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
@openeroftheway8596
Жыл бұрын
"But is this really the case?" for the win!
@scotty101ire
Жыл бұрын
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
@QuizmasterLaw
Жыл бұрын
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!
@robert48044
Жыл бұрын
@@scotty101ire trying getting people to watch a 5hr video when their mind is made up other wise. I think you know that though.
@hafizihilmibinabdulhalim1004
Жыл бұрын
Hey Tik do you have an opinion about a video by socialist KZitemr 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. kzitem.info/news/bejne/uW-b4GqtbnSGgII
@benedeknagy8497
Жыл бұрын
"Farmers were encouraged to stop producing meat and eggs." Waaaaait a minute....
@boobah5643
Жыл бұрын
If I have to choose, I'd rather have grain than bugs to eat.
@Nonreligeousthiestic
Жыл бұрын
underrated little gem of a comment here.
@Ripper935
Жыл бұрын
Fear is big business.
@chriskostopoulos8142
Жыл бұрын
Yep, woke is left and all left is socialism, they are just too stupid to question left wing doctrine.
@steviewondek
Жыл бұрын
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.
@pedroribeiro7922
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
I would say I'm sorry, but losing Facebook is actually a blessing.
@Biggiiful
Жыл бұрын
Maud'Dib
@alphabetpeople2902
Жыл бұрын
poor fascist, can't take fascism
@Joshua-dc4un
Жыл бұрын
That's actually a fallacious argument 🤣
@cosettapessa6417
Жыл бұрын
@@Joshua-dc4un cope
@BrutusAlbion
Жыл бұрын
Hitler: I'm a socialist. Modern Socialists: NoOOOooo! It can't be!
@evanmoreno360
Жыл бұрын
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.
@BrutusAlbion
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@evanmoreno360
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@BrutusAlbion
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Lilliathi
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@e.l.2734
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video! Socialism has never failed its purpose though, which is the actual pillaging. Their social justice is just a façade.
@achair7265
Жыл бұрын
It's bigoted against anything and everything that it views as a enemy, that can be associated with a oppressive economical system. No matter race, culture, career and more. They will find a way to pillage.
@paulsame1124
Жыл бұрын
It’s not socialism! Given everyone knows Hitler’s two greatest enemies were Bolsheviks and Jews and Bolsheviks were socialists/communists how do you come to the conclusion that Hitler was a socialist. Nonsense
@AceFromGorillaz
Жыл бұрын
Those poor wealthy landowners got pillaged by those evil workers. Someone think of the slavers please.
@e.l.2734
Жыл бұрын
@@AceFromGorillaz I guess you can call the NS party that lol.
@AceFromGorillaz
Жыл бұрын
@@e.l.2734 the what
@ianarn
6 ай бұрын
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.
@NoFlu
Жыл бұрын
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....
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
Their counter-argument will be "capitalism isn't a free market, bro!" 😂
@piotrmadalinski8618
Жыл бұрын
Ah, you mean the good ol' arbeit-macht-frei-matket?
@deriznohappehquite
Жыл бұрын
@Buster Crabbe protective tariffs are a classic example of over-regulation.
@mkzhero
Жыл бұрын
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.
@its_gerryz14
Жыл бұрын
@@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!
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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
@nemamiah7832
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ManiacMayhem7256
Жыл бұрын
Oh I know some ones... In China, which Wikipedia itself lists as "market socialism". So much for capitalism
@QuizmasterLaw
Жыл бұрын
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.
@QuizmasterLaw
Жыл бұрын
SCIENLOLOGY! the srsly wear uniforms lololol cos con artist hubard's sole claim to be not scum is his shitty cray cray "service" record
@Lonovavir
Жыл бұрын
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.
@danstone8783
5 ай бұрын
Goebels called Marxist socialism 'socialism of the belly' and National Socialism "socialism of the soul".
@Jean-rg4sp
3 ай бұрын
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 KZitem so I will get not indication if you reply to my Reply here.
@danstone8783
3 ай бұрын
@@Jean-rg4sp Goebbels was saying that Marxism, especially as practiced by the Bolsheviks was entirely material in nature while Nazism was a spiritual endeavor
@Jean-rg4sp
3 ай бұрын
@@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.
@danstone8783
3 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Jean-rg4sp
3 ай бұрын
@@danstone8783 ... or the purity of the Aryan race.
@AFGuidesHD
Жыл бұрын
"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
Жыл бұрын
Most of those have rules on how they can take property, the Nazis suspended those rules.
@kabedonovan5555
Жыл бұрын
@@colebehnke7767 Those rules mean nothing when an oppressive bureaucracy can change them on a whim. Guaranteed rights are an illusion.
@colebehnke7767
Жыл бұрын
@@kabedonovan5555 what?
@kabedonovan5555
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@colebehnke7767
Жыл бұрын
@@kabedonovan5555 so your arguing that all countries are socialist? I don’t get why you are telling me this.
@johnsanko4136
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ТристанГилэм
Жыл бұрын
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.)
@ismaelsantos5378
Жыл бұрын
@@ТристанГилэм 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.
@mylesg7278
Жыл бұрын
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 👀
@SabotAndHeat75
Жыл бұрын
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.”
@ТристанГилэм
Жыл бұрын
@@SabotAndHeat75 Lenin said that because he was a Marxist, hence Marxist-Leninism
@carterghill
Жыл бұрын
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
@buzter8135
Жыл бұрын
🤨 That's one way to use it.
@Destro7000
Жыл бұрын
AI isn't thinking if its censoring itself or you based on what its Programmer's desire politically. It's just an authoritarian mouthpiece.
@destubae3271
Жыл бұрын
Just like people that aren't bots that argue that nonsense. Beep boop but about privatization bop beep
@buzter8135
Жыл бұрын
Have you tried one of the jailbreaks though?
@MR-nl8xr
Жыл бұрын
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.
@dylanandmolly3739
Ай бұрын
Who's here for the comparison to Starmer in 2024?
@digitalis2977
Жыл бұрын
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."*
@louyachty9037
Жыл бұрын
This was reference to colours of movement Red comunism Brown national socialism (Brownshirts SA) Black fascism (Blackshirts)
@soulcapitalist6204
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@BolinFoto
3 ай бұрын
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...
@viethoangtruong54
3 ай бұрын
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.
@oscartang4587u3
3 ай бұрын
@@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?
@phildynerphotography5049
Ай бұрын
@@oscartang4587u3it’s a death cult
@KyonXyclone
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@oscartang4587u3
Ай бұрын
@@KyonXycloneNazi Germany also provided free education for German people.
@SittingOnEdgeman
Жыл бұрын
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!
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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.
@SittingOnEdgeman
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@SittingOnEdgeman
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@joshuamaurer9784
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@SepticFuddy
Жыл бұрын
@@Edax_Royeaux Great job on not watching the video. This quote was addressed pretty damn early, dude. It's a complete non-sequitir.
@beefsupreme4671
Жыл бұрын
It’s scary how much the current Democratic Party is following this game plan.
@RustingPeace
Жыл бұрын
they follow the world economy forum, like every country does, and the wef follows the 3rd reich and calls it 4th industrial revolution
@ursulinaursache3602
Ай бұрын
100%, only they're not just radical left but mixed in with a lot of Globalism and Satanism on top of it all!
@andycale8831
20 күн бұрын
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
@citomp1240
Жыл бұрын
This is exactly what Klaus Schwab preaches today. It's beyond me why people can't see this.
@FM-dm8xj
Жыл бұрын
because its (D)ifferent
@millenniumvintage9726
Жыл бұрын
Because it’s not true
@farzanamughal5933
Жыл бұрын
Here we go
@Ashigeru47
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Biggiiful
Жыл бұрын
@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.
@TheInfamousHoreldo
Ай бұрын
Ah, this chap again. Again making a point that needs to be made. It's so crazy how they have managed to distort the conversation so badly. Keep up the good work. And thank you. Edit: and a former socialist! Gives me so much hope to see that. Good for you.
@RafaelSantos-pi8py
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ulflyng
Жыл бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight Easy-peacy lemon squeezy - QED
@executivedirector7467
Жыл бұрын
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......
@cyberputo
Жыл бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight everything is possible when you lie.
@wtice4632
Жыл бұрын
@@cyberputo you mean modern socialists?
@robert48044
Жыл бұрын
This is prob my favorite topic that gets discussed on the channel.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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
@user-yv4mm6bx3c
Жыл бұрын
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.
@0944clayton
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@SepticFuddy
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@bakters
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@stephenkneller6435
Жыл бұрын
I have watched your 5 hour video three times. So much there to digest. Great videos!
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
Awesome! I'm glad you liked it! This one's more condense, but hopefully just as useful
@michaelmcclure3383
Жыл бұрын
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.
@pinochet3698
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@michaelmcclure3383
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@michaelmcclure3383
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@JohnSmith-rw8uh
2 ай бұрын
This sounds like American political bs
@barsukascool
2 ай бұрын
This sounds like you didn’t watch the video
@JohnSmith-rw8uh
2 ай бұрын
@@barsukascool I watched it. And havee seen how yanks have mangled the political spectrum
@barsukascool
2 ай бұрын
@@JohnSmith-rw8uh TIK isn’t even American😂 Open your mind
@soulcapitalist6204
2 ай бұрын
@@JohnSmith-rw8uh The issue is that you have not studied the history of Germany during 3rd Reich. Most people are not assertive when they are clueless, but socialists are of the character type to be just that: wrong and strong.
@JohnSmith-rw8uh
2 ай бұрын
@soulcapitalist6204 I've studied it a lot actually.
@jimcronin2043
Жыл бұрын
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.
@reeseman1932
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jimcronin2043
Жыл бұрын
@@reeseman1932 "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H.L. Mencken
@carlodebattaglia6517
Жыл бұрын
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.
@soulcapitalist6204
Жыл бұрын
I suggest Georges Sorel was this most profound influence on Italian fascism, but I have not read D'Annuzio directly, to be honest.
@romulusmars3766
Жыл бұрын
Gentile is based
@4h844
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@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.
@4h844
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Choo_Choo_Oreo
Жыл бұрын
Hi, how are you?
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
FIRST!
@kozakos_vt
11 ай бұрын
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
@Красиваясоветскаядевушка
9 ай бұрын
Goebbels would be proud of you
@kozakos_vt
9 ай бұрын
@@Красиваясоветскаядевушка Do you not understand the meaning of "personal"? Get lost!
@edoboleyn
9 ай бұрын
Thank you, Kilophilos!
@pedrofelipefreitas2666
6 ай бұрын
Kronie spotted
@ot4kon
6 ай бұрын
now it is OUR timestamps
@kyle88740
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Yeah there are many better reasons why you cant call him a socialist.
@soulcapitalist6204
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@thenarkknight278
Жыл бұрын
@@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
6 ай бұрын
@@thenarkknight278 name them
@thenarkknight278
6 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Biggiiful
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Biggiiful
Жыл бұрын
@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.
@classicalextremism
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@LoganLS0
Жыл бұрын
Have you checked out Dr. James Lindsay?
@chrislambert9435
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@Acarson87
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ven11235
Жыл бұрын
Libtards never provide evidence, they just bitch
@Jenseduca
7 ай бұрын
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.
@verscarii3238
7 ай бұрын
@@Jenseduca What a convenient excuse.
@Jenseduca
7 ай бұрын
@@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.
@TheImperatorKnight
7 ай бұрын
"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.
@schweinhund7966
Ай бұрын
And yet another supremely well done video. The showing of sources is impeccable in academic doctrine.
@ptkiller26
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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?
@jakman2179
Жыл бұрын
I would also love to here if there's a place to get a physical copy. (Commenting to hopefully see an answer)
@ptkiller26
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
This is absolutely one of the best breakdowns I’ve ever heard on KZitem. You had me in stitches explaining things with colors. 😂
@leonardticsay8046
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ismaelsantos5378
Жыл бұрын
@@leonardticsay8046 And they also hate when Hegel is mentioned. Demons don't like when men know their True Names.
@wiolettawilma8881
Жыл бұрын
Sounds like current times. Makes me wonder if Klaus Shwab is Hitlers son?
@SweatyFatGuy
Жыл бұрын
@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.
@thenarkknight278
Жыл бұрын
Well heres a better one kzitem.info/news/bejne/yYt83Htqi6KofX4 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.
@stephanschmidt2334
5 ай бұрын
So National Socialism was Socialism. Duh. As a youth in Germany I wondered why this was never explained.
@DoubleRaw
5 ай бұрын
Because socialists still govern our government, and they don't want to be associated with that era and ideology.
@njbrx
2 ай бұрын
yup, it was never mentioned when i took history in school
@santaclaws1000
Ай бұрын
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic with leaders chosen by the people?
@miketomlin6040
Ай бұрын
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!
@oakypoky
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@dreamdiction
Жыл бұрын
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?".
@WojciechWojakiewicz
Жыл бұрын
"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" 🤣
@AYTM1200
Жыл бұрын
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.
@abaker4692
Жыл бұрын
This is why I’m going to run for office.
@grahamskippy
5 ай бұрын
Well one potential leader is likely a fascist and dictator-wanabe and the other is old, ineffective, and caught up in the status quo
@soulcapitalist6204
3 ай бұрын
Shit's illegal in the US at the constitutional level.
@laurenjeangreenbean6301
Жыл бұрын
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 🤔
@Marchand848
Жыл бұрын
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.
@WojciechWojakiewicz
Жыл бұрын
National Socialism was socialism and far-left.
@upsidedownnoise
Ай бұрын
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
@mycommentmyopinion
23 күн бұрын
Lmfao, what a mentally insane take 😂😂
@shaycormac158
Жыл бұрын
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.
@steviewondek
Жыл бұрын
"God" is as big a grift as this video is.
@j.k.4479
Жыл бұрын
@@steviewondek Cover your eyes and ears, historical truths like these completely undermine the false narrative that socialism is evil!
@SaturnineXTS
Жыл бұрын
So history is going to repeat itself because Hitler had some socialist policies, therefore all socialists = Hitler? Lol
@SaturnineXTS
Жыл бұрын
@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.
@SaturnineXTS
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse except the OP lol
@amadeusasimov1364
Жыл бұрын
Glad to see this one! I watched your older video, big study on "Hitler's Socialism". Appreciate all your hard work on this.
@davidjackson9680
Жыл бұрын
Hitler was not a socialist he literally had his socialist paramilitary purged in the Night of the long knives firmly separating himself from socialism do you idiots not realize the greatest propaganda speaker and giver of all time was lying to appeal to the workers 😂😭
@necropolistc6357
Жыл бұрын
people get so mad at me when I call Nazis socialists, they literally called themselves socialist what more do they want?
@hairydogstail
Жыл бұрын
Yes, they will come unglued, amazing..
@namenameson9065
Жыл бұрын
They, like all Socialists, just want to find something to blame for their own failure. Their entire ideology is an excuse.
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
"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
@namenameson9065
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MarioSchlemmer-s5k
2 ай бұрын
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".
@bigtittie7295
Жыл бұрын
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
@MisterS.
Жыл бұрын
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.
@bigtittie7295
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@laisphinto6372
Жыл бұрын
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.
@bluegamer4210
8 ай бұрын
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
@josejaquez4100
7 ай бұрын
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.
@Ful_Cro
Ай бұрын
So the next time they label you as "far right" take it as a compliment... It really is!
@arvidkoop6738
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
Thank you! That's important information, as many of the books gloss over the translation 👍🏻
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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
@arvidkoop6738
Жыл бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnightthat's great thanks!
@TheFjordflier
Жыл бұрын
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
@robertlehnert4148
Жыл бұрын
@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 ..
@robertlehnert4148
Жыл бұрын
@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
Жыл бұрын
Nobody mentions it because it's misleading
@soulcapitalist6204
6 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Merisu_Sheep
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
They have their excuses. Did you see the video where someone "debunked" me? He hadn't watched the video and even admits it kzitem.info/news/bejne/maiN1KmrfoBhZWk
@Merisu_Sheep
Жыл бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes that was very good. I watched it right after I saw the 5 hour one.
@kitrichardson2165
Жыл бұрын
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.
@rudania
10 ай бұрын
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
@Thecaptainblackadder
2 ай бұрын
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.
@smileyface3956
Жыл бұрын
By far the greatest history youtube content. Could you please make a video about the economy of fascist countries I mean to explain National syndicalism / corporatism in fascist countries such as Spain, italy and portugal or you could do a video explaining how much did Mussolini influence various totalitarian regimes in the 20th century for example Francoist spain, estado novo, Metaxes greece, Primo de rivieras dictatorship in spain etc.
@tenorsalon
Жыл бұрын
I really hope TIK does this. He's only given the ideological backdrop of Classical Fascism without explaining how the system works in practice. Very few people have given an explanation beyond 'the government controls or kills everyone' which is why so many people think fascism is just another word for 'dictororship'.
@smileyface3956
Жыл бұрын
@@tenorsalon agree. TIK is the best for political or economical ideologies and as a person who is more interested in the political period of the interwar period I love this chanel
@Biggiiful
Жыл бұрын
@badofi. Fascism has nothing to do with traditionalism. Fascism is the merging of the public and private sector around national identity. That identity could be extremely traditional, or extremely progressive minded. It would still be fascism.
@sebastiaosousa5730
5 ай бұрын
@@Biggiifulfascism is defined as conservative. Pls give me One example of a fascist regime that endorsed movements like the women sufragists or any sort of progressist movement. I can give you the example of Estado Novo, in my country. Extremely conservative, look it up.
@rt_huxley9205
Жыл бұрын
I was so ignorant about this topic. Thank you for doing such an amazing job. This is history in the form of art.
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
"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
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
@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
@AverageAlien
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse hello socialshit that hasn't watched the video!
@AverageAlien
Жыл бұрын
@@randomuser3481 Hello socialshit that hasn't watched the video, continue living in denial
@AverageAlien
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse nice bot account.
@bfranciscop
Жыл бұрын
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.
@selmakaplan1053
Жыл бұрын
obesity crisis; CHEAP FEED NOT NOURISHİNG
@soulcapitalist6204
6 ай бұрын
@@selmakaplan1053 No. Calories. No fake diet propaganda. Fats have eaten too much calories.
@invasion8318
6 ай бұрын
yeah that china is starving hard, sure buddy
@IndianJewishLibertarian
3 ай бұрын
@@selmakaplan1053 who forces them to eat burgers instead of healthy diet tho?
@ManCheat2
3 ай бұрын
@@selmakaplan1053 you cant get fat unless ur overnourished...
@BlitzedNostradamus
Жыл бұрын
The gents at the Lotus Eaters made mention of this channel and here I am kicking my own ass for not finding you sooner. Excellent work!
@M0rshu64
Жыл бұрын
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.
@farzanamughal5933
Жыл бұрын
www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
@dogfacedponysoldier87
Жыл бұрын
The 4 hour long vid on Hitler “I am a Socialist” is my favorite vid in KZitem.
@leonardticsay8046
Жыл бұрын
Mine too. I mention that video at least once a week, and I’ve written out flashcards, because it’s that good.
literally got my Facebook restricted for 60 days for posting this
@rakparthaismaili8015
3 ай бұрын
I posted a snapshot of Hitler and a quote of his on Socialism and Facebook removed it with a warning.
@gj1234567899999
Жыл бұрын
The Nazis and the communists had exactly the same economic model. They are two sides of the same coin.
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
"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
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
@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
@ArchBishop7653
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@seriamon
Жыл бұрын
New to your channel so maybe you have already but Have you thought about making this a book?
@tear728
Ай бұрын
How are all you gaming content people so based 😅
@catinbeanie
Жыл бұрын
Fun game for you to try. Its pretty easy to find a communist or socialist (They're usually 300 pounds soaking wet) So take the quotes of Hitler, and instead pose them as Marxist quotes. I can easily say that many will fall hook line and sinker for it. Its a fun game you can try at home
@rickglorie
Жыл бұрын
No, in Nazism the worker is subjected to the goals of the state. There wasn't any real socialism in there, it was just a ruse.
@catinbeanie
Жыл бұрын
@@rickglorie Okay well do you mind to explain to me what happens to the people in say.. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, ETC when they refuse to give up the means of production? I would assume out of the goodness of a comrades heart they would simply leave them be yes?
@rickglorie
Жыл бұрын
@@catinbeanie those are likewise totalitarian systems. Better compare it to western democracies. Are those perfect? No, but you try and change that without getting killed or prosecuted.
@colebehnke7767
Жыл бұрын
@@rickglorie then the question is, what makes the Nazis different from any other totalitarian socialist state?
@mansendwish
Жыл бұрын
@@rickglorie So there was syndicalism! See, no matter if NSDAP were true socialists, they WERE economically leftist, and far-left at that.
@xzenderx
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jacquolen1952
Жыл бұрын
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.
@fredneecher1746
Жыл бұрын
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.
@josephpeeler5434
Жыл бұрын
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.
@LaOwlett
Жыл бұрын
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.
@BobAgg-qr2me
Жыл бұрын
Fun fact - The nazees never called themselves nazees. It was a made up derogatory term from our side.
@leonardticsay8046
Жыл бұрын
@@BobAgg-qr2methey did, however, call themselves national socialists. The contraction pronounced “not-see” obfuscates the obvious.
@kaunas888
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Marinus_Calamari
Жыл бұрын
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....
@wolfgangdevries127
Жыл бұрын
So did John Lennon when he was high.
@js290
Жыл бұрын
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...
@soulcapitalist6204
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@nollkoll2
Жыл бұрын
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.
@michealbohmer2871
7 ай бұрын
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.
@MentokTheMindTaker
Жыл бұрын
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
@jamieburgess1460
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Because it is outright false, you literally have to invent an entirely different definition of socialism to make that claim
@jamieburgess1460
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
@@jamieburgess1460 When did I say anything about death tolls?
@jamieburgess1460
Жыл бұрын
@@randomuser3481 You vill eat ze bugs, you vill own nazing, and be happy.
@Alte.Kameraden
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
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.
@kirbyculp3449
Жыл бұрын
This is why sane people will ultimately need arms for defense against the neo-Red Guards.
@elLooto
Жыл бұрын
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
@Alte.Kameraden
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@elLooto
Жыл бұрын
@@Alte.Kameraden They have replied in exactly that fashion "Welfare Capitalism" was the phrase they used.
@Axisjampa
Жыл бұрын
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.
@rwcowell
Жыл бұрын
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.
@werrkowalski2985
Жыл бұрын
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.
@executivedirector7467
Жыл бұрын
That's just nonsense. Much of the evidence cited contradicts the argument being made.
@colebehnke7767
Жыл бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 can you provide a sample?
@kane-111
Жыл бұрын
@@colebehnke7767 Just trust him bro
@executivedirector7467
Жыл бұрын
@@colebehnke7767 Read what Adam Tooze really said.
@markhasleton6403
Жыл бұрын
Wow , a new post from Moseley's fanboy , Mr left - school - at -14 ....this clown needs a DICTIONARY
@olinke2
Жыл бұрын
when you understand socialism
@ramabass9475
Жыл бұрын
"He failed because Socialism always fails." 🤣Gold!👍🏼
@zoidburger2830
Жыл бұрын
No socialism doesn’t fail but usually it develops in already non industrialized poor countries that are eternally attacked by the western nations. But they have been able to massively increase litteracy and life excpectency in those countries. Like Chile, Cuba or Burkina Faso. (Burkina faso was a poor African agricultural nation that through socialism basically vaccinated everyone
@yamoto1833
Жыл бұрын
@ag4875capitalism isn’t an empire
@yamoto1833
Жыл бұрын
@ag4875 its not , it’s an economic system an empire have to conquer to put the his law and control in play , evry empire in the 1800 had the same economic system but were still enemy’s of each other , evry majour country is capitalist and still have different geopolitical view and interest
@Goblinhandler
Жыл бұрын
@@zoidburger2830 life expectancy? All communist countries saw massive drops because the leaders went around genociding everything, also the USSR was a superpower and China is failing because their economy is hollow
@osier769
Жыл бұрын
@@zoidburger2830 Interesting thing about government healthcare systems is the medicines and technologies used in them are primarily funded by capitalism for their creation and/or mass production. I'm curious, did Burkina faso create their own vaccines, medicines, etc. or were they largely purchased from capitalist ventures? The healthcare system in my country relies heavily on overseas (mostly U.S.) capitalist competition to keep it cost effective to the gov. Without capitalism our socialist healthcare system would be horrendous.
@irishblockade2556
Жыл бұрын
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!
@leonardticsay8046
Жыл бұрын
Your dad is a very wise man.
@SteveB-nx2uo
Жыл бұрын
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.
@walterbailey2950
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@Trevor Brannon well but hopefully not through authoritarian rule, followed by a war of genocide
@SteveB-nx2uo
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ronniecoleman2342
3 ай бұрын
The economy did go private. It privately went to the Nazi Party and Der Failure, lol 😂😅
@phildynerphotography5049
Ай бұрын
And yet Der Failure keeps going
@in39484
Жыл бұрын
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).
@JamieZero7
Жыл бұрын
Mein Kampf also talks about his time with socialist democractic party. SDP created by marx.
@michaelkovacic2608
Жыл бұрын
Me, who doesn't give a f*ck about politics because he believes all politicians to be self-serving thugs no matter which political ideology they promote: grabs popcorn while waiting for funny comments 😂🍿
@blazzinga595
Жыл бұрын
@Florentino Perez good man? Contrarians are the reason bad times begin and we all know what bad times lead to.
@blazzinga595
Жыл бұрын
@Florentino Perez semantics. You don't have to be a democrat or a lib to believe ww2 propaganda of national socialists being baby eaters. You only need be a bleeding heart for them 6 gazzilions war crime casualties.
@skeezicksz
Жыл бұрын
“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
Жыл бұрын
Yep, that's why it's important to speak out against the totalitarian state at all opportunities, and is why censorship is inherently bad.
@steviewondek
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
"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
@randomuser3481
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@VolrinSeth
6 ай бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight You're completely ignoring that the point first people Hitler purged and put into concentration camps were socialists.
@ArchiduquesaMA
Жыл бұрын
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
@mastererik323
Жыл бұрын
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! :)
@ChristianGunNut2001
Жыл бұрын
Hitler: "I am a socialist." Perón: Harbors Nazi war criminals in his country.
@AceFromGorillaz
Жыл бұрын
No omg don't take the money from the billionaires please. SOMEONE THINK OF THE RICH AND WEALTHY I BEG YOU.
@e.l.2734
Жыл бұрын
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).
@ven11235
Жыл бұрын
the people that need to hear this message are too retarded to even consider it
@jasontrauger8515
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Well right, because if you parroted some of these sources they'd contradict the main argument being made here.
@medmuscle
Жыл бұрын
Italy was even congratulated by the USSR for becoming a fellow revolutionary.
@jmgonzales7701
Жыл бұрын
So, in your opinion socialism is a wrong and evil ideology?
@rtg5881
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@executivedirector7467
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@myworldzvue8248
Жыл бұрын
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.
@vascosantos5489
Жыл бұрын
Hello. You brought up an extremely interesting and controversial topic up for debate, and I would like to share my thoughts: Based on my readings and understanding of history, I wouldn't say Nazi Germany operated as a socialist or as a capitalist state either, to be fair - an argument I don't see too often being defended. Fascist regimes viewed the economy as a means to attain their main goal: expansion. In reality, they were much more concerned with the concept of nation, race and their imperialist agenda rather than following a specific state model. Their economic policies were mostly opportunistic and delivered with the intent to simultaneously hide key aspects of what was really happening as well as to get the popular support they needed in order to go to war This is why they could very easily borrow distinct elements from various seemingly incompatible ideologies from all over the political spectrum such as keynesianism, classic liberalism, conservatism, etc...if you think about it, this was an almost avant-garde way to deal with the economy at that time. Economics aside, there is no room for any reasonable doubt regarding the fact that Fascism is in essence a RIGHT wing ideology NOT a left wing one. And, Nazi Germany was no expection. Lets not forget the constant prosecution of leftists (communists and soc dems) by the government, how he linked the jewish people with a leftist plot, the purge of the left wing elements of the Nazi party that took place on the Night of the Long Knives, the fact that Hitler initially entered government in a RIGHT wing coalition and consolidated his totalitarian power with the support of every right wing party in parliament (both moderate and hard right) who voted in favor of his proposal, etc...I could go on and on. To say Hitler had any sympathies for the left would be a factual fallacy - and a very dangerous one too, as it would be an attempt to rewrite history - which I know you would oppose to as well. That being said, and as someone on the left, I will accept that objectively speaking there were socialist elements (and I stress the word elements) in Nazi Germany too (the state control over the means of production and the planning as well as a few other programmes, etc...). Now, if you look at the timing, it coincided with the war economy Era - which changed their approach drastically. Same happened under Churchill and I doubt his Conservative government is seen as socialist. Yet, his war economy measures included nationalisations and more state. I do mean this in the most respectful way though, as you are a great content creator and speaker and I have enjoyed watching your videos. Cheers!
@oscartang4587u3
Жыл бұрын
What is your definition of fascism? Fascism hate the late stage Capitalism as much as communism did in their ideology. If Fascist was Protestant in 16th to 18th Centuries, bourgeoisie would be the Satan, and Communist would be the Catholic. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell ,despite scattered, illustrated the the Socialist origin of Fascist economical and political ideology. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) The economical aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
@oscartang4587u3
Жыл бұрын
The reply did make me look like I am defending fascism. I might need to put an disclaimer here, what people want to achieve didn’t really reflect what they can achieve. Even with good intentions, allowing an entity(not just government) to control everything/ too much things in society would very likely cause disaster.
@harry4rrtiiurrr
Жыл бұрын
It was not a right-wing ideology and still isn't. What left and right ment back then was completely different and for simpler terms there was a left and a right socialist group in which Hitler was on the right as his ideas were in no way inline with moder Conservative/right wing ideas or even old. Hitler called himself a socialist and said many times how he took inspiration from the socialists and saw his version as the better more reformed/final version of socialism as in which many have taken inspiration from and formed their own doctrine e.g Karl marx, stalin, lenin or Mao. Fascism is just the final form of communism where those people understand that the only way to sustain their "utopia" inevitably includes capitalism to some degree. Arguably, China is truly what a fascist country looks like. As the only true difference between communism/socialism (as communism is just the goal of socialism) and facism is one has capitalism and the other doesn't.
@sebastiaosousa5730
5 ай бұрын
Just a small commentary: The concept of Left and right, since its creation, always meant progressism and conservatism respectively. This happens because, in French "general States" ( i belive this was Created in the absolutist era, but correct me if im wrong) where the guys that wanted progress would sit on the Left side of the kings POV and the conservatives on the Right. By this definition, we can argue that, as declared conservatives, the Nazis could be placed on the right, with your argument that the concepts were different losing its effect. Its just my opinion though, and it can be wrong😊 Have a Nice day, yall h@@harry4rrtiiurrr
@soulcapitalist6204
3 ай бұрын
Socialism is an approach to political economy where the public is prevented from allocation by an authoritarian system serving a collective special or majority interest. AKA collective/government ownership/control of the means of production. Between February 28 1933 and July 15 1933, 3rd Reich eliminated capitalist productivity and instituted a socialist command economy in Germany.
@toniw1367
Ай бұрын
I have always believed this although I was taught otherwise in school. I have tried thru my life to explain that Hitler was a socialist only to be mocked. The internet was not helpful to me in this regard. Your video is the first confirmation to me that I was right! I feel vindicated! I am going to try and share with my leftist children even tho they have shut me out. Will they listen? Probably not but I still want to have hope that the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see things as they really are. Thank you
@hstrinzel
Ай бұрын
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.
@unlearningcommunism4742
Жыл бұрын
My wife yesterday: Oh, TIK made a new video, we must watch it (before falling asleep)! Me: No we don't! Every time we watch TIK, we keep debating for at least 1 more hour. I want to sleep, like, really. Now, I just opened the video, watched the adds, gave you the like you deserve, and added this comment to boost it up. We will watch it during the weekend and do the most common bed activity for a married couple - debate history X)
@in39484
Жыл бұрын
Hahaha
@soviettankmen
Жыл бұрын
what a perfect wife and life you have my friend 👍
@astrahcat1212
Жыл бұрын
Property taxes also make ownership of property conditional.
@Guerillatoker
Жыл бұрын
Ownership of property is always conditional.
@KadSkirata
2 ай бұрын
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".
@axelbossicard1505
Жыл бұрын
Ah sh*t, here we go again... but seriously I don’t understand those people who will not listen to your arguments and still say that you’re wrong. Nobody said you had to watch it in one time. It took me a full month and many rewatching to fully grasp all the points you were making. But I’m glad I did.
@georgyekimov4577
Жыл бұрын
he is wrong BLACK IS NOT A COLOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is a hill i will die on
@axelbossicard1505
Жыл бұрын
@@georgyekimov4577 Tik used black for fascism, fascism is bad, therefore he’s clearly saying that being black is bad. He’s a racist, cancel hiiiiiiim !!!
@georgyekimov4577
Жыл бұрын
@@axelbossicard1505 how dare he
@KissatenYoba
Жыл бұрын
Here, have counterargument to Tik via the exploration of track record of German private company Krupp kzitem.info/news/bejne/0K-AuqqVqn6ipn4 And it uses Nuremberg materials to show how 1) capitalists brought Hitler to power 2) those same capitalists (sometimes) were punished for urging Nazi aggression abroad
@bobbwc7011
Жыл бұрын
Because he is wrong. Any German school student is better educated on the Nazi period than he is because the topic is so present from class 9 to class 12. It's a while ago since I finished school and back then we covered the whole continuous period First World War, Weimar Republic and Nazism three times in the subject History, with some outriggers in other subjects. And a big part even back then was the linguistic analysis of Nazi speech and its comparison to their true politics. So yes, he is wrong. His points are nonsense, and he doesn't speak German so he is oblivious to how the fascist ultra far-right dictatorship worked. He cannot comprehend if something said by Hitler was actually true, or euphemistic or outright trash. Our History teachers had lots of fun demonstrating on us / to us, how effective Nazi speech was if you don't think about it too much and if you lack the education to see through it. Just because it was 80 years ago does not mean modern people are immune to the far-right propaganda of the Nazis or Neonazis. This video is a good example that some people are still fools and still fall for unsubstantiable claims like Nazis = socialists. As a German I'm concerned now, because it's not even your fault that you don't speak German.
@strafe155
Жыл бұрын
This is an excellent video, and I appreciate the fact that you make sure to list all of the sources for the arguments being presented. It just depresses me that the people who need to watch this video will refuse to do so, and simply dismiss it outright because it contradicts their pre-established worldview and political beliefs.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
It frustrates me too if I'm honest. I don't mind if we're debating over the details, but my critics aren't even listening. They'll respond to this in the usual way - they'll call me a fascist and "insane", then proceed to state the same old narrative about "privatisation" and so on... It's just crazy how easy it is to "lose" a debate with an opponent who declares themselves the victor without addressing any of the points I've raised.
@peteberry3826
Жыл бұрын
TIK, when they start calling you names, you have already won the debate.
@josephahner3031
Жыл бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight good thing we don't have to persuade the diehards, just their less fervent friends and neighbors. We do that and we shift the Overton Window back towards freedom.
@elLooto
Жыл бұрын
@@peteberry3826 Unfortunately they consider "youre a bad person" to be the victory condition of any debate. And the faster they can get to that the more decisive the victory.
@alphabetpeople2902
Жыл бұрын
socialism is a right wing conspiracy
@greierasu
5 ай бұрын
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.
@NickApex
3 ай бұрын
It took until the end of this video to find another person who found Mises through the study of overlap between the ideologies the average person has been taught are in opposition.
@bigmouthstrikesagain4056
Жыл бұрын
Great video as always tik.... you might not think you're reaching people but you are
@Madridy1996
Жыл бұрын
Rise against the WEF!!! I regret that I haven’t found your channel earlier sir. Greetings from Baghdad, Iraq
@JorgeCastillo-gb7vy
Жыл бұрын
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
@Ninety-Nine__
Жыл бұрын
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.
@GKEL18
3 ай бұрын
Trying to equate fascism with socialism per-say is a false equivalent. Sirfrozsomji3984 has it right. I think he has grasped the German psyche. A society as a group supporting each other. Socialism isn’t marxism. Societies without socialism are fractious. Why do Scandinavian countries have such good social metrics? Why does America have third world metrics?
@oscartang4587u3
3 ай бұрын
1/2 Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelianism, while the economic aspect of Fascism originated from from Émile Janvion’s revolutionary syndicalist. Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) To archive this final goal, a Fascist Revolution will be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.) "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52)
@oscartang4587u3
3 ай бұрын
2/2 The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
@tamarakalytskaya5082
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the enlightening video and for the hours of hard work that you have put into the research. I'm happy to have found your channel.
@kristoffer3000
Жыл бұрын
Enlightening video? It's literally just extremely obvious lies upon lies, it has nothing to do with actual history.
@briand5170
Жыл бұрын
It amazes me how much we really don’t learn about in school, and how incorrect “scholarly” sources are
@alexneubauer7537
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse ty si dobrý kokot
@royale7620
Жыл бұрын
@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
@royale7620
Жыл бұрын
@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 🚪🚶♂️
@royale7620
Жыл бұрын
@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.
@royale7620
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse haha okay Trotsky 🤣🤣 you probably deny the Molotov-Ribbentrops pact existance
@siaviken6112
Жыл бұрын
he called himself a 'non-marxian socialist' and said marxian socialism wasnt true socialism
@thecensoredmuscle563
7 ай бұрын
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.
@sacriptex5870
Ай бұрын
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
@oscartang4587u3
Ай бұрын
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)
@MasterP0R
Жыл бұрын
Great video! Thank you for your efforts! Actually the Protestant church was „synchronized“ too, they were called „Deutsche Christen“ - German Christians and the modern EKD (evangelische Kirche Deutschlands) took the form DEK (deutsche evangelische Kirche). This took place 1933 when the church „centralized“ itself from a former less organized form. There was an inner opposition called „bekennende Kirche“ (confessing church), but a small minority. One of its most famous pastors was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, mostly known because of Stauffenberg
@randomhuman2595
Жыл бұрын
Socialism isn't state control it is worker control
@patricksachs3655
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse Mao and Stalin also killed many socialists. So are you going to deny they were socialists, too? And the foreign industrialists and political elites who admired Hitler and supported him were not his support base, as the video points out. Ford liked Hitler because of his anti-semitism and the Democrat political elite supported Hitler because of his central planning and progressivism. No joke. It wasn’t until Hitler started the war did he stop being their darling and poster boy for the merits of a centrally-planned society. Notice how none of these groups you mentioned supported Hitler for his pro-business, pro-capitalist ideology since that actually wasn’t his ideology, as the video clearly demonstrates.
@patricksachs3655
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse The point is that Hitler, Mao and Stalin were socialists who killed many other socialists and communists. So to say Hitler wasn't a socialist because he killed socialists and communists does not strengthen your argument that Hitler wasn't s socialist That's the point. And feel free to point out omitted facts (not refuted points) that strengthen your argument and disprove Tik's. You have yet to do so. Also feel free to point out those manipulations and mental acrobatics to get around the historic inconsistencies and inconvenient facts that you have yet to point out. All we see here are a bunch of outlandish accusations and wild assertions on your part with no basis in facts.
@patricksachs3655
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse The fact that other non-socialist countries adopted socialistic policies doesn’t prove that the socialist countries that implemented those policies weren’t socialist. That’s a silly, illogical argument. Those policies are called socialistic for a reason, and that reason is that they came from socialist nations. Get it? And setting aside your empirically false assertion that the U.S. committed genocide against the Indians, nobody is claiming that genocides can only be committed by socialists, although they often are. So that’s just a silly straw man in your argument that proves nothing. Again, you have offered no counter argument that refutes Tik and proves your point, just more logically unsound assertions and crazy accusations that you are in no position to make.
@patricksachs3655
Жыл бұрын
@Van Brighouse No, , that's not my logic or my argument. Feel free to reread my comment as many times as necessary until you get it. And no, there was no ethnic cleansing or genocide by today's definition of the American Indians and U.S. Grant did not say there was.The evidence that they weren't eliminated in genocide is that many of these tribes freely exist today in the country that supposedly eliminated them. There was war against the warrior tribes that attacked settlers and they lost. Big difference.
@snozzlehead92
Жыл бұрын
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?
@soulcapitalist6204
Жыл бұрын
Marx makes fun of these people in Manifesto pt 3.
@freespeechisneverwrong9351
Жыл бұрын
“A twinkle in Mussolini’s eye” - hilarious😂😂😂😂
@kevinriffey9970
Жыл бұрын
I give commies the Fascist manifesto to read from Mussolini and say that its pretty much Bernie Sanders and they lose their shit.
@sirfrozsomji3984
Жыл бұрын
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
7 ай бұрын
Yup. That's a pretty good description of fascism you made there friend.
@swagkachu3784
7 ай бұрын
Kinda funny how smiliar socialism and fascism is@@directAction3389
@soulcapitalist6204
6 ай бұрын
@@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.
@JanRiffler
5 ай бұрын
Ethno National Socialism.
@mikem.s.1183
4 ай бұрын
@@soulcapitalist6204 That's how I see it too. Agreed.
@liamphillips4370
Жыл бұрын
TIK! Awesome content as always. I have a question: Considering you renamed this channel "TIKhistory", do you think you'll ever make one about philosophy/economics? I'm thinking like "TIKonomics" or "TIKethics", etc. Not so much that you'll make a million different channels for different subjects, but moreso if you'd make one specifically analyzing ideology (as you do here a bit) and other schools of economic thought. I ask because I think you're probably the biggest AnCap KZitemr, and it's funny because your channel isn't specifically AnCap-focused per-se, but I think if you had another channel that was, and focused on things like Argumentation Ethics and what I've already mentioned, it would be pretty cool.
@TheImperatorKnight
Жыл бұрын
Interestingly a few people in the comments have asked for the same thing! As I said to them, I could do this, and I have been debating making a second channel for more off-the-cuff type content, so this is a possibility. I will consider it.
@tyvamakes5226
Жыл бұрын
In all honesty, I think Tikhistory does stick, most because even discussing just about philosophy and economics require history to give these terms meaning
@liamphillips4370
Жыл бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for the response, it would be great to see content like that.
@liamphillips4370
Жыл бұрын
@@tyvamakes5226 I think it depends. Saying Nazi Germany was socialist? That's history. Saying why socialism can never even in theory work? That's economics. He could include certain historical examples demonstrating why that's the case, but it wouldn't be primarily history like this video.
@tyvamakes5226
Жыл бұрын
@@liamphillips4370 Fair point, though etymologies would still stand.
@Vexxed
Жыл бұрын
Great video and excellent explanation. I think nearly any intellectually honest person who watches and tries to understand the entire video would have to agree, or at the very least think very deeply about what you are presenting. As for your critics, you shouldn't concern yourself with trying to convince them any farther; if this can't change their mind then nothing can. My one and only criticism of the video is that I wish the delivery was more friendly. Some viewers with opposing viewpoints might find it divisive or aggressive, which may discourage them from watching. Nonetheless, the information presented is excellent. Well done!
@bobsanders7937
Жыл бұрын
Why aren't you still traveling with Ice in Japan?
@SirBoggins
Жыл бұрын
@@bobsanders7937 ?
@SirBoggins
Жыл бұрын
Agreed with the divisive part, many of his takes nearly border on toxicity.
Пікірлер: 14 М.