Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming 

"But is this really the case?" for the win!

Ok i though t was going mad you first piece was a master piece on this subject case closed, Although you probably are dealing with the learning impaired i wish you well in that endeavour

can't get buy-in from the stupid worthless proles implementing mass murder for profit unless you cut them in on some of that sweet blood stained national SOCIALIST swag!

@@scotty101ire trying getting people to watch a 5hr video when their mind is made up other wise. I think you know that though.

Hey Tik do you have an opinion about a video by socialist RU-vidr 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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X9ez6w5BUMM.html

If I have to choose, I'd rather have grain than bugs to eat.

underrated little gem of a comment here.

Fear is big business.

Yep, woke is left and all left is socialism, they are just too stupid to question left wing doctrine.

Oh really? smells like BS to me and obvious the right is desperate to compare environmentalism and climate activism to Nazi ideology, jumping on the RW gravy train pays well these days and instantly gets you access to huge media platforms. TIK is a sell out like the rest of you, easy to manipulate data and facts to suit your bias, Funny how the right is so obsessed by war and "God" because mostly they are a death cult making money off war and death, but at least that death is in smart uniforms and killing machines made by their corporations to kill other young people in foreign countries, why they constantly encourage the human race to keep out breeding every other species on Earth, even IVF research is conservative, so we can have endless consumers and endless war until nature, the planet wipes us off her face like the ungrateful scum we are.

Their counter-argument will be "capitalism isn't a free market, bro!" 😂

Ah, you mean the good ol' arbeit-macht-frei-matket?

@Buster Crabbe protective tariffs are a classic example of over-regulation.

Which is why i say actual free trade pretty much never existed throughout history. Things close to free trade did though, and in general, the free-er the market was, the faster progress and leaps forward in human well being where made.

@@TheImperatorKnight im a socialist. I believe that the market is not free in the first place. I'll explain an example of why. Since the poor do not have the freedom to buy the expensive, even if they really need to (expensive medicine for example) If you'd like to place an other counterargument to what i just said, feel free to do so, but please don't just rush to drop me off. Consider what im trying to say. A socialist economy isn't centrally planned. That's something you didn't quite get. Again I'm fully interested on having an honest conversation free of sarcasm, because i think there might be some kind of misinformation from your part. I hope you receive my criticism in a calm manner!

Most of those have rules on how they can take property, the Nazis suspended those rules.

@@colebehnke7767 Those rules mean nothing when an oppressive bureaucracy can change them on a whim. Guaranteed rights are an illusion.

@@kabedonovan5555 what?

@@colebehnke7767 The point is existing rules are often bent, worked around with loopholes, or often changed. There’s no difference between abolishing law and actively working against it, civil liberties are at the mercy of every single governing power.

@@kabedonovan5555 so your arguing that all countries are socialist? I don’t get why you are telling me this.

No, your grandfather is just an uneducated person who only knows how to follow orders and is a lowly one at that. And the fact somehow you can link your grandfather stupidity with someone's mercy toward a Nazi (which is totally wrong) is absurd. In short, you are just as stupid as your grandfather, I guess stupidity does run in the family's blood.

@@viethoangtruong54​​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ Then other than the race, class classification different what’s the practice difference between Nazism and Communism in Yugoslavia? If both Nazism and Communism demands uneducated people who only know how to follow orders, what would be their difference between their mode of production?

@@oscartang4587u3it’s a death cult

@@oscartang4587u3it was the exact opposite under Tito, he pushed for mass education and literacy. In pre WWII Yugoslavia, illiteracy was as high as 45%, with illiteracy in some parts like Bosnia higher than 80%. Under Tito those illiteracy rates dropped dramatically as part of a targeted effort to dramatically improve education and literacy.

@@KyonXycloneNazi Germany also provided free education for German people.

Uuuuuuggggggh... Man, I... Ughj. I don't know what how to break it to you, but have you seen the Twitter "ex"-FBI members scandals lately? I mean, they don't flaunt the uniforms (and that's a shame), but I don't think, say, States are much Capitalist in many ways.

Oh I know some ones... In China, which Wikipedia itself lists as "market socialism". So much for capitalism

most countries are not party political states (where governance is limited to legal, governing parties) germany and china are two examples of party political states. britain and usa are 2 examples of non-party states.

SCIENLOLOGY! the srsly wear uniforms lololol cos con artist hubard's sole claim to be not scum is his shitty cray cray "service" record

I've read F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman extensively and came across nothing like that. Also nothing about government mandated and imposed production quotas for factories.

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.)

@@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.

It's narcissist arrogance that those individuals think it can be done better and should be tried. Who cares about the current body count, get it 'right' and you're good 👀

I don’t think it’s conflation, both the Nazis and Communists openly used this term themselves. (Na) Zi = Socialist (US) S (R) = Socialist Lenin himself said, “the goal of Socialism is Communism.”

@@SabotAndHeat75 Lenin said that because he was a Marxist, hence Marxist-Leninism

🤨 That's one way to use it.

AI isn't thinking if its censoring itself or you based on what its Programmer's desire politically. It's just an authoritarian mouthpiece.

Just like people that aren't bots that argue that nonsense. Beep boop but about privatization bop beep

Have you tried one of the jailbreaks though?

It is pretty crashy because reasons, but I am willing to bet everything coded in that thing is from hard lefties and elitist pets. I wouldn't be surprised if when you asked it what a Woman is, if it answered: I'm not a biologist.

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 RU-vid so I will get not indication if you reply to my Reply here.

@@Jean-rg4sp Goebbels was saying that Marxism, especially as practiced by the Bolsheviks was entirely material in nature while Nazism was a spiritual endeavor

@@danstone8783 Thank-you. I changed my Settings so that I got notification of your Reply. It has been turned off but not by me. I see what Goebbels meant now.

@@Jean-rg4sp Another way to understand what Goebbles was saying is that they saw Marxism as an evolutionary means to the equality of mankind (ostensibly) and Nazism as an evolutionary means to the purity of mankind.

@@danstone8783 ... or the purity of the Aryan race.

This was reference to colours of movement Red comunism Brown national socialism (Brownshirts SA) Black fascism (Blackshirts)

@@digitalis2977 That's not accurate. All of this socialism is red. Calling red crimson, then cardinal, then rouge, does not change the color. All are abrogating the same specific human rights of unqualified private property and free assembly. All are based on the collective - that's government being entrusted by collective for violence (enforcement) - taking control or ownership of the means of production. These are the same color, no matter how you tint the collectivism. This minutia of worker collective versus German collective versus Chinese peasant collectivr is not relevant in socialist praxis. It is all national socialist in practical history. Germany was so pronounced due to the pride German philosophers of socialism took in their antisemitic bigotry and the fact Germany was the only developed nation to implement it.

I'm curious what it would take for your brother to accept this idea. I'm also curious to know if he thinks free market guys are all fascists, or trying to trick him somehow? I know when I was a Lefty, I feared that the evil secret-Right-wingers were trying to trick me, so I didn't listen to their arguments. It makes me wonder if all the Left are like that.

@@TheImperatorKnight My understanding is he has nothing against the free market - it's mostly that he takes a "stricter" view of the term socialism, I think - one that requires direct state ownership rather than being distributed among a social class or being associated with state control. I think that's the barrier most people have with it. The parallels to today are very interesting with the various influence systems the government has developed and continues to develop over private corporations.

​@@Edax_Royeaux He directly addresses that in the video: the state cowed the business owners into line, or else seized the businesses and then gave it to ideolgoical allies. It was creating a "german" social class of superiority, in other words. It may not have had DIRECT control but it was pretty damn close.

@@Edax_Royeaux "In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, *mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party."* Now, read that again.

@@Edax_Royeaux Great job on not watching the video. This quote was addressed pretty damn early, dude. It's a complete non-sequitir.

I would say I'm sorry, but losing Facebook is actually a blessing.

Maud'Dib

poor fascist, can't take fascism

That's actually a fallacious argument 🤣

@@Joshua-dc4un cope

because its (D)ifferent

Because it’s not true

Here we go

You vill own Nutzink, und be happy. Ze Stakeholders (WEF members) vill own eferytink... including you. Rather like socialism does. The WEF wants central control of the world economy, the dissolution of private property, the end of capitalism, one world government, control and ownership of the means of production... The WEF even wants a Communist Chinese style world government... Sounds like socialism, without Marx's classism.

@Millennium Vintage. It absolutely is. Minus the racial aspect. He still wants a central state/organization to control the economy. He wants us all to "rent" from that central state. When you "rent" and don't "own"....you have no private property. If you do not own private property, you have no ability to live outside that central state/organizations control. Klaus Schwab wants the entire world to look like China, with the WEF talking the position of the CCP.

Yes, it's true, socialist ideologies can differ while having the same foundation and many similar symptoms. It seems most of the critics in this comment section are arguing that Nazism was not a particular branch of Socialism they think is the only one, like Bolshevizm.

@@MisterS. yes, anyone who studied history knows they were socialist, but they werent marxist or communist, nor bolshevics, they were national socialists politically, a mix of capitalism and socialism economically, and culturally were a mix of liberal and conservative views on certain issues, National Socialism is an extremely complex system, it takes in many things from many different places, people are very narrow minded when u try to explaim this issue to them

i dont see the capitalist aspects of national socialism at all , despite maybe inner party rivalry to sell the Führer on the next big crazy Wunderwaffe.

Hitler was not a socalist dumbass, i privatezed everything, should u spend any brain cells on actualy education yourselfs on the most basic shit you would not have stage 4 brain rot

But Hitler and the Nazis were explicitly anti socialist and anti leftist. Hitler and Mussolini both stated over and over that what they thought was done right by the socialists was their style of rhetoric, their impassioned speeches, their populist message. They took the aesthetic of a socialist movement, and crushed German socialists while doing it.

they follow the world economy forum, like every country does, and the wef follows the 3rd reich and calls it 4th industrial revolution

100%, only they're not just radical left but mixed in with a lot of Globalism and Satanism on top of it all!

I believe they took a lot of their ideas from the dems, but not the one drop rule, which even they thought was a bit to much

"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, which I do not hesitate to admit. The difference is that I have actually put into practice everything these hustlers and scribblers timidly hinted at. All National Socialism is based on this" - Hitler "President of the Reichstag, Paul Löbe, a social democrat, despite being briefly imprisoned twice by the National Socialists, received a pension from the Third Reich for his role in replacing the monarchy with a republic." "The only good thing the social democrats did" - Joachim Ribbentrop creatively developed the leader's thought - "is the abolition of the monarchy." "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than divides us. - A bourgeois social democrat or trade union leader will never become a national socialist, but a communist will infallibly." - Hitler “I just visited the concentration camps in Austria. Jews and aristocrats sit in them. Some are ugly and too mobile, others are beautiful and too incompetent” - noted Heinrich Himmler in 1937. "Jacob Bainville was afraid of the idea of ​​a German Republic (demanded by the German socialist Karl Liebknecht). He was sure that it would follow the example of the Jacobins and, in the name of Germany "united and indivisible", would become aggressively nationalistic - he was not wrong. See : his article in Action Française (Sept. 29, 1914). Goebbels saw in German National Socialism an analogy with the French Revolution and boasted in Der Angriff (December 6, 1931) that his party represented "the German Left." "But it wasn't the true socialism" 🤣

Wow, your last paragraph literally happened in my country of Ghana, the minute we went communist and private businesses were bought up by the government things started to fail and eventually a coup happened bringing a facist leadership. I really see the prediction you made for America coming true, many democrats like Bernie Sanders are already pushing for socialist reforms and when that inevitably fails a military leader from the right will emerge. If you ask many Americans what their most trusted institution is most say the military so it's not out of the questions.

This is why I’m going to run for office.

Well one potential leader is likely a fascist and dictator-wanabe and the other is old, ineffective, and caught up in the status quo

Shit's illegal in the US at the constitutional level.

I suggest Georges Sorel was this most profound influence on Italian fascism, but I have not read D'Annuzio directly, to be honest.

Gentile is based

@@romulusmars3766 Rome was a product of it's Hero's not it's political structure, so I hope it doesn't shape your view of how we should organize our governments today

@4⃣H I want a government that represents its population and is required to do things on its behalf and for the benefit of its populous.

@@romulusmars3766 So what every modern government tries to be? The question is how to do it - the answer isn't the triumph of a brother over brother or the rule of oligarchs. Romulus Mars lol, that can be encapsulated by both Caligula and Caesar but both men stood for every different things. The best men of Rome were always those who reformed the state that was set up to embellish the equestrians and the senate to the detriment of the republic or the empire.

The terms left and right are pretty vague, but when you boil them down it usually comes down to a struggle between hierarchy and nature (right) vs equality and nurture (left). It’s more so about the ends rather than the means. Means are usually just power to be used towards an end. Hitler was a socialist to enact nationalistic ends, marxists are socialist to rape the upper classes and redistribute wealth.

@@reeseman1932 "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H.L. Mencken

Goebbels would be proud of you

@@Красиваясоветскаядевушка Do you not understand the meaning of "personal"? Get lost!

Thank you, Kilophilos!

Kronie spotted

now it is OUR timestamps

Yeah there are many better reasons why you cant call him a socialist.

@@thenarkknight278 There are none to claim 3rd Reich was not socialist political economy by 1935. By that time, at Hitler's order, German government had taken full control and ownership of the German means of production, means of exchange and means of distribution.

@@soulcapitalist6204 Because it was a war economy the goal to win the war required it. Their idiological incentive was to win the war not to abolish capitalism. They didnt really care that much about the economics aslong as they economy produced enough weapons. By that means you could argue that it was an simular case in the UK. What socialist they were to rationise resources food and they forced the economy to produce weapons. All this gouverment Intervention! The first thing that always disapears in a war is the freedom. There we're still factory owners/capitalists who earned A LOT with the war but It was ONLY reasonable for Nazi Germany to force them to produce weapons. Russia is doing simular things right now. Wow look Putin and the Oligarchy are sich socialists XD

@@thenarkknight278 name them

@@AverageAlien Because he cooperated with capitalist. He didnt even tried in the slightest to dissolve the capitalist system, no he even reinforced it, although he put it under the nazi ruling parties will. The nazis dissolved labour unions and grouped them together so that the state could more easily controll those unions without sparking a loud fuss. This was important to keep the people working during and for the upcoming war. Many capitalists profited of the collaberation with the nazis. They had cheap slave labour, participated in "plundering" the occupied states. Most importantly: The means of production werent in the hand of the public.

Fascist economics isn’t capitalism, but it isn’t socialism either. Marxist economics is meant to be democratically run by workers, not the state. I’m not a socialist or talking abt “not real socialism” that’s just how it is.

@@evanmoreno360 You're exactly the person my post refers too. Marx doesn't have a monopoly on what is 'socialist' or not. He's not the founder of 'socialism', he's just the guy who had the MOST radical form of socialism. You're falling for the no true scotsman hypothesis.

@@BrutusAlbion I’m not a socialist in the modern sense or otherwise. But I get what you mean. First of all I’d say Lenin had the most radical form of socialism, not Marx. Second, whether Hitler is a socialist depends on which definition of socialism you use. If it’s the democratic workplace-type socialism, (not exclusive to Marx) where the public also decides where money is spent rather than the state, Hitler was absolutely not a socialist.

@@evanmoreno360 Notice the words you are using ... ''If it’s the democratic workplace-type socialism'' It's all still different flavors of socialism. I don't have anything against socialism on a surface level. I'm a centrist if anything but it's hilarious to see leftists bend over backwards in order to not make nazism anything else than what it is. It's socialism but on a 'ethnic' level focused around the 'nation' as compared to communist socialism which is focused on an international theme that transcends the nation or the ethnicity. I think it's because there's a brain meltdown taking place when they shout 'fascist and nazi' and associate those with the 'extreme right' when in truth these are just different flavors of 'extreme left'. The extreme right has its own niche evils but they are not the historical ones we like to shout slurs at with people. It's the horseshoe effect really. Bend backwards far enough and you'll end up with your head up your ass. Not saying that is you tho, my bad if I made it sound like that.

@@evanmoreno360 The state and the people are the same thing.. in theory that is. In practice, corruption takes over immediately, but you get the point.

Because socialists still govern our government, and they don't want to be associated with that era and ideology.

yup, it was never mentioned when i took history in school

And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic with leaders chosen by the people?

National Socialists were marginally right wing. Not Socialists! Ask a Historian/Poltical Scientist to explain why. Hitler killed as many Socialists as he could find!

@@njbrx for the very simple reason it isn’t history. This garbage is mostly funded by US “libertarian” think tanks serving corporate interests. Useful idiots like him make a buck peddling this crap to the gullible who never read a book. They like to pretend “right” means freedom, so they recast 20c fascism as left wing big govt. But the right is always the same. Consumed by racism, toxic nationalism, militarism, violence, ignorance and fear. Its just that now all the same suckers who loved Hitler and Mussolini are being asked to believe these folks were socialists so you can feel a bit better as you accept govt by corporates. But the joke is on you because corporates are the biggest fascists of all, given the opportunity. The only freedom they are offering the likes of you is the freedom to work till you drop, from access to healthcare, from peace, from decent wages and job security, from public services, from having a vote to chose politicians who aren’t bought paid for. And when this fool calls these fascist pigs socialists he just spits on the graves of the millions of decent socialists they systematically murdered, and the memories of most of the anti nazi resistance groups across Europe (who were almost all left wing groups too) - they certainly were not weasels like this idiot. He would have been wearing a blackshirt I suspect. Assuming the thick bast@rd could button one up.

Yes, they will come unglued, amazing..

They, like all Socialists, just want to find something to blame for their own failure. Their entire ideology is an excuse.

"Meanwhile on February 20, 1920, the German Workers’ Party switched its name to the [more euphemistic] National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeitpartei, called the N.S.D.A.P. for short). [The Führer] did not like the addition of the term ‘Socialist’ but acquiesced because the executive committee thought that it might be helpful in attracting workers from the left‐wing." -Samuel W. Mitcham

@@randomuser3481 A chair is a chair and a Socialist is a Socialist. Hitler was a Socialist, even if he didn't want to associate with the Marxists. The argument was over optics. Not policy. The policy was Socialism.

They were nationalists first and foremost, they saw welfare for every member of the community as a natural consequence of nationalism. Everybody could contribute according to his own talents. Hitler described this in his speech "Freedom or slavery".

It's funny because when I did my video on Franco's Spain, I was criticised for my stance, and told I didn't know what I was talking about. But as you've just said, it's true! Stalin (a socialist) killed Trotsky (a socialist). That doesn't mean Stalin wasn't a socialist. You can hate others of your own ideology, and that's fine. Men hate other men - doesn't mean they're not men. So Franco might have been anti-Communist or anti-Socialist, but that doesn't mean that his regime wasn't socialist in nature.

@@TheImperatorKnight Easy-peacy lemon squeezy - QED

Bingo. Franco's Spain was lightweight fascism and Nazi Germany was heavy duty fascism. That's why the similarities are so striking. Of course the Spanish did their genocide in the 1500s not the 1900s......

@@TheImperatorKnight everything is possible when you lie.

@@cyberputo you mean modern socialists?

I thank you for your warning - I really wish that I could find a way to program that into my fellow American Gen-Z kid's heads. Greetings from the USA! :)

Hitler: "I am a socialist." Perón: Harbors Nazi war criminals in his country.

No omg don't take the money from the billionaires please. SOMEONE THINK OF THE RICH AND WEALTHY I BEG YOU.

I wish Brazilians would've listened to this advice a few years ago. Now we might be past the point of no return where our government is currently making a point to finance socialism all over Latin America, especially Argentina. They're also seeking revenge at the Brazilian population because they fr@uded their election (and we have private Argentinian specialists to thank for providing the first incontestable piece of evidence on that).

the people that need to hear this message are too retarded to even consider it

I agree. It was this topic that made me wake up from the socialist religion, so it stands to reason that if socialists understand this argument, then they will also abandon the faith.

@TIKhistory. It definitely fires me up (in an excited kind of way.) I have been slowly watching those around me adopt collectivist ideas over the past decade, like many others have. And people like me didn't have the resources to really combat it before. But thanks to you and people like James Lindsey and Peter Bogghosian, I feel very comfortable going into "battle" and actually winning over minds back to real classical liberalism and the merits of capitalism as the solution to many of the problems and "unfairness" that the modern left are so concerned about. Very glad you had you're own conversion.

@@TheImperatorKnight It was a similar study of the causes of the World Wars, the interwar years and the Spanish Civil War that lead me to much the same conclusions. For me, it was the Spanish Civil War that made no sense and caused me to go back and look at the sources with a more critical eye. This, the most bloody portion of human history - is a single ongoing Socialist Civil War.

Have you checked out Dr. James Lindsay?

@@TheImperatorKnight I know Ive said this to you before. When I was younger I met with a WWII veteran who after the war became a Major in the British Army. He told me you'll never win an argument with "the Communists" a/ they change the goal posts b/ they'll never accept it "was socialism" unless it reached perfect utopian conditions. He told me, you cant argue with them, just shoot them in the head, yes every time they stick their heads up shoot them in the Head. Or else they are going to remove your freedom to choose. The Labour MP for Norwich South says (Clive Lewis) He wants second homes seized and private Schools abolished because it prevents equality. Guys like this MP will ban children from listening to "bed time" stories only to impose their aspiration of equality

Mine too! I like the war stuff, but this is even more interesting to me. Learning more about how the Nazis screwed their economy up is eye-opening

I find I listen to far more of the economics of war on this channel than I do the battles and strategies. It's good stuff.

@@TheImperatorKnight it would be really awesome if you did a video like this on FDR because I’m pretty sure he’s a fascist in everything but name

@@0944clayton That would be a great idea. Wilson too, which could be tied into both FDR and inspiring elements and strategies of Nazism pretty easily. Really, a historical breakdown of Fabian socialism and progressivism would go a long way

@@TheImperatorKnight Dear TIK. Please, do read on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a Libertarian utopia which very demonstrably went south. No roads, no bridges, no taxes, very weak standing army, *extremely* rich citizens. Just for a quick example - The whole of Prussia was *poorer* than Poznan region alone. Yet they went under. I admire your journey. It's just that ignoring PLC when discussing libertarian ideals is like ignoring Soviet Union when discussing communism, so I want you to have a bite of this piece of history too.

Yep, that's why it's important to speak out against the totalitarian state at all opportunities, and is why censorship is inherently bad.

@@TheImperatorKnight Easy to ignore the right is more guilty of this under the guise of protecting the women and children, and appealing to base emotion, like fear and blind nationalism, the idea of an invisible supernatural being that favors only those who think and look like you.

"Easy to ignore the right is more guilty of this under the guise of protecting the women and children, and appealing to base emotion, like fear and blind nationalism, the idea of an invisible supernatural being that favors only those who think and look like you." It may come as a surprise to you to know that I'm (mostly) in agreement with you. Remember, I'm a free market guy, so I'm not on the "Right". I'm not a Commie-servative, or a tradcon, or a racist. I'm against totalitarianism in all forms, regardless of which part of the "political" (statist) spectrum it's from. In fact, I'm not on your political spectrum at all. There's no room for me here images.app.goo.gl/Br34rwiHAfjoSSFQ7 I might be on this one though images.app.goo.gl/HbFUCVKgGUGjKxUg6

@@TheImperatorKnight You're not on the right, yet you just happen to push a narrative that was invented by the right to absolve themselves of all blame for the Holocaust

@@TheImperatorKnight You're completely ignoring that the point first people Hitler purged and put into concentration camps were socialists.

obesity crisis; CHEAP FEED NOT NOURISHİNG

@@selmakaplan1053 No. Calories. No fake diet propaganda. Fats have eaten too much calories.

yeah that china is starving hard, sure buddy

@@selmakaplan1053 who forces them to eat burgers instead of healthy diet tho?

@@selmakaplan1053 you cant get fat unless ur overnourished...

Thank you! That's important information, as many of the books gloss over the translation 👍🏻

By the way, I've posted your comment onto the channel's community tab to inform others, so you should check it out. www.youtube.com/@TheImperatorKnight/community

@@TheImperatorKnightthat's great thanks!

I haven't read that. I've just searched around and couldn't find a physical copy anywhere. Do you know where I could get a copy?

I would also love to here if there's a place to get a physical copy. (Commenting to hopefully see an answer)

@@TheImperatorKnight Sadly, few physical copies of the source remain. My 1971 hardcover edition is a relic of a bygone era. Nevertheless, a digital version of a similar source written by the same author can be found on the website NBER called Nazi War, Finance and Banking.

www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf

@@TheImperatorKnight in libgen.?

Libtards never provide evidence, they just bitch

He is a liar, it so easy to proove. The problem is that he delete all the critical comments and the comments when he is called out.

​@@Jenseduca What a convenient excuse.

@@verscarii3238 For who? For T.H? Here is one proof of many: in his Hegel video he claim that both fascism and Marxism are based on Hegelian idealism. But if Google Marx's philosophy you'll soon discover that Marxism is based on materialism, which is literally the opposite of idealism (Hegelian or any). So now a question to you - do you think he didn’t know that? He went that far as to research Hegel and yet somehow missed this part, something that is as basic as it only can be? It just not possible. So either he is simply stupid or he is a liar. I think it's both, but you are free to choose between stupidity or deceiph. And I'm not even gonna go in to all the small lies and stupid things he says in his video. Like in the same Hegelian video less than a minute in he clames "food is a commodity, there is no commodity in socialism thus there is no food". Well, the food is a PRODUCT unless it's deliberately made for profit and is ought to be selled on the market, then it's a commodity. And he doesn't know that)) He is just a f.o.o.l.

"But if Google Marx's philosophy you'll soon discover that Marxism is based on materialism, which is literally the opposite of idealism (Hegelian or any)." In that very video, I quoted Marx in the video saying this. You don't need to "Google it" because I literally quoted the exact passage where he says this. Try to actually watch the full video before commenting. - What you've missed is that Marx is a dialectical materialist. Dialectical, meaning "transcendence". And "materialism" being the belief that reality is fake. Thus, Marx believes in the transcendence of the fake reality. This is, practically speaking, no different that what Hegel said. The only difference is that Marx things reality shapes the mind, which then produces God, whereas Hegel things God shapes the mind and that produces material reality. It's not "literally the opposite" - it's reliant on the exact same principle: the idea that reality is fake. - "So either he is simply stupid or he is a liar." Neither. You're the ignorant one here, not me. - "Well, the food is a PRODUCT unless it's deliberately made for profit and is ought to be selled on the market, then it's a commodity. And he doesn't know that)) He is just a f.o.o.l." Since you love Google so much, a quick search will show you that both a product and a commodity can be bought and sold. A commodity is merely a raw material, whereas a product is usually the end product. Without commodities you don't have products. So, my point still stands. Without commodities you do not have food, and therefore a commodity-less society is a food-less society.

They only debate until they figure out how to dispose of you.

Yeah except it wasnt socialism you fucking idiot. It was absolutely state controlled capitalism. Cope

@@subsamadhistate controlled capitalism is socialism you absolute troglodyte State Controlled Capitalism is a contradictory statement If there is no free market, there is no capitalism A state controlled market IS socialism

Brother you don't even know the definition of socialism

Friend, Wether Fascist Communist, Nazi ( National Socialist), Bolshevik, or FascoCommunist such as the present Globalist elites as Gorge Soros or Klaus Schwab? It always comes down to a dystopian hell, filled with cult’s of Death for the masses in the end! Mayhap I should suggest that we pray for these poor souls, as they have never had to live under these Regimes? Where it’s good to be king, but suck’s to be the rest of the serf’s! Where your daughters are toys of the elites at will. Even your son’s, God forbid! Where, your future offspring are to be raised in indoctrination centers. Your progeny , sired in Laboratory‘s and gestated in birthing pods. And those in whom are found defective? To be recycled to feed the embryos. Ahhh yes, something evil, this way comes! These poor outcasts from the promised land of the future LibTardia, have not a clue! For them all is… Bread and Circus! Brainwashed or brain dead? Victims of their Government funded, public education. Enlightened by and through their electronic devices. gods of their own making. Blind leading the blind, and being lead by the blind. Slaves of invisible chains of their own making. And sheep to the slaughter. They have no concept of what it’s like to exist under the boot of total tyranny, forever in constant fear. Fear that you boss, neighbor, or even family members will turn you in for as little reward as a higher social credit score! Or even a pat on the head. And worst of all, it’s already here in the United States. Though in its infancy. Its here! The Machine has yet, obstacles to overcome? The biggest problem being that of the 2nd Amendment? Once they have successfully disarmed us? Oooohh yeah, baby! It’s 90% population reduction time, and that’s just the beginning! Now I, myself don’t wish them any harm. Heck, I’d suggest and vote in favor to relocate them to rule on their own Continent. You guessed it? Antarctica! Where they can fulfill their every desire to lord over everyone and thing there! Still we should keep them in our prayers. That sanity mayhaps one day return back to them? Respectfully submitted from a disabled Veteran and Gold Star dad… Semper Fi and DeOpresso Liber, friend

"State‐owned plants were to be avoided wherever possible. Nevertheless, sometimes they were necessary when private industry was not prepared to realize a war‐related investment on its own. In these cases, the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it. Even the establishment of Reichswerke Hermann Göring in 1937 is no contradiction to the rule that the Reich principally did not want public ownership of enterprises. The Reich in fact tried hard to win the German industry over to engage in the project." "Available sources make perfectly clear that the [Third Reich] did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible." -Christoph Buchheim & Jonas Scherner

@Buster Crabbe This is false, Hitler was in fact opposed to central planning: ""I tried to accomplish my mission by impressing on the Führer and the Party as a whole that private initiative, the self‐reliance of the business man, and the creative powers of free enterprise should be recognized as the basic economic policy of the Party. The Führer personally stressed time and again, during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state‐economy and of so‐called “planned economy”, and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production." -Walther Funk Your definition of socialism is also incorrect, socialism is not when the government owns the means of production, it is when the workers own the means of production

​@@randomuser3481 Tik has already addressed every point you have made in this entire comments section in his other videos. It's actually your definition of socialism that is wrong. Workers owning the means of production is Marxism which is a brand of socialism. The socialism Buster refers to is the definition that existed before Marxism, Marx just added class as Tik has already talked about before. Quoting Hitler saying he doesn't like central planning doesn't change the fact that they did control the economy, otherwise they wouldn't be a totalitarian government.

Because it would be like looking in the mirror and a vampire can not see his image, speaking of which King Charles is a direct descendant of Vlad Tepesh, or Count Dracula.

Because it is outright false, you literally have to invent an entirely different definition of socialism to make that claim

@@randomuser3481 Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, murdered twice as many people as Nazi Socialist, and Chinese Socialist killed twice as many as Soviet Socialist,80,000,000 dead.

@@jamieburgess1460 When did I say anything about death tolls?

@@randomuser3481 You vill eat ze bugs, you vill own nazing, and be happy.

Awesome! I'm glad you liked it! This one's more condense, but hopefully just as useful

Great info here. Have you guys looked into Stephen Hicks Nietzsche and the Nazis? He explores the philosophical underpinnings of collectivist ideology and the various factors that led to Nazism. One thing which he pointed out and which would seem irrefutable to anyone who read it, was that 14 out of 25 tenets of national socialism would universally be considered Socialist today.

@@bengreen171 Concise is one way of putting it. I find the possibility that he intended to say "condensed" and simply missed the 'd' somehow to be a more likely situation. Occam's razor and such.

@@bengreen171yes I have and well most of them were from the German Workers Party before it added new tenets based on the inclusion of nationalism and an ethnocentric slant to the fundamental Socialist principles. The inclusion of those things didn't remove the fundamental socialism, it just differentiated it from class based socialism (Bolshevism) I'm pretty sure the 'far right' tag comes from the addition of the ethnocentric/nationalist elements of national socialism.. For those without subtle intellect they may accept that, but a cursory look into the elitism and love of eugenics in English Socialism, or American Progressivism will remedy that. Nazi thought didn't appear in a vacuum, but as the full flowering of an era many have conveniently forgotten. Some even say they were inspired by the eugenics programs of America, whatever the truth, America was very keen to collect nazi scientists who then continued their work in the US.. (operation paperclip) Also, I thought Hicks made a great point about the collectivist underpinnings of Nazism. Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel with their German Supremacism, anti-democracy, anti-individualism, anti capitalism, selective breeding programs and so on. They were the main Philosophers influencing nazi thought and elements of them can be seen throughout. . German supremacy can even be traced back to Hegel. His idea was that Germany was the most advanced civilisation and should rule the world.. Marx associated Jewishness with capitalism.. Nietzsche saw no problem with subjugation of inferiors and of a war for dominance.. Also, they weren't stupid or unthinking capitalists driven by profit.. Goebbels had a Phd in Philology from Heidelberg University, they had three Nobel Prize winners as well as Heidegger who were all staunchly nazi. They were grass roots funded radical idealists.

@@bengreen171 I tend to hold a maybe controversial view that Zionism aided the nazi argument because it created the idea of a Jewish People (or the invention of one as Tel Aviv University Professor Shlomo Sand says) Prior to that people only thought themselves religious jews.. Marx own father converted to Lutheranism, as did many others. Before the obfuscation we have today, Judaism was still known to be the first large scale proselytising Abrahamic religion of the West. In fact, Rome banned conversions because Judaism was too competitive with Christianity.. Luther obviously grew impatient with many Jews not converting enough to Christianity and that was the basis of his Anti-jewishness. This combination of Marx association of Jewishness with capitalism, nazi anti capitalism, the long standing resentment of Jews in Lutheranism, the rise of nationalism, German Supremacism, eugenics . It was the perfect storm. I had other problems with Hicks than those you mentioned., For example, i thought he had an ambiguous opinion of Nietzsche, but so do people like Jordan Peterson. But I guess that's typical of Nietzsche, who has influenced all kinds of people and for different resaons, from Foucault to Heidegger.. But Nietzsche and the Nazis is the only Hicks book I've read. I personally don't like much about Nietzsche.. Hicks is certainly a centrist crusader as you say. I'm not sure I'm completely opposed to that as i don't want us to succumb to wholesale collectivism, but I'm no fan of libertarianism either.. That's the pull yourself up by your bootstraps side of Nietzschianism so dare to Peterson and Hicks haha

Hitler killed the trade-unionists and canceled the trade unions, and went on to strip the working class of it's labor rights and lowered their salaries on top of that. Almost as if Hitlers fertilization of the working class where just empty words....

So did John Lennon when he was high.

Hayek argues in Road to Serfdom that National Socialist anti-semitism was part of the underlying anti-capitalist sentiment... most German merchants were Jewish... being hated for doing the things others don't want to do... National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy were essentially grassroots responses to existing socialist policies...

@@js290 It's worth noting that socialism in General and certainly in Germany stemmed from racial collectivism, then notions of classes other than race were introduced by Marx. Marxism was poorly received in Germany, but history seems to indicate that antisemitic racial collective was a popular notion of German working class since their midieval period.

Ah, yes. He said so, it must be true. It is not like he murdered tons of workers because they did not agree with him or send millons of workers to slaughter. And the workers that he loved so much whom did not get sent in to the meat grinder worked more hours with a low hourly wage. That really sounds like love too me.

Yeah I'm also at a loss on how to get through to them. The mental gymnastics they employ to wriggle their way out of reality is astounding. I genuinely have exhausted myself trying to figure out how to get them to just stop and consider the possibility that they might have got things wrong. But they think we're "secret fascists" who are trying to trick them, so they're suspicious of everything we say, and thus look for quick and easy "gotcha" counter-points to dismiss us and declare victory. It's frustrating as anything.

This is why sane people will ultimately need arms for defense against the neo-Red Guards.

I know. I've just had a conversation with a guy who cant see that government buying public stock through the stock market (for a government retirement plan, eg) fills the socialism definition of "public ownership of the means of production," which in turn makes the stock market itself a mechanism for creating socialism (albeit one that co-incidentally allows for private ownership). He adamantly holds that stocks are always 'private property' despite saying outright that property owned by government is 'public property'. His only addressing of this obvious contradiction is that "the government doesnt exercise control." Something I know for a fact to be false, since I know people who work for state funded investment plans, which absolutely do things like vote during AGMs, elect the BOD, etc. I'm not sure if hes so locked into "capitalism is everything thats not the perfect socialist utopia" or "capitalism is this pure uncorruptable thing," and "never the twain shall meet", that its derailed his ability to see contradiction. edit: unclear wording

@@elLooto They'll likely fall back on "It's State Capitalism!" Even though Socialist are fighting eachother still whether China is Market Socialism or State Capitalism which implies the difference is so vague that there is no difference and it's just in the context of whether they like that regime or not.

@@Alte.Kameraden They have replied in exactly that fashion "Welfare Capitalism" was the phrase they used.

Yup. That's a pretty good description of fascism you made there friend.

Kinda funny how smiliar socialism and fascism is​@@directAction3389

@@directAction3389 Socialism is a form of fascism then. All socialist philosophers justified socialism - control of the means - on the basis of specifically antisemetic racism until Marx changed his tune from his zur Judenfrage by publishing Manifesto without racial basis. All of his anarchist and socialist colleagues were antisemitic national socialists before, during and after his career.

Ethno National Socialism.

​@@soulcapitalist6204 That's how I see it too. Agreed.

Well right, because if you parroted some of these sources they'd contradict the main argument being made here.

Italy was even congratulated by the USSR for becoming a fellow revolutionary.

So, in your opinion socialism is a wrong and evil ideology?

@@executivedirector7467 No, they wouldnt. The authors might disagree, but the facts they cite all point towards the nazis being extreme socialists. Frankly, any form of nationalism is a far-left idea anyways.

@@rtg5881 OMG, no, please read a political theory book. Nationalism is the opposite of leftish. You really haven't got the slightest notion of these ideas.

Mine too. I mention that video at least once a week, and I’ve written out flashcards, because it’s that good.

Hitler was a HEAVILY right wing leader.

​@Trevor Brannon agreed. #EuropaTheLastBattleDocumentary

Mein Kampf also talks about his time with socialist democractic party. SDP created by marx.

american's attempt at logic

They have their excuses. Did you see the video where someone "debunked" me? He hadn't watched the video and even admits it ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8rWnuuEN024.html

@@TheImperatorKnight Yes that was very good. I watched it right after I saw the 5 hour one.

This is a great example of what is called rationalism. People want to believe in the feel good features of Socialism so badly that they can’t believe that it’s tarnished by unmitigated and clearly recognized evil. Nietzsche had a saying that madness in individuals is rare but in societies it is a rule and Socialism is a good example of this.

Ah, yes, the typical "Lets use one-sided facts, ignore everything that happened which doesnt support our agenda and at last lets twist some definitions to make everything fit". Far-right classic

@Van Brighouse Italian Fascism, when it emerged in late teens and early 20s, was recognized by International Socialism as a somewhat heretical variation, because Fascism recognized that both private interest and nationalism were better psychological motivations of the masses than altruistic internationalism. But ultimately, the Fascist dictum was "Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State, nothing opposed to the State". The Gnazis took this principle and added in the accelerants of racism and and antisemitism Hitler's loathing of Socialists and Communists was primarily because they were *traitorous internationalists" who rejected both German patriotism and racism, NOT because they demanded the State control of production and State direction of culture (including religion and ethics). In the State control of industry and agriculture, Nazism only departed in some means from Soviet Collectivism, preferring to make initial deals with industrialists, such as Krupp and Farben, but as soon as the Reich could, reducing these industrial barons to well paid off pensioners (rather than liquidating them) while the Reich, per the video, directed production, set price and wages, working conditions, etc ..

@Van Brighouse yada yada yada, you're wedded to the narrative that Fascism and Nazism were "right", so by special pleading, they can't be socialist, so nothing I say or the video maker, however evidence based can make any difference. Goodbye.

Nobody mentions it because it's misleading

@@TheBeatlesShow There were national socialist vanguards and parties all throughout especially northern europe until they faded with the German invasion of Poland putting them in a bad light. After the capitulation of 3rd Reich, they are in the doghouse.

Though it encourages the argument that "Hitler was left wing", as if anti-capitalism=left wing, which is definitely not historically true. Prussian socialism =/= marxism.

That's just nonsense. Much of the evidence cited contradicts the argument being made.

@@executivedirector7467 can you provide a sample?

@@colebehnke7767 Just trust him bro

@@colebehnke7767 Read what Adam Tooze really said.

Yep.

Show me a NatSoc and I'll show you a temporarily embarrassed rightwinger with far-left economic beliefs "Rightwing socialism" is a cope

Nah. . Call it National Socialism or Race Socialism. . Or even simpler 'Socialism'. .

Hows it right wing?

It’s funny because there are ideologues who will do all sorts of esoteric mental gymnastics to make the text support their failed ideology. It’s the Hegelian Dialectic played out in a comment section.

@@leonardticsay8046 And they also hate when Hegel is mentioned. Demons don't like when men know their True Names.

Sounds like current times. Makes me wonder if Klaus Shwab is Hitlers son?

@Trevor Brannon its hard to tell if you are being sarcastic, or applying this to current events, because it is happening again not even 100 years later... so to those who think we need to social ize everything..... did you miss the part where they started the war in order to gain resources from other countries in an attempt to alleviate the inflation? You can only spend other people's money until they runout of money. Printing more to cover your costs makes your money worth less, which also leads to conflict... because war is profitable for those who supply it, not for those (like yours truly) who fight in it. This economic miracle is nothing more than throwing money at building up to start a war, which starts when the money runs out.

Well heres a better one ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hUFvG4RpwJI.html Tbh honest. I didnt finish the video yet but there are already some points that arent right or atleast not evidence for socialism. Three Arrows further ellaborates in this video why expropriation and state run organizations dont mean that the gouverment is socialist. The definition that many relate socialism with "the more the state does stuff the more socialist it is is" is also quite wrong. Its also quite wrong that the companies were state owned. They had guidelines to fullfill but could still act independintly. And this wasnt done out of idiologicy but rather because you have to TO WIN A FCKING WAR. Britain did the same the USA had also guidelines for their industry, it was more or less normal to do this in war economy. And the Labor Union wasnt really a socialist Labor Union it was there to enact more power to be an alternative to socialist believes and strives for better working conditions and you didnt have anything to say in this unions. Well you could rally and try to protest for higher loans if you wanted to end in a KZ. More on the topics in the video. :) I hope you watch it and get to hear some opposing arguments.

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)

@Florentino Perez it can be argued that the ideologies are similar, but i don’t think the same. Socialism and Fascism is very different. For one Socialism is motivated by inequity, Fascism is motivated by Nationalism, and thus take control of the state. They have similar ideologies, but Fascism is more race and military motivated than Socialism that is more Class motivated. Both ideologies use authoritarian methods, but Socialism can at times be different. National Socialism is however almost the complete same as Fascism. It’s the fact that there should only be one ethno-state. Only Nazis are more extreme. Not really capitalists, but not exactly socialists either. Edit; *Note; the Nazis did have Very socialist policies, but there is a big difference when you view other people as vastly inferior to the original German citizens. I mean, it kinda meant, All Germans are equal, except everyone else is beneath them. Thus; National Socialism, if it makes any sense.

@Florentino Perez Ok, thank you, i will :)

@Florentino Perez "Fascism is therefore opposed to socialism, to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon." - The Doctrine of Fascism

The Nazis were not fascists. Fascism was/is a form of nationalism, whereas Hitler cared little for the nation state, basing everything instead on what we now call 'ethnic' divisions. That is why he conquered other parts of Europe, and that is why he persecuted actual German citizens in Germany whom he considered not to be racially pure, and not just his political enemies (fascists do not do this). The idea that he was a front for the capitalists was a bit of propaganda by the Communists, although they no doubt believed it.

Fascist states aren't controlled by big business. The govt is always the senior partner. Businesses must conform to "The Plan" in a fascist state.

Your mistake - Fascism is a form socialism. Socialism is worker *OR state* control/ownership of the means of production. Fascism is specifically state control/ownership (or marriage as Mussolini called it) of the means of production. Socialism doesn't have a cultural prescription which is why it's been tried multiple times all over the world. "Racism" doesn't have anything to do with it unless it's an ingredient in that particular dictator's flavor of imposed cultural engineering.

Fun fact - The nazees never called themselves nazees. It was a made up derogatory term from our side.

@@BobAgg-qr2methey did, however, call themselves national socialists. The contraction pronounced “not-see” obfuscates the obvious.

I posted a snapshot of Hitler and a quote of his on Socialism and Facebook removed it with a warning.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Lmfao, what a mentally insane take 😂😂

Socialism and communism are evil (immoral government based on human rights abrogation, like per UNHCR). 3rd Reich is an important historical case of socialist political economy because it is not marxist socialism and because it is the only example of socialism in a developed nation which we will likely ever see. There is no way to achieve socialism without evil government. Socialism is "collective ownership/control of the means of production in an economy". Because collective is democracy - government authority - this abrogates the human rights entailed in personal autonomy of private individuals over means of production and their interaction with it. The term totalitarian refers to socialism which has achieved the definition of socialism through some enforcement.

The staunchest advocates of genocide in the 20th century were socialists, they know that in order for this system to be implemented, certain people would have to be eradicated because they wouldn't be able to convince them to go along with it. Socialism in practice is either just immoral or outright evil.

The problem with the term is that the GOP calls Europe socialist which it’s just not. They’re confused when we tell them we think they’re socialist. They’re capitalistic countries that redistribute a lot. The GOP has stripped the term of any meaning at all. Literally applied when people wanted a public option, like most other advanced countries in the world. (Including a lot of capitalistic ones).

@@evanmoorman3828 Most of Europe does not have a public option and Americans don't desire a public option. Most European medicine is based on employee mandated private insurance because they copied United States over the last 40 years. All these systems except for Finland and Russia were underwritten by United States after WW2 as the #1 implication of Marshall plan. GOP calls Bernie Sanders socialist. European nations are social democracies like United States. Bernie Sanders calls for a ban on private pay and insurance for healthcare as the major implication of his Medicare for All and this is forcing the largest economic sector of the largest economy on earth into a state run means of production.

@@soulcapitalist6204 "Scaling... you could be a libertarian at a state level and communist at the commune level and it's not incompatible... what works in Norway (size of NYC borough) won't work for 300M people." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Dn_XEDPIeU8.htmlm8s

well, welcome to reality instead of some commie fantasy world.

There are no links between socialism and nazism. This man has brainwashed you with weak arguments, conflation of terms and an overt ideological twist to historic interpretation.

And yet the nazis at the time worked with and were supported by conservatives in germany, actively fought against communist and social democrats; the nazis are also still admired by some rightwinger howerver detested by all left wing groups today That seems odd if they are "socialist". Of course you are a reactionary so you wont understand.

I have been pushing this for years... in fact if you put Hitler on a Left - Right scale he is about mid LEFT or at least slight to the right of Stalin. Also not told in schools Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in 1939 as they had a pact to do this and split Poland between them. Ask a Polish person who lived through it and they will tell you they got invaded by SOCIALISTS from both sides.

Labelling fascists as socialists only suits the current far-right narrative. Socialism was very popular during the 1930s, including in the UK. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes should not be confused with Socialism or Democratic Socialism. The political and economic spectrum is extremely broad - who's ever heard of anarcho-syndicalists for example. Do people understand the difference between classic liberalism and libertarianism. My point being - it's too easy to use simplistic labels to push a particular agenda, that's the job of Populists.

Except the Fascists literally WERE socialists. Their entire system was built of Giovanni Gentile’s socialist theory and the need to unify state control with business capital to creat syndicalism in which the state controlled everything. Everything within the state, nothing outside it, nothing against it. Seriously, haven’t you studied ANY of the history of socialism? By redefining it to only cover modern Democratic Socialism and the early French Utopian Socialism you install fall prey to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You don’t get to only pick the “nice” versions of socialism and pretend the rest don’t count.

@@christianlasala7603 Are you saying Hitler was woke?

​@@vivo-audioFar-right?????? Pffffft. Benito Mussoulini was a damn socialist and fascism was opposed to free-market capitalism

@@hectordiaz1575 How is free market capitalism going these days? I do remember socialism bailing the banks out in 2008, so it's not all bad. While Mussolini may have started his political career as a socialist - he died a fascist.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

The German capitalists turned to the NAZI's as a way to save themeselves from a workers revolution where the workers took control of Industry unlike the NAZI who were handed control of the capitalist state by the big capitalist bosses and President General Hindenburg. .

You're suffering from what I call the American Brain Disease. It's the implicit belief that any worldview that does not adopt unregulated capitalism is leftism. Nazis were right wing. Go cry about it.

Before volkism, one has to give regard to Strasbourg pogram. We see the impetus of socialist thought in Europe's mid ages and that it was race-indexed and antisemitic. It was workers organized in guilds which sought racial collective and implored government to affect the prejudice versus foreigners and jews as policy. Centuries later, Germans made this into some intellectual matter of Judenfrage. Marx is indulged in it in his "zur Judenfrage", Adolf Stoeker is crystal clear as to socialism being an art of racism. Before any of these men, American socialist George Fitzhugh clearly rationalizes slavery for white collectivism. German mittelstandism underscores that it is race notwithstanding economic class which comprised the traditional german collective idea, or one could just read Tonnies who recognized race is human collective #1. Globally, nation and race are linked. There's a reason why Germany is named after germanics and their language. This is how most nations founded before the 19th century are.

@@soulcapitalist6204 The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite! From the end of the Communist Manifesto. Nothing about a superior Germanic Race like Hitler. In fact Marx mocks the True "German" Socialism. "While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things. " From the Communist Manifesto. It was in fact not the working class but the German middle class who were Hitler's base. A class being driven into a frenzy by the economic crisis of German capitalism caused in part by the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon them. It is common knowledge that "Henry Ford was an anti semite who published "The International Jew" and that the only American mentioned favorable in Mein Kampf is Henry Ford who also received a NAZI medal just before war broke out.

Why should a business owner in capitalism get all (most) of the profit? Yes, he has an initial investment money (often inherited from parents, but not slways ofc), he risked that sum to invest in business and had an idea. But his company wouldn't be successful on the market, or even exist, if it wasn't for his workers/employees dedication and hard work. They invest their life (time) and work, to get a wage in return (often fixed) while the owner swoops all the extra profit for himself

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.

Your dad is a very wise man.

fascism is a very simple concept. it is a government of one voice. one man the dictator has total control, and everyone else contorts to fit his view, or assasinates him to take power.

It’s certainly an easy definition: Fascism, and communism of the same thing, and anything that involves any government regulation is fascism and communism. Essentially anarcho libertarians are the only people who are not fascist and communist. LOL

@Trevor Brannon well but hopefully not through authoritarian rule, followed by a war of genocide

@@walterbailey2950 Fascism socialism and communism are when the state seizes the means of production IE all private business, commerce, and all property- then dictates how it will be distributed. To do this, someone ultimately needs to be in charge of everything, and who gets what - and now you have fascism. Hitlers socialists blossomed into fascists. Stalins communism was in fact fascism. Everytime there is a communist leader, he becomes a fascist, its in the very nature and design of top down managment. No human being is going to be able to resist ultimate power when you literally hand it to them. They reward their friends, and punish their enemies and thus you have a tyrant, a despot, a FASCIST who nobody can disagree with, speak or go against and a system inferior to a REPUBLIC where everyone has rights that cant be violated.

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

@ag4875capitalism isn’t an empire

@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

@@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

@@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.

Socialism is just huge scam, and gullible people are falling for it. A group of conmen saying to all people: "yeah, just give us everything you have and we know what is best for everyone". And once they get in power, they take everything legally and by force and call it "nationalization", and crush all opposition.

In your opinion do you think there is anything better than capitalism?

@@jmgonzales7701 Just depends on how you define capitalism

@@jacywilson there is more than one capitalism??? I'm not aware, is there anything better than capitalism?

@@jmgonzales7701 yep socialists have a different definition of capitalism

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.

@Florentino Perez good man? Contrarians are the reason bad times begin and we all know what bad times lead to.

@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.

useful idiots

They totally didn't start corporatism

Or maybe it's because it's a still debated political and historical subject and that the scientific consensus is not what this video says ?

@@Kurowll why are we wanting scientific consensus on a historical fact?

@@Kurowll "Scientific consensus" HAHAHAHA

"God" is as big a grift as this video is.

@@steviewondek Cover your eyes and ears, historical truths like these completely undermine the false narrative that socialism is evil!

So history is going to repeat itself because Hitler had some socialist policies, therefore all socialists = Hitler? Lol

@Van Brighouse What cult lol It's you guys who go on to spout shit like nazism = communism, or that free universities are "literally Venezuela", and now apparently also that Roosevelt was a socialist, which lemme guess, makes him no different to a commie in your eyes? Your understanding of politics is so surface level and lacking nuance that it's impossible to have a good faith discussion.

@Van Brighouse except the OP lol

"I tried to accomplish my mission by impressing on the Führer and the Party as a whole that private initiative, the self‐reliance of the business man, and the creative powers of free enterprise should be recognized as the basic economic policy of the Party. The Führer personally stressed time and again, during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state‐economy and of so‐called “planned economy”, and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production." -Walther Funk "National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." - Adolf Hitler

@Van Brighouse The channel owner is deliberately pushing an ideological agenda, he's a libertarian buffoon who thinks that he himself was a socialist because he once believed in welfare

@Van Brighouse hello socialshit that hasn't watched the video!

@@randomuser3481 Hello socialshit that hasn't watched the video, continue living in denial

@Van Brighouse nice bot account.

No it doesn't. Everybody can quote something and do the exact opposite.

​@@ad3l547Its about prinicipal private property u dont understand it collectivist

The tribal part of Nazi was actually the tolerable part. The Socialism part was really the main reason they killed millions of people. Just like all the Communist State, 100 millions of people died because they mix Marxist , a noble end goal, with Socialism. Socialism is the idea on economy, Socialism is the main cause of most of the atrocities happened in the last century.

​@@oscartang4587u3 billions of people died because of socialism? 😂 im anti any socialism that was implemented in the 20th century but billions? Come on man

​@@oscartang4587u3 "tribalism was not the bad part" Oh okay i guess killing millions of people because they weren't part of the "tribe" wasn't so bad then

@@Admiral-General_Aladeen I mean socialists sure think it’s fine.

​​@@colebehnke7767 YES it's almost like almost every radical group thinks that is fine being that being said being extremly focused on racial purity doesn't help that does it?

Ownership of property is always conditional.

This whole video is garbage agit-prop

There's also the pogroms racially and commercially, the politburo/fuhrerprincip being the same polity, the charismatic leadership principles, the brainwashing education...

Dude, even 'Oversimplified' has videos about n-zis and h-tler literally famously and historically-documented go to a Communist-Gathering, meaning to sabotage it, realizing they are the opposite and then joining them and making them larger.

Completely wrong

@@Schnoz42069you could provide a better argument then “oh the Soviet Union wasn’t actually socialist”.

​@@colebehnke7767that argument is true, though. The SU never managed to achieve the type of civilization socialists strive for, and while we can argue that comunism doesnt work on practice, which might be true, we cant ignore that the ideology doesnt defend any of that, and that socialism isnt actually that

Socialism isn't state control it is worker control

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

some ppl seem to think that total centralized control of everything and the elimination of the idea of the individual, punishing free speech with death, and rationing everything & the "govt" setting the prices on everything is "capitalism"

Ok but that doesn’t make them socialist

Everything they did and believed isn’t even socialist

What do you define socialism as, then? Because according to the definition that is most commonly accepted by socialists, that being that socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, the Nazis were not socialist and were in fact anti-socialist

@@sweetmyth2537 how so?

And Green is Legionary Movement.

Socialists AKA People of Colour.

Middest argument of all time. Let me prove it: American Republican party is purple. LooK itS soCiAlIsT beCauSE iT's a ColOuR My problem with this quote is in the frasing, not the content, but as it is it can be easily proven wrong, as I already did

I saw a poll recently that said that the Economist was the most trusted media source. I couldn't believe it!

@@TheImperatorKnight What can’t you believe, Obergruppenführer Tik. Reich’s media New York Times till this day has not apologized for its passionate endorsement of the Soviet Russia in 1930s. It still refuse to acknowledge Chinese Coronavirus as a lab product and bioweapon. Search “war is not far from us Chi Haotian Chinese century”

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 😂😭

@Van Brighouse ty si dobrý kokot

@Van Brighouse And what are you saying? " must try harder" you are the perfect definition of talking so much but saying yet so little. That only communists can be socialists? The whole point flew above your head

@Van Brighouse " who is hated communists" are one of the first words in your broken ass sentence. Dont talk to me about my comprehension, cupcake. Instead of repeating your point to validate your shitty opinion you just call me a cultist, back to reddit 🚪🚶‍♂️

@Van Brighouse All communists are socialists but not at all socialists are communists, they can be social democrats, national socialists ( nazi ) etc. You get what I'm saying now? Just because they were anti communist doesnt mean they werent socialist themselves.

@Van Brighouse haha okay Trotsky 🤣🤣 you probably deny the Molotov-Ribbentrops pact existance