National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History

National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History


What is National Socialism? National Socialism.
National Communism.
Whoa? Wait a second. WHAT?
Yeah. Let me explain.
According to Marxists, modern society is capitalist.
And communism is the goal. Socialism is what
happens on the way to communism. (Yes, I’m
being super simple here, but this is
the basic gist.) For Hitler, socialism was
the goal, rather than the transition period.
So, yeah Hitler was actually moving towards
Communism. I’m just going to let that sink
in for a second. And in reality, the Soviets
never reached true communism, so they were
socialist as well. So when you look at the
history of the Second World War, and the Axis-Soviet
Front, you have to realise that this is two
socialist states going at each other. And
this seems to be one of the biggest and most
fundamental misunderstandings people have
about the Second World War. They think it’s
the Far-Right vs the Far-Left war.
But is this really the case? Well, actually
no. It’s actually quite difficult to tell
the difference between National Socialism
and Soviet Socialism, because they’re both
socialist states with authoritarian leaders.
And this is, in fact, a historical debate.
Were these two states the same or not? And, well this isn’t as crazy as it sounds when you realise that
Marxist socialism is but one variant of socialism.
Because Socialism is a spectrum in itself.
“Hitler was as much a socialist as Marx.
They both shared the same ultimate goal – the
socialisation of the people into a harmonious
community free of exploitation – but they
differed significantly in the methods required
to achieve it.”
The origins of National Socialism lie in the
pre-Hitler German Workers Party. People like
Rudolf Jung, Karl Harrer and Anton Drexler
defined what National Socialism was. Hitler
wasn’t the guy who invented it – he just
sold it to the masses. The Munich version
of the German Workers Party was founded on
the 5th of January 1919 by Drexler and Harrer.
Even at this point, the name of the party
was up for debate. Drexler argued that the
word ‘socialist’ would show solidarity
with the working class and keep ties with
the other German National Socialist parties
in other states. On the other hand, Harrer
argued that the word ‘socialist’ shouldn’t
be part of the title because, by not having
it in the title, this would reduce middle-class
hostility towards the party. And without the
word ‘socialist’ in the title, they could
present the case that they were advocating
social welfare, rather than social equality.
But the reality was, they were doing the latter.
Once Hitler became the leader, on the 24th
of February 1920, the German Workers’ Party
was renamed. It became the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party. Yes, the word ‘socialist’
was added back into the title by Hitler himself.
The new Nazi flag – the black swastika in
a white circle, inside a red field – was created by him
as well. In essence, this was a red socialist
flag, a white nationalist flag, and a pro-Aryan
and anti-Semitic flag inside it. But this
was both socialist, nationalist and racist.
“We National Socialists regarded our flag
as being the embodiment of our party programme.
The red expressed the social thought underlying
the movement. White the national thought.
And the swastika signified the mission allotted
to us – the struggle for the victory of Aryan
mankind and at the same time the triumph of
the ideal of creative work which is in itself
and always will be anti-Semitic.”
Also on this same night that the party was
refounded came the Twenty-Five Points – the
only published National Socialist German Workers’
Party manifesto. Points 1 to 3 demand national
unity for all Germans. Points 4 to 8 were
directed against the Jews and recent immigrants.
And Points 9 to 21 (almost half of the points)
were socialist in content. These aimed to
bring about social welfare, nationalisation
of industry, land reforms and so on. And Hitler
had his hand in all of these points.
When Hitler came into power, the government
got rid of trade unions, but replaced them
with the “German Labour Front”, a state
owned body which promoted cleaner working
environments, better canteen food, factory
renovations and social security for the unemployed.
This was socialism. Similarly, the Party’s
“Strength Through Joy” or KdF policy saw
state-subsidized holidays for all social classes.
Cruises, activities, and excursions – all
were popular with the people. And this is
the point – when you hear people say that
the Nazis did good things prior to the war,
they’re talking about these socialist policies.
Why? Because this was a redistribution of
wealth which benefits the working classes.
“Hitler wanted an economy that he could
“control without owning”, thereby removing
the need to annihilate the entrepreneurial
classes within a civil war, as the Bolsheviks
had done. He regarded Marx and Lenin as having
had the right outcomes in mind but they had
gone about the project in the wrong way.”
When the Munich Putsch failed in November
of 1923, the National Socialist German Workers
Party basically disappeared. Hitler then wrote
Mein Kampf inside Landsberg prison. And did
you know that Mein Kampf is a best-seller
in the United States… on the Kindle?
Just wanted to point that out. But it’s also
available online for free. So everyone can
get a copy of this book and take a look, assuming
you haven’t got a copy already. But my question
to all of you who have a copy of this book
– have you actually read it? And did these
guys actually read it as well? The answer is probably,
no. Why? Because it’s terrible – and I’m
not just talking about the racism and whatnot
(which is just awful); I’m talking about
the writing itself. It rambles on and on,
going over the same points several times,
and is probably one of the worst written books
of all time. It’s like a cross between Shakespeare,
Dickens and Tolkien – the gibberish just goes
on and on, talking about the same stuff,
over and over, that’s not important,
and leaves the reader wondering
why they bothered reading in the first place.
But I’ll come back to the rambling later. The
point I want to bring up now is the definition
of National Socialism by Hitler himself – which
he defines throughout the book. So, don your
monocles and prepare to read, from sie Führer.
“The readiness to sacrifice one’s personal
work and, if necessary, even one’s life
for others shows its most highly developed
form in the Aryan race. The greatness of the
Aryan is not based on his intellectual powers,
but rather on his willingness to devote all
his faculties to the service of the community.”
National Socialism is a community where Aryans
help each other. The Aryan lives for the state,
and self-preservation gives way to the community,
and the greater race.
“The spirit underlying this attitude is
expressed by the word: WORK, which to him
does not at all signify a means of earning
one’s daily livelihood but rather a productive
activity which cannot clash with the interests
of the community.”
“For the work which the individual performs
is not the purpose of his existence, but only
a means. His real purpose in life is to better
himself and raise himself to a higher level
as a human being; but this he can only do
in and through the community whose cultural
life he shares.”
National Socialism allows people to earn a
living, but they’re all working towards
a higher cause – the race. And the community,
and the race and the state, come first. Therefore,
National Socialism is absolutely not capitalism.
It’s more like a bee-hive. Individuals,
and even businesses, are working to produce
honey for the Leader, so that the race as
a whole may survive. They don’t like foreigners,
and there can only be one Queen-bee. And if
you rebel, or if your business doesn’t fit
the mold, the Leader (the State) can get rid
of you – for the good of the greater Aryan
hive.
So let’s talk about this Aryan business.
Hitler says animals breed with their own species.
Cross breeding is not allowed in the animal
kingdom, and when it happens the offspring
is sterile. Because the stronger must dominate
the weak, there is a natural urge for there
not to be any mixing of breeds. Therefore
a superior race should not intermingle with
an inferior one. And this is when he starts
talking about the Jews.
“With the Jewish people the readiness for
sacrifice does not extend beyond the simple
instinct of individual preservation.”
“Jews act in concord only when a common
danger threatens them or a common prey attracts
them. Where these two motives no longer exist
then the most brutal egotism appears and these
people who before had lived together in unity
will turn into a swarm of rats that bitterly
fight against each other.” …apparently.
And he just goes on and on about the Jews.
“If the Jews were the only people in the
world they would be wallowing in filth and
mire and would exploit one another and try
to exterminate one another in a bitter struggle…”
The irony of this statement being that Hitler
would later go on to exploit and exterminate
the Jews themselves, as well as other races.
Yeah, the whole book is filled with this prejudice.
So, in Hitler’s mind, the Jews don’t work
towards the Aryan German state because they
don’t care about the national community.
In his eyes, they are vermin, and he goes
on to call them parasites. Therefore they’re
bad for the Aryan hive, and must be eliminated.
“At the beginning of the [First World] War,
or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen
thousand of these Jews who were corrupting
the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas,
just as hundreds of thousands of our best
German workers from every social stratum and
from every trade and calling had to face it
in the field, then millions of sacrifices
made at the front would not have been in vain.
On the contrary: If twelve thousand of these
malefactors had been eliminated in proper
time probably the lives of a million decent
men, who would be of value to Germany in the
future, might have been saved.”
Hitler is saying, if they’d killed a bunch
of Jews in the first world war, they would
have saved many good honest German lives… somehow. So you can see his logic going into the Second
World War. He also says the Jews invented
communism – which they didn’t, but the important
point is that he thinks they did. And this
is the point where he tries to separate his
socialism from their socialism. And he does
this by race. If you’re part of the Aryan
race, you can be a citizen of the socialist state that
he’s going to create.
“The People’s State will classify its population
in three groups: Citizens, subjects of the
State, and aliens.”
“The rights of citizenship shall be conferred
on every young man whose health and character
have been certified as good, after having
completed his period of military service.”
“On the occasion of conferring a diploma
of citizenship the new citizen must take a
solemn oath of loyalty to the national community
and the State.”
The bees get the benefit of having the honey,
and the protection of the state. But only
if they’re bees of this state. Foreign bees
– or other parasites – are not allowed.
“The racial Weltanschauung is fundamentally
distinguished from the Marxist by reason of
the fact that the former recognizes the significance
of race and therefore also personal worth
and has made these the pillars of its structure.”
This is it! Hitler has spelt it out.
What differentiates National Socialism from
other Marxisms is race. It is socialism, but
only for the Aryan.
“If the National Socialist Movement should
fail to understand the fundamental importance
of this essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of
the present State and adopt the majority principle,
it would really do nothing more than compete
with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason
it would not have the right to call itself
a Weltanschauung. If the social programme
of the movement consisted in eliminating personality
and putting the multitude in its place, then
National Socialism would be corrupted with
the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois
parties are.”
The difference between Marxism and Nazism
is the race – individual Aryan bees working
towards the hive. Not all are equal in this
type of bee-socialism – there are individual
bees who are better than others – but they
do have an equal chance to climb the ladder.
And individual bees do have rights, and businesses,
but the state can intervene in those rights,
and dictate what your businesses can and can’t
do, for the benefit of the greater Aryan bee.
Yeah, this really is a socialist state. But
access to this state is based on race, not
class. The Marxist ‘classless society’
ideal was redefined as a ‘national community’
– but really, these were the same thing.
“Hitler’s broadest vision was that of
the Volksgemeinschaft, the national community
to be ruled by an elite blood-order. That
to him would transcend the need for class
barriers which he saw as artificial and which
stifled real creative talent.”
Mein Kampf goes on to say a lot more than
this, but the point has been rammed home enough.
Hitler’s creation was a merger of two seductive
ideologies – international socialism and nationalistic
pride. Fusing both of these two together, Hitler didn’t need to nationalise the industries.
“Why do we need all that socialisation of
the banks and factories? What does it matter
once I have the people firmly fitted into
a discipline from which they cannot escape?
We are socialising the people.”
So, do not think the German Nazi state in
the 1930’s and 40’s is capitalism – it
really isn’t capitalism. It’s a state
controlled economy. For the Nazis, socialism
was state intervention in private business,
rather than state ownership of business. Employer
and employee remained – so long as they were
part of the Aryan race.
So yes, these guys are communists basically – or, at least, they’re more communist than they
may have realised. And you may not have made
this connection before now either. And I don’t
blame you. National Socialists also don’t
like communists, so it’s natural to think
that these two ideologies are not similar.
But they are.
The reason Hitler hates the communists is
because, he says, communism was created by
the Jews – his mortal enemy. But, placing
the Jewish element aside for a moment, I would
argue that the reason Hitler drones on and
on about how much he hates communism and how
much that his party and their parties are
not the same is because he needs to differentiate
his socialism with their socialism. Having
read the primary source, I get the impression
that the ramblings he goes on about for the
vast majority of the book are only there to
make sure everyone is clear that he isn’t
a Marxist-Socialist. Because there isn’t
much of a difference between what he’s saying
and what they’re saying, so he’s trying
to come up with a difference. In fact, his
hatred of the Jews, and the ideal of the Aryan
race, is actually the main difference between
the two ideologies.
Now, when you look at the Second World War,
what you have to realise is that you have
two socialist states fighting against each
other. However, this is just their economic
policy. Hitler’s National Socialists are
definitely nationalists – which is a right-wing
idea. So really, you’ve got a Party, or
a state, which is both Left-wing and Right-wing
at the same time. How can this be? Well, this
is why the traditional political spectrum
doesn’t make any sense in the WW2 context. Why is Nazism next to fascism? That
doesn’t make any sense either. And why is Anarchism next to Communism? Again, that doesn’t
make any sense. So let’s get rid of that.
Instead, let’s look at each aspect as a
separate spectrum. Economics and politics
are basically not the same. I guess you
could even have Left and Right within this
as well. But all we need to know is that both
of these states are economically socialist
and politically authoritarian.
“A strong national Reich which recognizes
and protects to the largest possible measure
the rights of its citizens both within and
outside its frontiers can allow freedom to
reign at home without trembling for the safety
of the State. On the other hand, a strong
national Government can intervene to a considerable
degree in the liberties of the individual
subject as well as in the liberties of the
constituent states without thereby weakening
the ideal of the Reich;”
Bees give up their freedom for the greater
hive – definitely authoritarian. To contrast
this to the USA at the time of WW2, the USA
would be Right economically, and probably
mostly Left on the political spectrum – since
she’s not a democracy, she is a Republic.
“The Republic for which it stands.” Britain
in the 1940’s onwards would probably be
classed as mostly socialist economically (due
to state intervention in the economy for the
war effort, and the post-war social welfare
state) but also where the USA is on the political
spectrum due to the Parliamentary system.
And when you think of the Cold War, the same
applies. Think of it in terms of democracy
versus totalitarian governments, rather than
capitalism versus socialism, since socialist
governments also fought on the side of the USA.
So yes, National Socialism is actually authoritarian
socialism, which itself is not that much different
to Stalinist socialism. In fact, is there much of a difference between these two states?
This is an ongoing historical debate
– just how similar are these two ideologies?
And I’m not going to get into that debate
here. But it’s safe to say that, in terms
of their philosophies and political influences,
as well as their economic policies, governments
and other aspects, National Socialism and
Stalinism are very similar indeed.
And, in terms of World War Two, what we need
to realise is that this was a war between
two giant authoritarian power-blocks. It is
a war between different dictators. It is a
war of ideologies. It is a racial war. It
is a war of annihilation. But it’s also
a war to see which version of socialism is
the better version of socialism – and this
is a central part of the war. So basically, to sum
up, when you think of National Socialism – think
Racist Communists, and you won’t be far off.
Thank you to my Patreons for your continuing
support. I required several books in order
to make this video, and without your support,
it wouldn’t have been possible. For further
reading, I’m going to recommend the short
book called “How ‘socialist’ was National
Socialism?” by Brown. It’s cheap and pretty
good. He goes off on one at the end saying
that Nazism were on the far Left, and therefore
Left-wing politics is bad (which is perhaps
his agenda in writing the piece in the first place, I don’t know). And also he claims that the Nazi-Soviet
War was a socialist civil war – which isn’t
true because they have two separate states,
so this wasn’t a civil war at all. But before
this point, it’s a very interesting book.
And that’s just the last two pages, so forget that.
And it certainly gets you thinking, at the very least. So I’d recommend that.
Anyway, thanks for watching, thanks for supporting.
Bye for now.

61 comments

  1. PLEASE READ

    I’ve replaced my original pinned comments in BOTH videos because people either ignored them completely (pinned comments is where I list my sources, not the description as many of you claimed) or because I wanted to address many of the criticisms that people had about these videos. Since comments can only be so long, I’ve had to split this into sections. So please make sure you check out the comments below this one. Sources will be listed in the following post, as are links to a couple of videos etc.

    First of all, the National Socialist economy and society in Germany was absolutely not capitalist (no matter how much people scream at me that it is). After crushing imports and exports in 1933-1934 in order to promote Autarky and rearmament, party officials were basically in every shop and business, providing them with goods or foreign currency, and dictating policy etc. On top of this, Autarky crushed imports and exports, causing the end of trade, helping to isolate Germany from the globalized economy. All this caused a massive economic crisis in 1934, but to quote Tooze's Wages of Destruction –

    "…in practice the Reichsbank and the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs had no intention of allowing the radical activists of the SA, the shopfloor militants of the Nazi party or Gauleiter commissioners to dictate the course of events. Under the slogan of the 'strong state', the ministerial bureaucracy fashioned a new national structure of economic regulation." – P112

    "It would be absurd to deny the reality of this shift. The crisis of corporate capitalism in the course of the Great Depression did permanently alter the balance of power. Never again was big business to influence the course of government in German as directly as it did between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the onset of the Depression in 1929. The Reich's economic administration, for its part, accumulated unprecedented powers of national economic control." – P113

    And this was 1934. So this was absolutely not capitalism. And if it's heavy state intervention, with a planned centralized economy, without being capitalism, what could it be?

    A commenter critical of what I was saying (Adrian Mahon) said that my definition of socialism was wrong, and that – "It's about power relationships and shifting these to the workers"

    Ok, I absolutely agree with what he’s saying there. From an ideological perspective of what was defined by Marx, that's a fair assessment. And I don't disagree – I never have done. But, there's an issue with this definition historically. And people have given other definitions (revolutionary vs non-revolutionary, “seizing the means of production” etc). In fact, socialism doesn’t have “one” definition because as Evans wrote –

    “When an intellectual historian reads Hobbes’s Leviathan or Marx’s Das Kapital, it is not in order to use their writings to reconstruct something outside them, but in order to construct an interpretation of what they mean or meant. There are indeed many interpretations of these thinkers’ ideas, not least because the systems of thought Hobbes and Marx established were so wide-ranging that they never became completely closed.” – Evans, R. “In Defence of History.” Granta Books, Kindle.

    So, let’s not pretend that socialism is a fixed definition. Now, some of you also have this concern –

    "We are seeing a rise of fascism; to 'revise' the meaning of socialism plays to a particular audience that (I'm hoping) you don't want." – Adrian Mahon.

    I agree, and I absolutely don't want to see a rise in fascism or National Socialism. I cannot stress this enough. I've already said a couple videos back that I'm doing a Holocaust documentary because I'm sick to death of people preaching Holocaust (and Holodomor) denial. It's sickening. So, do not think I'm at all promoting either ideology. Several people claimed I was ‘redefining socialism’ so I could deny the Holocaust. No idea where that came from. And actually, by saying that National Socialism wasn't socialism – this actually plays into the National Socialist and denialist hands. Now, at first you might think – why? Well, let me explain with a bit of history –

    Hitler genuinely believed in his version of 'socialism', and thought it was a form of 'socialism'. It doesn't matter if you think that it's socialism or not at this point, just run with it. So, when Hitler comes to power in 1933, he 'socialized' the German economy by removing the Jewish influence from government etc and imposes his version of 'socialism'. And this actually caused an economic crisis by 1934 as a result. This was due to Autarky and armaments spending (see the previous quotes in my above comment which are linked to this).

    With the 'socialization' of the people, he removed Jews from society, and heavily restricted trade, ending capitalism. And he geared up for war. Military spending was less than 1% of the budget in 1933, and was 10% in 1935. This was “- a bigger and quicker increase than ever seen before in peacetime in a capitalist state.” from Rees, L. “The Holocaust: A New History.” Penguin Books, 2017. Page 92.

    Now, why would he do this? Is it just for military conquest? Or is there some sort of underlying motive?

    And yes, there's an underlying motive. Going back to Mein Kampf, what he see is his version of Nationalism (which is entwined with his 'socialism'). As a brief explanation – he thought that the species shouldn't mix breeds. And that Aryan peoples built nations. However, the reason he thinks nations collapsed in the past had nothing to do with war etc; it was all because the Aryans interbred with the lesser races. In Hitler's mind, the dilution of Aryan blood would weaken the race, and bring down the nation. Yes, complete lunacy, but there's little doubt he thought this.

    And he honestly thought that the Jews were the absolute worse race, and the fact they didn't have a nation of their own (at the time) proved his theory right. In Mein Kampf, Hitler says that the Jews were like parasites who would latch onto Aryan nations and dilute Aryan blood with their own blood by interbreeding. Therefore Hitler thought that the Jews had to be removed from society to prevent the Aryan German blood from being diluted, and thus causing the downfall of the German race.

    However, there's the Marxist problem too. In Hitler's mind, the Jews were championing Marxism. The reason was stated as: if they made everything equal and classless, this would give the Jews the best chance to interbreed with everyone and thus bring about the fall of humanity. Yes, it's ridiculous, but that's where he went with it.

    So, you can see why he hated Bolshevism so much. He thought that international communism would allow the Jews to destroy the Aryan races. He therefore decided to take action and beat the Jews before they beat the Aryans. This is why he wanted to go East. He viewed the Slavs as slaves owned by the Jews. But if they conquered the Soviet Union, rid the Jews from society, the Slavs would serve the master German Aryans for a 1,000 years.

    Now, Adrian Mahon said "Can we agree agree on what 'socialist' means (hint: it's not state intervention). It's about power relationships and shifting these to the workers" Ok, but let's look at what Hitler thought for a moment.

    Hitler thought that 'socialism' was about power relationships too. The difference was that he thought the way to solve the issue wasn't by having the workers rise up. But actually by removing the Jews. (I know this isn't socialism as Marx defined it, but stick with me for a bit longer) If he removed the Jews, then the power relationships wouldn't happen. The Aryan race would all work together as a collective to better the German nation – the elites would help their fellow men, and the workers could rise to the top. Hitler does say that the ladder still exists because individuals should be able to climb up if they're better than others. That would actually help the race because supposedly the better elements of the race would rise upwards. (And you do have quite a bit of social movement in the National Socialist era of Germany, so it's not completely correct to say he was just saying this stuff.)

    Now, this Hitler-version of 'socialism' is actually mixed with his Nationalism. Hitler redefined this to mean that the state was the absolute embodiment of the race (his 'Nationalism'). However, the two are intermixed. You can't have one without the other. The state/people need to remove the Jews, and the state/people need to work together. Now, if you keep this idea in mind – that the Nationalism and the Socialism element are equal and the same – look what happens when we consider the history of the time:

    When you think of the trains taking people to the forced labour camps, the concentration camps, the death camps etc, what you have to remember is that, this absolutely wasn't free-market forces doing this. This was a systematic industrial mass-killing, controlled by the state (hence my "intervention in economy and society" bit), and I would absolutely argue that this could not have happened to this extent in a free-market capitalist economy. How would a business market "Murder of Racial Minorities on a Mass Scale" in any capitalist society? It just wouldn't happen to this extent. Yeah, you have persecutions and murder during wartime etc, but not mass-industrial-scale-murder.

  2. It is not an easy topic – this left/right political spectrum… especially that it it's mostly used by parties trying to put themselfs somewhere to hide they true agenda.

    TIK: very interesting and bold analysis. Hope it will open some eyes 🙂
    I guess it is easier to understand/agree with for somebody how know much about middle and eastern Europe's history. We, Polish have experienced both regimes and puting official labels aside, their goals, structure, tools and everydays behaviours were tremendously similiar.

    Keep up the good work!

  3. Rethinking? Where is the thinking part? This is a confused person trying to convert others to his confusion so he would appear lucid.

  4. Lol 20+ minutes of someone being wrong about something that could be disproved by looking at Mein Kampf cliffnotes for a half hour. Hitler opposed communism and internationalism in his writings, his biggest enemies werr marxists/socialists/communists, he purged socialists during Night of the Long Knives and the term privatization was invented to describe his economic policies of mass privatizing state industries.

  5. what a fucking dumbass, the Nazis engaged in the first mass privatization of in history that the word "privatization" was COINED from reporting on it

  6. Do you ever have guests come over who take one look at your bookshelf and suddenly get a really concerned look on their face?

  7. Any man who is brave enough to spread the truth against the socialists of YouTube gains my respect and subscribing.

  8. National socialist here, you are wrong. The definition of socialism by Hitler is simply being willing to give to the community while having your own individual rights. And if you look at the economy, you will find it that it was a mixed economy. conservatives who call Nazis communist just to disassociate with them are pathetic dolts and flatheads. Stop lying and speak truth! Only then can we find out what is right.

  9. 3:44 – This shows, that Hitler is far from being a mad-man. But today's people aren't familiar with the thoughts of his days, so we don't understand some of these things. Thank you, TIK, for making it so clear and understandable!!! 😀

  10. hey man you made a mistake here, but I literally love your military history videos, they are of great quality, in this topic I would reccomend an open mind a little bit more reading, and keep up the effort, dont mind the ideological finger pointing, its good to discuss this matters from a humble and open view point. I honestly think that what happened in nazi germany was a form of corporativism, not socialism but I like how you generally show an honest intellectual pursuit of objective truth, not personal truth.

  11. Enormous finance and industrial capital invested into Germany AFTER Hitler and the NSDAP took power. Contrast this to the USSR who's very beginnings are completely intermixed with said capitalism. From Marx working for major, heavily funded internationalpapers out of London, to Trotsky being very close friends with Adam Schiff, and other big wigs of Wall Street and European banks, to Lenin and the entire party apparatus allowing the take over of the Russian economy by US corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, IBM, Ford, and Army Hammer (to name but a small fraction). Capitalism funded not only the revolution and the beginnings, but the entire Soviet period. It was fully invested and propping it up the entire time.

    Communism is Capitalism's "Frankenstein's Monster", but one that it deliberately set loose to create power vacuums from the smoke. Sure, some land-owners, farmers, churches, and other "Bourgeoise" elements were stripped down… But did that put a dent at the top of the towers? Fuck no.

  12. If I asked modern day politician why government should intervene in to economy they would say something similar to Hitlers reason

  13. What a load of half digested BS! In the book shelf behind you Ian Kershaws brilliant biography of Hitler is clearly visible. I you had read it you would have come across this very accurate description:
    "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state."

  14. WOW! What a Leftist double standard! We can see the hammer and sickle on YouTube all day long, but not the swastika! Both are symbols of hate, murder and oppression and yet we can't see both. The Leftists who run YouTube are obviously fascists who sympathize with the communism! Fuck off YouTube! America First! Trump 2020

  15. “Nationalist ideology divides society vertically; the socialist ideology divides society horizontally.”

    Ludwig Von Mises

  16. At the beginning of the 20th century, nationalism eclipsed all else, culminating in the nationalist Ragnarök of World War I. The Great War was unprecedented in its brutality, rang the final death knell of liberalism, and accelerated the political rise of socialism throughout Europe, most significantly in Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, but also democratically in the interwar republics. With liberalism vanquished, nationalism vied with socialism until the two merged, most significantly in the — initially democratic — rise of Nazism (National Socialism) in Germany. Under “fathers of the people” like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, the most inhuman atrocities were inflicted upon individuals in the name of the nation, the workers, the people. The beautiful civilization of Europe, birthplace of modern liberty, was marred with slave camps, death camps, gulags, man-made famines, and all the horrors of total war described earlier.

    https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/how-nationalism-and-socialism-arose-from-the-french-revolution-c80d8e1696de

  17. Hitler said that Jews created and perpetuated MARXISM. Not Communism. There is such a thing as Communism without Marxism.

  18. Nice propaganda mix, with real facts and a lot of lies. for example the war betwen 2 socialist country! You fogot to mention ther are 2 imperialistic countris whou declare war against Germany ! Allso it is a fact that comunism was invented by Jues like : Marx, Lenin. So basicly yours story is just NWO propaganda!

  19. Let’s see what Goebbels thought:

    Why Are We Socialists?

    We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

    Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

    The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

    The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

    We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

    Explanation: “The thinking worker comes to Hitler,” the caption says. A communist and a socialist are accusing each other of betraying the working class.

    Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

    We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

    We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

    We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm

  20. Moreover, as Ludwig von Mises demonstrated,2 the allegedly "right-wing" social order of Nazi Germany was just as socialistic as was Lenin's Russia. Through economic interventions the German government completely took over the economy. The only "market" left was a sham. Private individuals owned the means of production in name only. Real ownership of the means of production was in the hands of the state. This is what Mises called "socialism of the German or Hindenburg pattern." This variety of socialism is also known as Zwangswirtschaft, which is basically German for "compulsory economy." Those who were once entrepreneurs devolve in a Zwangswirtschaft into mere shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer in Nazi legalese), following the orders of a central command.

    The only way in which "socialism of the Russian or Lenin pattern" (as Mises termed the more familiar variant of socialism) is distinct from the Zwangswirtschaft is in the nonessential fact that it has no such veneer of faux-private ownership. Its socialism is simply more overt.

    Another way of stating this is as follows. In the populist propaganda of Bolshevism, under "socialism of the Russian or Lenin pattern" the people ostensibly own the state, and the state in turn owns the means of production. While, under the sham capitalism of Nazism and "socialism of the German or Hindenburg pattern," the people ostensibly own the means of production, but the state in turn owns the people.

    Thus these occupants of different political "poles" really occupy the same ground and are only separated by a trivial technicality: the existence or absence of a sham market. Each variant of socialism does indeed have its own distinctive path. But it has nothing to do with "left vs. right," "poor vs. rich," or "weak vs. powerful." Rather, it is a matter of "bureaucratization vs. interventionism." Bureaucratization, by forthrightly gobbling up the market bite by bite, leads to the overt socialism of the Russian or Lenin pattern. Interventionism, by subtly crippling the market and replacing it incrementally with a network of government diktats, leads to the sham market of socialism of the German or Hindenburg pattern.3

    Revolutionary socialist governments, like the Nazi and the Bolshevist states, will generally adopt one path or the other. But it is by no means necessarily an either/or choice. Gradual approaches toward socialism, like the one the United States is currently taking, often rely on both: overtly socializing an industry via nationalization here and covertly socializing an industry via market interventions there. And one type of socialization often leads to the other. Thus through this gradual, dual approach to socialization, one can imagine what one day might be called "socialism of the American pattern" arising, characterized by a hodgepodge of vast bureaus and sham markets.

    Thus it is conceivable that there can be a single socialist system that is a mixture of the two varieties of socialism. However, a mixture of capitalism and socialism is entirely inconceivable, in spite of the fact that most people think that all real-world societies have only ever had "mixed economies."4

    As Mises wrote, the mere existence of some bureaus and state-owned firms does not alter the capitalist nature of society and make it a "mixed system" of capitalism and socialism. Defining "economy" as a social system of production, there is no such thing as a "mixed economy." Bureaucracies in society are not an integral aspect of the social system of production. They operate as (basically consumptive) elements within a market economy. But they do not contribute any social coordination to it. Rather, it is the market economy that contributes coordination to bureaucracies, in that the latter wholly depend on market prices to be able to attain even the severely impaired budget rationality characteristic of bureaucratic management. The social system of production can only ever be rationalized by market processes.5 Even the crippled social production that occurred in Lenin's Russia and Hitler's Germany was only possible because recourse could be taken to the prices that formed in the surviving market processes of the outside world. As Mises wrote in Human Action,

    Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany … were not isolated socialist systems. They were operating in an environment in which the price system still worked. They could resort to economic calculation on the ground of the prices established abroad.
    This is why the actual economies of Lenin's Russia and Hitler's Germany were referred to above as "socialistic" and not "socialist."

    Another important distinction is that, according to Mises, bureaucratization is not a form of interventionism.6 Bureaucratization makes people poorer to be sure, but it does so by constraining the ambit of the market, not by interfering in its workings.

    Some have said "interventionism" is a system in-and-of itself, and they propose it as a sensible, "middle-of-the-road" policy between capitalism and socialism. Mises exploded this fallacy. Utilizing the findings of classical political economy, as well as the findings of modern economics (including his own original insights), he demonstrated that all economic interventions are, in effect, contrary to the purposes of all, including the purposes of those who advocate them.7 They are thus destructive, not constructive. Interventionism is not a system of social production; it is nothing but a hampering of capitalism. A hampered capitalist order is still a capitalist order. The social system of production in a hampered capitalist order is always rationalized by the sectors of the market that have not yet been crippled by interventions.

    When one is confronted by the contrary-to-purpose effects of an intervention, one has two choices in dealing with those effects. One can undo the intervention, in which case one chooses capitalism. Or one can try to eliminate the harm with further intervention. However, further intervention can only lead to still more harm, which would thus call for yet further intervention, leading to a "cycle of interventionism." Thus, if one does not choose capitalism, one must choose ever-increasing interventions, which ultimately will completely destroy the market and culminate in socialism of the German pattern.8 If one does not choose capitalism, one chooses socialism.

    Not everybody associates "fascism" with the economic policy of the Nazis. Those who know their history remember that part of the economic policy platform of Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, was "corporativism," in which production was directed by "corporatives," each of which represented the participants of a specific industry. Some even call our present economic order "fascist," because they equate "corporatism" with the "corporativism" that they identify with fascism. But corporations lobbying for privileges (corporatism) is not the same thing as whole industries collectively owning the means of production relevant to their industry (corporativism). The two notions are distinct, and must be treated separately.

    Corporatism is not a system of social production. Corporations lobby for privileges that hamper capitalism, it is true. But, regardless of who instigates the hampering, hampered capitalism is capitalism nonetheless.

    And as Mises explained, corporativism is no more a permanent social order than is interventionism.9 The crux of the matter is the question of who is to determine policy decisions within a given corporative: the landowners, the capitalists, or the workers? If the state adjudicates between them, then it is the state that is essentially disposing of the means of production, and thus corporativism devolves into socialism. If the corporatives operate according to a democratic principle, then it is the majority workers who will dictate policy, and thus corporativism devolves into syndicalism.

    Under syndicalism, the means of production of each industry are owned by the workers of that industry. The syndicalist program is distilled by the slogans "the railroads to the railroadmen!" and "the mines to the miners!" Syndicalism too has been put forth as another candidate, as a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. But syndicalism is no system of social production either.10 As soon as the needs of society change in the slightest, how is a syndicalist order to adapt? Under capitalism, shifts in consumer demand adjust prices. In seeking profits, entrepreneurs try to anticipate these price adjustments, and thereby adjust the structure of production to best satisfy consumer wants in the new state of affairs. In the flux of the market, resources shift from one industry to another, in response to consumer demand.

    The Mises Wiki
    But, under syndicalism, why would any producer's syndicate acquiesce to a diminution of its importance and wealth in society? Production is for the sake of consumption, never the other way around. Therefore, any system of social production worthy of the name must have some means of at least conceivably adjusting production for the sake of consumption. Even socialism ostensibly fits this bill, because the central administration at least has the authority to adjust production by diktat in order to try to better serve society (if not the intellectual means to do so rationally). But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism.

    Thus, every economic policy decision is a two-pronged fork in the road; there is no third prong. And neither are the two prongs toward the "Left" and the "Right." There is capitalism, and there is socialism.

    https://mises.org/library/false-choices-and-true-dilemma

  21. Here are two quotes by Hitler from Hitler Speaks by Hermann Rauschning, published in 1940:

    "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

    And

    "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

    Indeed the second quote was summed up by economist Ludwig Von Mises who wrote:

    Another way of stating this is as follows. In the populist propaganda of Bolshevism, under "socialism of the Russian or Lenin pattern" the people ostensibly own the state, and the state in turn owns the means of production. While, under the sham capitalism of Nazism and "socialism of the German or Hindenburg pattern," the people ostensibly own the means of production, but the state in turn owns the people.

    https://mises.org/library/false-...

  22. Anthony Flew, philosopher (in a book review of “The Lost Literature of Socialism”): “Many of his findings are astonishing. Perhaps for readers today the most astonishing of all is that "In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels' article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind." (The term "genocide" in Watson's usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as "enemies of the people" and "the Kulaks as a class.")”

    George Watson, historian and literary critic: “Ethnic cleansing was an essential part of the socialist program before Hitler had taken any action in the matter. The Left, for a century, was proud of its ruthlessness, and scornful of the delicacy of its opponents. "You can't make an omelette,'' Beatrice Webb once told a visitor who had seen cattle cars full of starving people in the Soviet Union, "without breaking eggs.''

    There is abundant evidence, what is more, that the Nazi leaders believed they were socialists and that anti-Nazi socialists often accepted that claim. In Mein Kampf (1926) Hitler accepted that National Socialism was a derivative of Marxism. The point was more bluntly made in private conversations. "The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx,'' he told Hermann Rauschning.

    Rauschning later reported the remark in Hitler Speaks (1939), but by that time the world was at war and too busy to pay much attention to it. Goebbels too thought himself a socialist. Five days before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, in June 1941, he confided in his diary that "real socialism'' would be established in that country after a Nazi victory, in place of Bolshevism and Czarism.

    The evidence that Nazism was part of the socialist tradition continues to
    accumulate, even if it makes no headlines. In 1978 Otto Wagener's Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant appeared in its original German. Wagener was a lifelong Nazi who had died in 1971. His recollections of Hitler's conversations had been composed from notes in a British prisoner-of-war camp, and they represent Hitler as an extreme socialist utopian, anti-Jewish because "the Jew is not a socialist.'' Nor are Communists–“basically they are not socialistic, since they create mere herds, as in the Soviet Union, without individual life.''

    The real task, Hitler told Wagener, was to realize the socialist dream that
    mankind over the centuries had forgotten, to liberate labor, and to displace the role of capital. That sounds like a program for the Left, and many parties called socialist have believed in less.

    Hitler's allegiance, even before such sources were known, was acknowledged by socialists outside Germany. Julian Huxley, for example, the pro-Soviet British biologist who later became director-general of UNESCO, accepted Hitler's claim to be a socialist in the early 1930s, though without enthusiasm (indeed, with marked embarrassment).

    Hitler's program demanded central economic planning, which was at the heart of the socialist cause; and genocide, in the 1930s, was well known to be an aspect of the socialist tradition and of no other. There was, and is, no conservative or liberal tradition of racial extermination. The Nazis, what is more, could call on socialist practice as well as socialist theory when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 and began their exterminatory program. That is documented by Rudolf Hoess in his memoir Kommandant in Auschwitz (1958). Detailed reports of the Soviet camp system were circulated to Nazi camp commandants as a
    model to emulate and an example to follow.

    Soviet exterminations under Lenin and Stalin may have totaled 25 to 30 million, which (if the estimate is accepted) would represent about three times the Nazi total of nine million. That seems to matter very little now. My Austrian policeman was still certain that racism is right-wing. As are a lot of people. After a recent bomb outrage against a synagogue in Luebeck, the German press instantly assumed, before anyone was charged with the crime, that the Right was to blame. The fact that there is no non-socialist tradition of genocide in Europe has not even been noticed.

    That is an impressive act of suppression. The Left may have lost the political battle, almost everywhere in the world. But it does not seem to have lost the battle of ideas. In intellectual circles, at least, it is still believed that racism and the Left do not mix.

    Why is this? How has the evidence of socialist genocide, how has Hitler's acknowledgement of his debt to Marx, been so efficiently suppressed?

    The answer, I suspect, lies in the nature of political commitment. Political
    knowledge is not like botany or physics, and commitment is not usually made by examining evidence. When socialism was fashionable I used to ask those who believed in it why they thought public ownership would favor the poor. What struck me about their responses was not just that they did not know but that they did not think they were under any obligation to know. But if they had really cared about poverty they would have demanded an answer before they signed up, and would have gone on demanding an answer until they got one. In other words, they were hardly interested in solving poverty. What really interested them was looking and sounding as if they did.

    When Marxism was fashionable, similarly, I used to ask Marxists what book by Marx or Engels they had read all the way through, and watch them look shifty and change the subject. Or, for a change, I might ask them what they thought of Engels's 1849 program of racial extermination, and watch them lose their temper. Politics, for lots of people, is not evidence based. It is more like showing off a new dress or a new suit.”

    http://jonjayray.tripod.com...

  23. The Nazi party platform

    http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html

    And again so you cannot hand wave without looking like a complete fool who is in an argument over his head (not that it has stopped you so far…):

    9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

    Therefore we demand:

    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

    12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and
    property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

    13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

    14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

    15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

    17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

  24. Some more Hitler quotes:

    Adolf Hitler to Max Amann, May 1930 quotes in A History of National Socialism (Responding to Fascism Vol 2)
    To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.
    What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic program clearly; the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: ‍'‍Benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual.‍'‍ But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.
    National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.
    Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people

  25. Both Hitler and Mussolini admired F.D.R.'s New Deal. So do I. It was a workable solution that went beyond the left-right . And that is were the Deep Right is headed and has my attention for liking it. Many great Nazi sympathizers back in the 30's and its time to de-Nazi them . Martin Heidegger; Carl Schmitt; Oswald Spengler; too name a few.

  26. National socialism is national socialism. Full stop.
    There's a reason neo-nazis like to reffer to themselves as "the third way" (as opposed to capitalism and communism/socialism). It's very much it's own beast.
    It's only the troglodytes who can't see anything beyond the tired right-left spectrum that have to try and stick it into either capitalism or socialism mold where it doesn't fit.

  27. You miss knowledge, i would appreciate if you didn't post this for people to gain false ideas. It is very easy to distinct

  28. 11:33 > he also says that the Jews invented Communism – which they don't
    "…Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish. His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx…"

  29. Now you've done it Tik !
    This is going to stir up the half thinkers amongst the so called liberal left.
    The raciale doctorine of the NS
    sets it apart from the orher strains of socialism.
    Mein kampf proved unreadable
    So it really doesn't throw much light on the issue.
    The concept"Aryan' seemed to have a strange basis for the NS,
    according to their own criteria many Russians should have qualified as aryans, however in the eyes of the NS they were the dreaded Slavs.
    So many contradictions here.
    The Communards, I don't mean the pop group, were certainly not of semetic origin .
    In short the NS doctrin could be said to be somewhat akin to that of an ideology drawn up by a punch drunk defeated boxer looking for his big return to the ring.

  30. This is a disappointing video because it definitely is misleading, i want to clearly state right off the bat that socialism means anything people want it to mean. So in that essence indeed national socialism is socialism as much as marxist socialism, which as socialist as democratic socialism and as socialist as social democracy and even anarchist socialism that rejects the state entirely. All societies "redistribute the wealth" through taxation.

    But i need to correct a point here the national socialist party of germany did not enact social security for the unemployed, the origin of the german social security state goes back to otto von bismarck. One of the greatest most defining German leaders in german history under the Kaiser, he implemented several social security schemes as a means to undermine the then burgeoning socialist movements in europe and germany. Who he viewed as a existential threat to the established order after he saw the paris commune of 1871 take place. He implemented old age pensions, national health insurance, workers compensation and other assorted reforms to placate marxist agigators. The implementation of unemployment insurance as you describe here was in 1927 which itself was an expansion of previous policy, firmly pushed forward by a coalition of socialists, christian democrats and centrists. Along with several other reforms that aimed at worker protections, safety, worker breaks, 48 hour working week limits and etc this was while the nazis barely had 2.6% of the vote. Pigeon holing the left as collectivism and the right as individualism is deeply flawed, resulting bizzare outcomes with otto von bismarck being a leftist due to his centralisation of the german state and various policies that benefited the working class and nesto makno's ukrinanian intersectionary army being rightwing since it resisted centralized state control, asserted voluntary associations and cooperatives and had no government regulation of the economy.

  31. Hey as much as i love your videos you do know that nazism is the opposite of socialism. If Hitler and the Nazis were socialist then why did the Nazis send socialists and communists to death camps? Why did Hitler use capitalism and do business with private companies from the us and others to rebuild Germany's armies?

  32. How can I support you without using Patreon? I could do PayPal.
    Your videos MUST BE MANDATORY to study in every high school and every higher education institution.

  33. 13:43 Marxism involves collectiveation party purges and a complete disregard for the citizens of the state atheism is mandatory in Marxistim there's also no Sundays off and gay rights and equal pay also no links to any cultures

  34. I would argue the assertion that "FASCISM IS LEFT WING" is a 'fringe' opinion at best because…

    A) It goes against the generally accepted view in society. Historically they are opposing ideologies.

    B) It goes against what Fascists and Socialists think, believe and desire. If the differences were slight, there wouldn't be conflict.

    C) It goes against the vast majority of academics / Social Science professionals writings.

    D) It doesn't fit with the example countries that have been respectively Communist or Fascist in orientation over the years.

    E) The differences in the core elements that make up each ideology are great.

    F) While Hitler included the words 'Socialist' and 'Workers' in his party's name at one point, this was not because he believed in Socialism but because he wanted to attract followers away from the Communist party.

    Further to this, it is documented that as he came to power, he began to write about and give speeches on how much he detested Socialism.

    G) While Socialism does encompass a range of beliefs e.g. Anarchist-Communist, Classical Marxist, Democratic Socialist, Marxist-Leninist, etc. The vast majority of opinion places Fascism outside of this grouping, on the far end of the right wing spectrum.

    H) Just because both Fascism and Socialism want to change societal structures doesn't mean they are related ideologies.

    I) To be fair, there are a lot of people who argue this claim, particularly online, where it's easier for these ideas to proliferate. However, from what I've observed, there's usually an ulterior motive for individual's assertions, other than a genuine interest in properly framing social history.

    A couple of the more common reasons seem to be…

    1) Conservatives, Libertarians, etc attemptting to change the narrative and disassociate themselves from Nazi's and the associated negative social connotations.

    2) People who, for a varity of reasons, want to undermine the left, by changing the discourse and associate modern progressive ideas with the horrors of the Third Reich. In much the same way as the right attempt's to frame Socialism as the slippery slope to the Gulags.

    While I sympathise with the first of these reasons the second needs to be challenged as it gives a false impression.

  35. TIK's in depth military history discussions are excellent.

    But, he should consider leaving this topic to sociologists and political historians.

  36. It would really help if you actually knew what Socialism is. You've clearly confused it with Social Democracy, which makes your whole video a laughable load of twaddle. You have a dictionary in front of ffs!

  37. All the different types of "socialism" can't stand each other. They fight each other to be in charge. Look at what happens to people in those countries and the "party"

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *