link between it and the socialism of the Nazis. You explained this a little bit in a previous video, talking about how, unlike Marxism which focused on class struggle. Nazism focused on racial struggle. In this vein, I've been reading Darre and other volkish philosophies. and they strike me as inherently collectivist and lend themselves to a socialist worldview. I think this link between the philosophical underpinnings of Nazism and the practical economic realities, presents a cohesive worldview that the Marxists can't explain. Why would a philosophy grounded in the group Aryan identity and continuation of the race via "blood and soil" be some hyper-individualistic, pro-capitalist, "the individual matters" in economics? These aren't compatible worldviews, and the philosophy and racial theory of these leading Nazi thinkers directly support social (racial) ownership of the economy.
The German capitalists turned to the NAZI's as a way to save themeselves from a workers revolution where the workers took control of Industry unlike the NAZI who were handed control of the capitalist state by the big capitalist bosses and President General Hindenburg. .
You're suffering from what I call the American Brain Disease. It's the implicit belief that any worldview that does not adopt unregulated capitalism is leftism.
Nazis were right wing. Go cry about it.
Before volkism, one has to give regard to Strasbourg pogram. We see the impetus of socialist thought in Europe's mid ages and that it was race-indexed and antisemitic. It was workers organized in guilds which sought racial collective and implored government to affect the prejudice versus foreigners and jews as policy. Centuries later, Germans made this into some intellectual matter of Judenfrage. Marx is indulged in it in his "zur Judenfrage", Adolf Stoeker is crystal clear as to socialism being an art of racism. Before any of these men, American socialist George Fitzhugh clearly rationalizes slavery for white collectivism.
German mittelstandism underscores that it is race notwithstanding economic class which comprised the traditional german collective idea, or one could just read Tonnies who recognized race is human collective #1. Globally, nation and race are linked. There's a reason why Germany is named after germanics and their language. This is how most nations founded before the 19th century are.
@@soulcapitalist6204 The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite! From the end of the Communist Manifesto. Nothing about a superior Germanic Race like Hitler.
In fact Marx mocks the True "German" Socialism. "While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things. " From the Communist Manifesto.
It was in fact not the working class but the German middle class who were Hitler's base. A class being driven into a frenzy by the economic crisis of German capitalism caused in part by the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon them. It is common knowledge that "Henry Ford was an anti semite who published "The International Jew" and that the only American mentioned favorable in Mein Kampf is Henry Ford who also received a NAZI medal just before war broke out.
Why should a business owner in capitalism get all (most) of the profit? Yes, he has an initial investment money (often inherited from parents, but not slways ofc), he risked that sum to invest in business and had an idea. But his company wouldn't be successful on the market, or even exist, if it wasn't for his workers/employees dedication and hard work. They invest their life (time) and work, to get a wage in return (often fixed) while the owner swoops all the extra profit for himself
Okay now this is based lol. It's hilarious, anytime you try to point out that "Hitler was a socialist" people genuinely lose their minds and want to make a lot of excuses. But you've done a great job explaining it
Because it would be like looking in the mirror and a vampire can not see his image, speaking of which King Charles is a direct descendant of Vlad Tepesh, or Count Dracula.
Because it is outright false, you literally have to invent an entirely different definition of socialism to make that claim
@@randomuser3481 Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, murdered twice as many people as Nazi Socialist, and Chinese Socialist killed twice as many as Soviet Socialist,80,000,000 dead.
@@jamieburgess1460 When did I say anything about death tolls?
@@randomuser3481 You vill eat ze bugs, you vill own nazing, and be happy.
There's a lot of people out there who desperately do not want to believe that socialism can exist within an authoritarian and malevolent society. They want to believe that there is something so inherently virtuous about the ideology that it is impossible for evil to be done under its name.
I do understand that some may feel linking nazism with socialism will be used as a kind of "gotcha" against socialism, which would be short sighted, great evils have been committed under pretty much every shade of political ideology that has been popular in history. It's certainly not fair to say socialism or communism are evil just because Hitler or Stalin were subscribed to those ideologies.
Socialism and communism are evil (immoral government based on human rights abrogation, like per UNHCR). 3rd Reich is an important historical case of socialist political economy because it is not marxist socialism and because it is the only example of socialism in a developed nation which we will likely ever see.
There is no way to achieve socialism without evil government. Socialism is "collective ownership/control of the means of production in an economy". Because collective is democracy - government authority - this abrogates the human rights entailed in personal autonomy of private individuals over means of production and their interaction with it. The term totalitarian refers to socialism which has achieved the definition of socialism through some enforcement.
The staunchest advocates of genocide in the 20th century were socialists, they know that in order for this system to be implemented, certain people would have to be eradicated because they wouldn't be able to convince them to go along with it. Socialism in practice is either just immoral or outright evil.
The problem with the term is that the GOP calls Europe socialist which it’s just not. They’re confused when we tell them we think they’re socialist. They’re capitalistic countries that redistribute a lot. The GOP has stripped the term of any meaning at all. Literally applied when people wanted a public option, like most other advanced countries in the world. (Including a lot of capitalistic ones).
@@evanmoorman3828 Most of Europe does not have a public option and Americans don't desire a public option. Most European medicine is based on employee mandated private insurance because they copied United States over the last 40 years. All these systems except for Finland and Russia were underwritten by United States after WW2 as the #1 implication of Marshall plan.
GOP calls Bernie Sanders socialist. European nations are social democracies like United States. Bernie Sanders calls for a ban on private pay and insurance for healthcare as the major implication of his Medicare for All and this is forcing the largest economic sector of the largest economy on earth into a state run means of production.
@@soulcapitalist6204 "Scaling... you could be a libertarian at a state level and communist at the commune level and it's not incompatible... what works in Norway (size of NYC borough) won't work for 300M people." ua-cam.com/video/Dn_XEDPIeU8/v-deo.htmlm8s
My condolences for being a former socialist, but at least you saw the light, if only everyone who believes in it could.
I was so ignorant about this topic. Thank you for doing such an amazing job. This is history in the form of art.
"I tried to accomplish my mission by impressing on the Führer and the Party as a whole that private initiative, the self‐reliance of the business man, and the creative powers of free enterprise should be recognized as the basic economic policy of the Party. The Führer personally stressed time and again, during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state‐economy and of so‐called “planned economy”, and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production."
-Walther Funk
"National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
- Adolf Hitler
@Van Brighouse The channel owner is deliberately pushing an ideological agenda, he's a libertarian buffoon who thinks that he himself was a socialist because he once believed in welfare
@Van Brighouse hello socialshit that hasn't watched the video!
@@randomuser3481 Hello socialshit that hasn't watched the video, continue living in denial
@Van Brighouse nice bot account.
Same people who say N@21s weren't socialists are the same people who say the soviet union wasn't socialist. That should instantly discredit any claims they make about what is and isn't socialism...
Socialism is just huge scam, and gullible people are falling for it. A group of conmen saying to all people: "yeah, just give us everything you have and we know what is best for everyone". And once they get in power, they take everything legally and by force and call it "nationalization", and crush all opposition.
In your opinion do you think there is anything better than capitalism?
@@jmgonzales7701 Just depends on how you define capitalism
@@jacywilson there is more than one capitalism??? I'm not aware, is there anything better than capitalism?
@@jmgonzales7701 yep socialists have a different definition of capitalism
TIK, I just want to say that I've been subscribed to you for several years. Your content has really changed my perspective on politics and economics.
I like to listen to your videos including your 5 hour one when I'm doing long hours of work on my computer. I even downloaded it as a back up in the event that it gets taken down or your channel gets terminated.
www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Sounds a lot like the W0ke rainbow mob of today.
"You will own nothing and be happy"
If you want to suck at economics, read the Economist. Back then I studied a undergraduate course on EU institutions. The whole thing made me realize the entire organization was a propaganda body for unrepresented centralization.
I saw a poll recently that said that the Economist was the most trusted media source. I couldn't believe it!
@@TheImperatorKnight What can’t you believe, Obergruppenführer Tik. Reich’s media New York Times till this day has not apologized for its passionate endorsement of the Soviet Russia in 1930s. It still refuse to acknowledge Chinese Coronavirus as a lab product and bioweapon. Search “war is not far from us Chi Haotian Chinese century”
Ive had conversations with people where I tell them the Nazis were socialist and they immediately shout back, "no they were facist." I would then tell them, "you are not ready for this conversation."
Labelling fascists as socialists only suits the current far-right narrative. Socialism was very popular during the 1930s, including in the UK. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes should not be confused with Socialism or Democratic Socialism.
The political and economic spectrum is extremely broad - who's ever heard of anarcho-syndicalists for example.
Do people understand the difference between classic liberalism and libertarianism.
My point being - it's too easy to use simplistic labels to push a particular agenda, that's the job of Populists.
Except the Fascists literally WERE socialists.
Their entire system was built of Giovanni Gentile’s socialist theory and the need to unify state control with business capital to creat syndicalism in which the state controlled everything.
Everything within the state, nothing outside it, nothing against it.
Seriously, haven’t you studied ANY of the history of socialism?
By redefining it to only cover modern Democratic Socialism and the early French Utopian Socialism you install fall prey to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You don’t get to only pick the “nice” versions of socialism and pretend the rest don’t count.
@@christianlasala7603 Are you saying Hitler was woke?
@@vivo-audioFar-right?????? Pffffft. Benito Mussoulini was a damn socialist and fascism was opposed to free-market capitalism
@@hectordiaz1575 How is free market capitalism going these days? I do remember socialism bailing the banks out in 2008, so it's not all bad.
While Mussolini may have started his political career as a socialist - he died a fascist.
Hi, how are you?
FIRST!
I thought the excesses of Captain Rohm was one of the reasons he had to be removed because he was soo revolutionary socialist and Hitler did not wish for Germany to be in a state of constant revolution.
Similarities with Lenin's Socialism end at the economy, and even here similarities waver.
This whole video is garbage agit-prop
There's also the pogroms racially and commercially, the politburo/fuhrerprincip being the same polity, the charismatic leadership principles, the brainwashing education...
I like this version. I've seen the 5 hours version three times and it's great but tough for new people and difficult to share with friends. In the end, people need to read more so they can it understand better. Love your work TIK.
TIK, how about an in-depth video on Robert Owens' socialism, explaining how it predates Marxist Socialism. What commonalities it shares, and what differences Marx and Engels tacked onto it?
Marx makes fun of these people in Manifesto pt 3.
The movement towards socialism/communism/fascism/ nazism was being pushed world wide before Hitler and Stalin, Hitler got ideas from all over the world and the States. The nazis lost WW II but the cult that is a mix of all the different branches of socialism has continued and your presentation is excellent.
You need to think about that generalization a little harder. What are America's neo-Nazi's? Not socialists. Fascism can include many of the conservative military dictatorships we've had across the globe, not to mention the conservatives banning books or trying to restrict voting rights. It comes in many colors.
@@dannysullivan3951 America featured socialists (George Fitzhugh, Victor Berger), Progressive Leftists (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, New Freedom and New Deal political slates (fascist corporative state with apartheid), unionists (whites-only AFL and state labor segregation through NIRA and NLRB), Liberals (Tammany Hall - appointed all our slaving (Dredd Scott) and jim crow (Plessy v Ferguson) supreme court justices and slaver lawmakers (MO Compromise, KS-NE Act, supporting the Dredd Scott decision) and jim crow law makers (James Eastland, Jim Eagleman, Joe Biden, Bob Byrd, Jesse Helms...) and these were always combated by American conservatives.
Slaving people and making elaborate apartheid schemes is radicalism, fella. That's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is the opposite role of government than is needed for the government to slave people by law or abrogate rights prejudicially. This is why conservative appointments to the SCOTUS have been on record since and including Dredd Scott, arguing against national socialist ideation of Tammany Hall liberal lawyers in all of the civil rights cases in the US until conservative Warren court settled de jure jim crow.
Hitler's on record as having recognized and admired American state bigotry, but the nationalist, national socialist and nazbol (Strassers et al) philosophical traditions in Germany were just as well established if not moreso.
It amazes me how much we really don’t learn about in school, and how incorrect “scholarly” sources are
@Van Brighouse ty si dobrý kokot
@Van Brighouse And what are you saying? " must try harder" you are the perfect definition of talking so much but saying yet so little. That only communists can be socialists? The whole point flew above your head
@Van Brighouse " who is hated communists" are one of the first words in your broken ass sentence. Dont talk to me about my comprehension, cupcake. Instead of repeating your point to validate your shitty opinion you just call me a cultist, back to reddit 🚪🚶♂️
@Van Brighouse All communists are socialists but not at all socialists are communists, they can be social democrats, national socialists ( nazi ) etc. You get what I'm saying now? Just because they were anti communist doesnt mean they werent socialist themselves.
@Van Brighouse haha okay Trotsky 🤣🤣 you probably deny the Molotov-Ribbentrops pact existance
Property taxes also make ownership of property conditional.
Ownership of property is always conditional.
The fact that, even in the comments of this video, people are still trying to argue that Nazi Germany was capitalist, says more about what modern society thinks capitalism is than what they think Nazi Germany is.
useful idiots
They totally didn't start corporatism
Or maybe it's because it's a still debated political and historical subject and that the scientific consensus is not what this video says ?
@@Kurowll why are we wanting scientific consensus on a historical fact?
@@Kurowll "Scientific consensus" HAHAHAHA
Have you considered typing this up publishing it into some type of article? It’s a lot easier for people to write this off as “just a UA-cam video”, as opposed to being presented with an academic paper. Just found your channel, it’s great!
@Pawwel Mussial but the Nazis had this plained economy years before the war, so it’s not comparable.
Sadly academia has become the breeding grounds of socialists, and objective opinions like these are simply not welcome there.
It'd be ripped apart. Hitler privatised the national banks, railways, utilities etc. Which country didn't have a planned economy in WW2? This video is very well informed factually, but with sub-GCSE reasoning.
I would love him to write a book.
Of course not. The reason he resorts to UA-cam is that his work wouldnt stand to scrutiny.
Dont take that seriously. He's better off doing UA-cam videos anyway, and it is a better venue to spread his opinions to lay people than an academic paper. Lay people rarely read an academic paper in a subject they're interested in. I would even be willing to bet that they only become interested in a subject when UA-cam shows them a video about it, and then forget it until another video shows up.