“Hitler privatized the industries” is ridiculously misleading

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Hope you guys are doing well. I know I've covered this subject before, but I wanted to specifically tackle the part about the National Socialists selling stocks as "privatization", which I haven't actually addressed directly. Plus, having a separate video on it allows for easy sharing when someone makes the claim that Hitler "privatized the industries".

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

Some third-positionist types scoff at the assertion that H tler was a socialist. The Distributist in particular said some believe he "was a super secret socialist." Funny how they resort to passive-aggressiveness when they can't refute a point that people like TIK make

[@TheImperatorKnight]

@@Chud_Bud_Supreme Yeah because a lot of people associate "socialist" with "Marxist". So even the Third Positionists that say he was a socialist will clarify by saying he wasn't a Marxist and that his version of socialism was the "correct" version.

[@Mr.Witness]

@@TheImperatorKnight What do you think is at the root of socialism facism nazism etc? What is their opposite?

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

​@@Mr.WitnessThey all have a common root in Hegel

[@seegurke93]

I really love your stuff tik, but tbh I am so confused from all the words that are thrown at me :D Its just way too much to get it all. Maybe its bc i am not english but its just an overload. Grüße

[@robertthecag1230]

I had to stop reading Wages of Destruction after he said A.H. took control of all farms. All goods were to be sold to the state at the price the state set. Said if a farmer made milk or cheese from the cows, he "owned" and sold them it in town he would be arrested and put in a concentration camp. Then said it was a right wing economy.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yep, it's ridiculous. And yet people read it and don't see any of the discrepancies

[@emyrulz]

@@TheImperatorKnight I think this is a case of theologians arguing how a thousand angels can sit on a needle's head or how identical twins see a thousand differences between themselves. It's an ideological argument where they get lost in philosophical debate about minutiae not because they cannot see the forest for the trees but because the argument can only be had by focusing on the trees. The goal is to argue one's position and further their ideology not to uncover the truth.

[@newperve]

Right wing is just left wing with better uniforms.

[@xr33tk]

The problem here is that "right wing" has many meanings. To many people it means concentration camps and racism, so by definition any system that hates jews or uses concentration camps is right wing. Idiotic of course, but there you have it.

[@Liberty-Jamie]

It is a major problem so many books do the exact same. Even the big names in the field. Even this Richard J. Evans won't admit they are socialists. Despite giving evidence of a command economy.

[@chuckyxii10]

This is the reason I quit watching the Great War Channel. They did an episode on the rise of Mr. H as a result of the aftermath of the great war and they referred to what the mid century German party did as privatisation. I left a comment pointing out that this was not correct. The Channel actually responded to my comment, unfortunately rather arrogantly implying that I was ignorant and had no business challenging them. I replied pointing out specific instances that refuted the idea of privatization and linked multiple books as sources. Hell even the Nuremburg trials disprove the idea that the economy was privatized, the idea that the pre war economy was controlled by those on trial was central to the Allies prosecution that the war was pre-meditated. The channel did not respond again to that, and I lost all respect for them and now question the integrity of what they presented on the first world war.

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

If you own a car but can only drive it when and where the state tells you, do you really own it?

[@drakmatheism]

No.

[@BigHenFor]

Yes. You bought the car, and implicit in that action is the recognition that your private property is as what is defined as private property by the state, and your use of that property is subject also to limits defined by the state. Drive your vehicle onto my land, my private property, my right to remove you and your vehicle are also defined in law. Freedom is never absolute as long as you live and interact with others and their private property. All what there is really to discuss is the limitations on our "freedoms" inherent in enjoying human society.

[@Mw345012]

Yes. Name one modern nation that does not have driving laws that dictates 'when' and 'where' you can drive it.

[@drakmatheism]

@@Mw345012 They're not as strict as the case he's describing.

[@stuartday1330]

​@@BigHenFor I agree with you in a way. I think a better example of socialism would be the government creating regulations for the car manufacturer that tells the company what utilities and what materials they are allowed to use in their manufacturing of cars. Also if the car was given to you by the government without compensation to the company or very little compensation. In that scenario the car is not yours. Also if the government is able to take away your right to drive or own a car for breaking a law that doesn't have to do with traffic laws. In fact I've heard politicians say driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. I disagree unless you are habitually breaking serious traffic laws.

[@82dorrin]

Harold James unironically believes that private ownership and property were left untouched while the laws defining property and ownership were radically transformed...? Did he even proofread that? Those two sentences are mutually exclusive.

[@haraldbredsdorff2699]

Non of these people use logic. I am in a argument with one of them right now, who claim nazis are not real socialists, because they separate people by race rather than classes. Then almost in the same sentence, he claims many of the problems of the world is to blame on Europeans including the problems in the middle east. Showing him separating people by race. I strongly suspect they just repeat what they have been taught to think, without ever thinking about what they are saying.

[@calvingreene90]

Cognitive dissonance is a hallmark of leftists.

[@CrimswordKnight]

If I give the absolute maximum of the doubt, it must be down to the words property and ownership. I don't think they mean to him what the lay person would think it is. That's the only way it makes any sense to me.

[@Web720]

​@@CrimswordKnight Another hallmark of Leftism.

[@charliecharliewhiskey9403]

They don't believe in truth, they believe in synthesis. It doesn't matter to them if there is a contradiction, contradictions are outright desirable cos it makes it easier to find a new divine truth when you're losing an argument.

[@praz7]

I can understand why they say Hitler is capitalist tbh. It's because as per Marxists, if there are any businesses, it's capitalism. For many Marxists, even Stalin was a capitalist because he didn't give democratic control to workers over industries, for others, only Hitler was capitalist because he didn't gulag all industrialists. For some socialists, capitalism is not free market so they do agree that Hitler was not free market but they think he's capitalist because he was authoritarian. In my opinion what Hitler did was another version of Mussolini's corporatism which I see as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism. His version was less pro private property in practice than Mussolini's fascism and it put emphasis on race. We can see a version of this is China and Russia today. Even Nordic countries practice a form of corporatism.

[@stevej71393]

It's a testament to how unworkable Marxism is. Every regime that sets out to create an explicitly communist society ends up practicing some form of authoritarian dictatorship.

[@sevex9]

Yeah TIK has explained this. I think the idea is 'third-positionist.' I believe TIK makes the case that Hitler planned on a more complete Socialism after he had taken over Russia. Personally I think if it's effectively Socialism then it's just unconventional Socialism; it's like using a spanner/end wrench to turn a nut on a Volkswagon instead of a socket wrench, then saying it's not a Volkswagon, and hyperfocusing on the differences between spanners and socket wrenches to make your point. Anyway you make a good point don't want to come off as too contrarian.

[@Web720]

Implicit Control (Fascism/Nazism) vs Explicit Control (Socialism/Coomunism) They are more closely related than Liberalism.

[@thegreatcat2095]

I would say that Mussolini went farther than Hitler did in terms of national vs private ownership, with industries virtually nationalized by WW2 but to be fair Mussolini had a lot more time to do so

[@hanklesacks]

It doesn't matter what the socialists think. Was it the ideal socialist economy? No, but the fact is the noozi economy was a planned economy. Prices weren't set by market forces, instead they were artificially set by central planners. The confusion comes from the word "capitalism" which is defined as private ownership of the means of production. "Capitalism" isn't the correct term, the word was literally coined by a french socialist in 1850, and for half century was used exlusively by anti capitalist as a term of abuse.

[@c.philipmckenzie]

This is why I support your work: I believe it is of vital importance to accurately investigate history and give an honest account wherever it leads, and you do that. Thank you.

[@sounghungi]

Gotta love the whole, "It was a market economy that doesn't have any market influences." I don't know how somebody could have wrote that and not go, "Wait that doesn't sound right...."

[@Si_Mondo]

I mean.... it was a market economy..... a heavily *restricted* market where all influences were state driven, not market driven. There still was a market though. That sentence isn't as inaccurate as you think it is.

[@Johnlanzer]

​​@@Si_MondoThe fact that it's state driven., and not market driven, just proves it's not a market economy. Your statement is the same as saying you own art by buying an NFT. Yet it can be taken away from you at anytime.

[@xr33tk]

Because its about what amounts to a relgius belief. That National Socialist were not socialists, and their policies which may look like socialism are not socialism. Because if they were it would pull down the whole belief system that they were right and right equals bad, therefor left equals good.

[@freedomandguns3231]

​@@Si_Mondoya know, there IS a word for what you just described...I wonder what word that is....

[@sounghungi]

@@xr33tk So their policies look like socialism and in isolation socialist would like them but it's not socialism. Right........

[@kikastra]

What a great scheme. Sell the stocks of a bank to raise money for rearmament and public works, only to basically keep control of the entity you sold the stocks of. Brilliantly crafty and schemey!

[@bigdiccmarty9335]

tankies be like: ThIS iS sTaTe CaPiTaLiSm

[@LibertyDino]

So good deutsche bahn basically copied it

[@ridethecurve55]

The Nazis got the Gold, and the workers got the 'Gefolgschaft'!

[@eKoush]

@@LibertyDino sound like everyday schemes of today's social democratic countries.

[@LibertyDino]

@@eKoush true dat

[@joanalcaraz1278]

Hi Tik! Great video! As an economist at the University of Barcelona and a former student in Bel's lessons, I must say that his views on social affairs are basically biased because he has been a committed socialist since he was young. He was part of the PSC ( Socialist Catalan Party) and even a representative for Barcelona (province) of this party. He is not even a historian, just an economist, so maybe this is why he makes this oversimplified statement of the III Reich market, just taking into account the ownership of the stock market shares and not counting on the regulations that the nazi state enforces. Or maybe it is just to reaffirm his point because the whole picture of the labor organization in Germany in those years contradicts his point. And by omitting this, he contradicts himself because he is a great defender of state regulations as the basis of market problems, especially in the design of infrastructure. So I think, as you say at the beginning of the video, he is just trying to assimilate nazism to the free market in order to justify his socialist views.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

That's interesting information. Thank you!

[@cryptarisprotocol1872]

Strange how this reply doesn’t have the Tankie mouthbreathers pouncing on it.

[@royale7620]

@@cryptarisprotocol1872 Give it time lol

[@redactado266]

​@@cryptarisprotocol1872the little Stalin's are still thinking how to deboonk this and own the capitalists

[@noahL3654]

If the state gives industry concessions to individuals in society that are part of the governmental party, they cease to be private actors, they are public actors and it becomes a public form of ownership and control.

[@desman1523]

Yep, this would be like calling the Chinese capitalists because individual CCP members own all the corporations in their economy.

[@colonel__klink7548]

The reason why Marxists say that this is "privatization" in Germany is they point out, correctly that there has *NEVER* been such a thing as a free market (the free English market thing is a myth. They dug up the rotting corpse of Adam Smith after a century of state backed build up of the textile industry to defeat the French textile industry. Then they advocated for Free Trade, only for all their textile industry to leave for India because of the reduced trade barriers.) That all of these corporations in Germany, and the largest industrial concerns in the other powers at the time and presently for that matter all got there through negotiation and partnership with the state's interests. In other words these industries lived and died upon state needs and state support. So this makes it hard to define what "capitalism" is. To them "capitalism" and "private ownership" is these state backed industries financially benefitting a private owner or collection of owners. These companies meet the political goals of the state to get big and powerful so that they can enrich the owners. The surplus essentially coming at expense of greater society as it is extracted out of society. The functional difference between that and socialism is that the industries would again seek to compete for these state directed interests in the grand scheme and then the surplus collected isn't used to consolidate more control through land, stocks, issuing debt ect as companies today do. No, the surplus would be theoretically directed back to the workers or to further construction of capital. Looking at this, you can see why Marxists say that nazism and fascism is just capitalism being honest. Their opinion, with some validity to it is what the Nazis did was only considered abhorent because they did it in Europe and not in Africa or done to America's native population.

[@praz7]

This system isn't that bad tbh, it's practiced in Nordic countries. Downsides might be that you'd need to ship the swear shops to third world countries for it to be less authoritarian in your country. If a third world country tried to replicate this model, they'd become authoritarian because they'd have nobody to put in sweat shops apart from their citizens. But it will bring industrial growth. In US it would be like Elon Musk working together with Donald Trump as member of republican party to build infrastructure and military technology. Condition would be that Trump doesn't allow Elon to fire people as he wishes and Elon in return gets to keep ownership of his company.

[@chriscross7494]

The reason they sell stocks of companies is to put the economy under public control. Wall Street is not a private market.

[@dannydacheedo1592]

I love these thumbnails

[@Runenschuppe]

"Do you want to buy a company from me?" "Yes, of course! Here's your money." "Great. Now, here's the list of products we want you to make, the prices you're meant to set and the people you need to hire and fire." "But... I thought it's my company now?" "Of course it is. As long as you do exactly as we tell you." The freedom of capitalism!

[@black-redpill3]

DEI is baby steps to that

[@olisko3484]

That's known as government contracts. You know the stuff that companies do when the government is their customer. You think that Boing and Lockheed Martin is state owned too because the government tells them what to make?

[@black-redpill3]

@@olisko3484 The government tells them what they want to buy from them, but are not the only possible directive for what to produce. It's why they make planes for private customers as well, since the government while being a customer, isn't its only one like it is in notsee Germany.

[@Runenschuppe]

@@olisko3484 Really. Just regular government contracts? What happens if the CEO (with the backing of the share holders) decides to not take any future government contracts? Does the current government arrest the CEO and seize the shares? Are there government employees sitting inside Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who have the final word when it comes to employment (besides DEI)? And of course the defence industry is almost state owned, given how restricted arms developers are with who they can sell to.

[@olisko3484]

@Runenschuppe during war time? Yes most likely. I recommend you look into how the British restricted and handled their industry during the war.

[@Ema6835]

Every historian says that that the Third Reich was a Totalitarian state, I think we can all agree about it. Despite that I just can't understand how so many people claim thats said totalitarian state could have a free market or that state control was minimal. How could a totalitarian state work without a proper state controlled economy? Thanks for what you do and for the level of detail you reach in less than one hour of video.

[@hailbane9633]

There are different forms of economic totalitarianism. Existence of large companies doesn't mean it's not a state directed or controlled economy especially when the state defacto controlled and directed day to day business to achieve government plans for national economy. Historians largely agree Nazi Germany was economically totalitarian in its own right. Digirste, Corporatism or State Capitalism are often used to describe it. Whether you want argue state capitalism and state socialism mean the same thing is up to the person because socialism itself is extremely vague term. It has different meaning to different people. The issue is when certain people including some historians of left wing bias do bad historical analysis and interpretation of history to push a current day political agenda. @tekinfomedi

[@Ema6835]

@@hailbane9633 yes exactly, socialism has been such an overused term that now people use it for several different things. The important thing in my opinion is to understand what's behind the name/etiquette, you can call a regime however you want but you can't change the policies they pursued.

[@admontblanc]

@@hailbane9633 "There are different forms of economic totalitarianism." no there aren't, unlike terms such as capitalism, liberalism, fascism, marxism etc, totalitarian implies total. You either control the economy in its totality or it is not a totalitarian economy. There's no ifs and buts about this. The totalitarian state is called so because it is a form of state that occupies all spheres of governance in their totality. The communists aren't so much contradicting themselves as they are lying by omission.

[@1234567890a77]

"How could a totalitarian state work without a proper state controlled economy?" Marxists do not think. They can only parrot and repeat. This simple question has never once exhausted in the mind of a communist.

[@kenon6968]

@@admontblanc I think he means their different forms of economic totalitarianism in the sense of how much can you practically implement that control. That the nsdap wanted to have the commanding heights, to use the leninist term, definitely. I doubt though given some alternate historical timeline where the war never happened they would have organically developed something as absurd as Gosplan levels of micromanagement.

[@barahng]

Reminds me of China. It's similar to how the CCP allows "private firms" technically speaking, but practically speaking the state can just seize all their assets and dissolve the company at any time. And requiring companies to employ political commissars to make sure they are conducting business in a way the state agrees with. Not quite the same as a centrally managed Stalinist style economy but it's definitely not capitalism or privatized in any real practical way if the right to private property can be revoked at any time with no due process.

[@alexandregb566]

A good book about that is: The Vampire Economy.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

He cites this book a lot, coincidentally.

[@vod96]

You seem new here

[@TacoSallust]

@@vod96 and it's alright to be new here. Welcome to the channel!

[@vod96]

@@TacoSallust yes!

[@macblackadder93]

He's funny enough the reason why I bought the book.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

So basically: "Reee they were selling stocks and shares!" "To whom?"

[@stephenkalatucka6213]

Nazis would be my guess.

[@johnwolf2829]

Das Reich says; "To whoever we approve of, and ONLY them. Naturally, we approve wholeheartedly of ourselves!" Statists have always been like that; Control Freaks. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[@tuckerbugeater]

was it the Warburgs? @@stephenkalatucka6213

[@Si_Mondo]

​@@stephenkalatucka6213Exactly! Party members, and quite often with party funds.... In the mind of a Pinko, this is somehow still "cAPiTaLiSm" 😂

[@worldoftancraft]

@@Si_Mondo so if they are the party members, it means they are the state. Like there won't be more loose compliance with laws and etcetera. Genius

[@kamilmatejka5299]

At this point I wouldn't be really surprised if there was a history book in which the author would've claimed that USSR actually was a free market society, except most characteristics normaly associated with one. Thank you for all the hard work, TIK!

[@themeangene]

I've heard leftists unironically claim Stalin is capitalist lol. These people are unbearable

[@xprincexofxsavagesx]

Up is down, left is right. Water is dry. Big lies long enough and loud enough. The commies are the primary users of Goebbel's teachings.

[@xr33tk]

Its a comon statement that the USSR wasnt really communist and real communism has never been tried. Thats not quite the same of course but close enough.

[@paulbantick8266]

@@xr33tk All those tries and no one has got it right. Because the lefty Ideologies are fundamentally wrong. Fit only for the controlling, vindictive, authoritarian, masochistic, sadistic and cold-hearted 'people' of the world. They also have traits in common. Usurp the national flag, change the national anthem, reset their history, slaughter their own people, ban political parties and imprison dissenters.

[@duckling3615]

Do you know what's funny thing? In my Bulgarian school. A post SOVIET country, my history teacher told us both that totalitarianism exhibited by both the USSR, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany meant the the total control of the economy AND that inflation means expansion of the money supply while they gave us a perfectly good word for when currency loses its worth. Devaluation. It is really strange that my country which should be fully of Soviet historical revisionism gets this better than Western "liberal" economists.

[@RaderizDorret]

It helps that many of the people still alive there were subject to or actively participating in those schemes and they knew exactly what they were doing. The "liberals" mostly don't realize this but their leaders know exactly what they're doing.

[@DPRK_Best_Korea]

Do people in Bulgaria miss communist rule?

[@duckling3615]

@@DPRK_Best_Korea Some do. Generally even if everyone is in absolute values better off, the poor people are worse in relative terms, which means that people are generally less happy so there is a group of people that defend communism. But I would say most people especially the young who never lived through communism are not trading their freedoms again. We are richer, healthier, and love being with Europe.

[@shakya00]

It does perfectly make sense. You had a taste of communist, you got vaccinated. In Western countries, we stayed mostly capitalist and there is still a communist/socialist romanticism.

[@paavoilves5416]

@@duckling3615 I guess it comes down to nostalgia? My country was never socialist (we nearly got beaten by the USSR) but a lot of old (and some young) people long for the 70's and 80's when our country was on an upward spiral even though life was way harder for most than it is currently. But people usually only remember the good, not the bad.

[@rcwagon]

TIK, another great video. This one was even easy to understand. I hope the dazzling brilliance of the agenda versus fact and concept didn't cause any physical damage. My favorite part of the video is at 13:54 where the look on your face communicated several paragraphs, and the phrase "Let's have a read shall we." completed the main point about to be revealed.

[@JoBlakeLisbon]

The reality is that most of the educated class - including PHDs, professionals, politicians etc are economically illiterate. I recommended Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics to a friend. He is a business owner and has done very well for himself but halfway through commented to me that he realised that he was totally clueless about economics. This applies to 99.99 percent of the voting population and accounts for most of the confusion. People don't know the basics.

[@SepticFuddy]

And Keynes is largely to blame. Keynesian theory is so convoluted that people think that the subject is over their head, when in fact it just doesn't actually make sense.

[@1234567890a77]

A great question to ask is why are they economically illiterate? Only those who aren't leftists know the answer.

[@StetoGuy]

With all these contradictions I find your previous video on Hegel very relevant. Their ignorance of basic political definitions seems to be of the average person on the street, except the problem is these 'historians' are supposed to be 'specialists' in their field.

[@paulbantick8266]

They are! They are academics schooled in the hallowed halls of Western Universities. Those Universities were and are the hotbed of Communist and Socialist ideologies, churning out these oiks in their thousands. These oiks were so indoctrinated as to push the Nazi = right-wing agenda. It helped in the fact that from 1941 to 1945, the enemy of our enemy who were once allied to our enemy, became our friend. When the Nazi atrocities became evident sometime during the war, those Allied, lefty, political historians, academics, socialist politicians and publishers started a campaign of misinformation to distance the Communist/Socialists doctrines as far away from the Nazis as possible. When in fact, they and the Nazis were two sides of the same coin. Or! Both nestling next to each other on the same wing.

[@juanpaz5124]

As per Hegel's ideology, contradictions are to be embraced so long as you use fancy words😂 What matters is the firm belief that Nazi Germany was capitalist!

[@peterlambert5130]

I have studied these subjects fir 50 years. You, my good man, have answered many many questions about Germany and the 2 wars, that nobody has said before. Great work mate.

[@kurandor1193]

As a german hearing this is just bizzare. All of this could be learned by reading a school textbook, and yet these "economics professors" only look at how the leadership shuffeled assets between themselves and their friends and conclude that NAZI GERMANY ALLOWED FOR GREAT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM! I genuenly struggle to understand how anyone could come to that conclusion and I hope that next time they try to do research they start by reading a history book first and only look at the spreadsheets afterwards, as numbers without context have, and will alwasy be, completeley meaningless.

[@Liberty-Jamie]

Great video man. It does frustrate me when a historian lists evidence of state control economy then still comes to conclusions that it's private in their books.

[@konstancemakjaveli]

This is the moment TIKhistory failed to realize that capitalism is when bad thing i dont like, and communism is good thing i do like.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I'm very much aware that that's how some of them 'think'. But I remain optimistic that I can clarify the situation and make some of them realize just how evil and damaging the ideology they subscribe to is.

[@joshuamaurer9784]

​@@TheImperatorKnight I think it's a good thing to have all of this as information ready for people who were duped. But I don't think that it will convince them to change. By the time they are watching your videos, they will already be willing to change. Or they won't, watch 5 min of the video, call it stupid, and shut it off. They have to have something happen to them to make them realize something is wrong.

[@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231]

@@joshuamaurer9784 but the person who changed their mind and eventually ended up on videos like this didn't get there in an instant, it was a series of things being called into question. The person who watches 5 minutes and says this is dumb might just be earlier along in the same journey as the person who eventually changed their mind.

[@Web720]

They could go, "well yes it is socialistic, but Hitler's socialism is not what we prefer. We are here for class, not race". But no, they don't, and just keep their cognitive dissonance.

[@rcwagon]

@@joshuamaurer9784 I agree, but those they currently prefer to listen to actually do want things destroyed. I still hear evidence with a plea that if so and so leader would just see this evidence, they would change what they are doing. They want the disaster, it was their plan to make a disaster and their plan is working well. Destruction was their goal. They are not inclined to see evidence that their plans are working as bad, so they will not change. Many of their followers are not inclined to look at facts because they have already made up their mind and facts are confusing.

[@RexNicolaus]

I bought “The Vampire Economy” and it really showed how the NSDAP interfered severely with the industrialists and how they ran their business. Even required the hiring of Hitler Youth and former SA members (who were unskilled in the particular industry they were being hired into) and Hitler Youth members even snitched on the skilled non-political workers who spoke out of line against the party, which resulted in the Gestapo removing them from their job. The efficiency of the economy as a whole became increasingly inefficient because of the top-heavy bureaucracy under the NSDAP. Such “free-market capitalism.” I’ll definitely have to include the other suggested book.

[@mar3869]

That book is a joke that makes some serious leaps.

[@RexNicolaus]

@@mar3869 Care to elaborate?

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

Sounds a lot like what Hollywood is doing right now... although they use different names for it. In fact, one could say that, some time back, Gina Carano "spoke out against the interest of the (Dem) party"... and their own version of the Gestapo removed her from the job. Ironically, it appears to have been caused by a tweet she made... which drew parallels to this subject. They are also "outcasting" people from a certain demographic (a different one this time)... who have the skills... and replacing them with those who do not have the skills, but DO "toe the party line" (good card-carrying party members!)... with entirely predictable results. In this case, crappy shows/movies. Which also exist, apparently, to spew the party line. I wonder, fairly often, if Gina knew just how precisely on-target she was, with that tweet. Either way, I strongly suspect that is the reason that they fired her so quickly... and apparently blacklisted her, as well. Which makes it all the more ironic...

[@mar3869]

@@RexNicolaus Hitlers grip on Germany early on when he was dealing with the Industrialists was tenuous at best, he needed their full support which is why when the Röhm coup was discovered it was dealt with especially harshly as the SA would have ruined everything by going after the industrialists and “seizing the means” if you will. Hitler needed the Industrialists more than they needed him especially with his need for rearmament. It’s a hell of a leap to think he was able to boss them around and pretty much extort them at will, when it was never the case. The book was also done in by real economists too but that isn’t my expertise so I won’t comment on that, just on the historical validity of its ridiculous claims. And I thought the Table Talks was full of it.

[@RexNicolaus]

@@mar3869 “Done in by real economists.” Such as who? Can you recommend a source for that?

[@jayjablunov4697]

The notion that "National Socialism" somehow equals "Free Market Capitalism," is an oxymoron of Orwellian proportion. The fact that so many wholeheartedly buy into that lie without any critical thought or knowledge of history does not bode well for humanity in the 21st century.

[@ironinquisitor3656]

Ask those people who think National Socialism is Capitalism if they think Feudalism is Capitalism. It makes their head spin and explode. They think that Nazism was Capitalism simply because "muh rich people still exist and do stuff with stuff." Under Feudalism it allows a degree of private property and wealth to be owned by nobles if they swear fealty to the king, but it isn't the same thing as Capitalism. If those two things are different from each other than so can Nazism be a separate entity from Capitalism too.

[@jacobrosa7653]

Again, love your videos, all of them. Thank you. Keep up the good work, while taking care of yourself. You are a valuable part of our economy.

[@a-8007]

🤣This is so good. I lost it around 28:40. Please keep up your good work.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you enjoyed that skit!

[@agibson1871]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -American philosopher George Santayana. "The quote's popularity may...be attributed to its use in William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." -Jamel Bandy

[@jkdbuck7670]

Next to "...but those who DO learn from the past are doomed to watch the people who didn't learn from the past destroy the world."

[@fredrickfuruvald416]

We even have this silly thing happen in Sweden not too long ago. Energy used to be fully owned by the government. Now it's a private company, but in name only. Ruled by a board of directors. Appointed by the state. And energy isn't the only thing this has happened to. And it's pretty sad to see this deception play out, because when these not so very private companies does something silly, it's capitalism and the free market that takes the blame

[@ladosdominik1506]

This is interesting and make a ton of sense. Arguably the smartest political move I have seen in a time, you sell something, just to still retain control over it (the stocks). If you see this TIK you do good work, please look out for your health.

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

People (socialists) often choose to overlook that there is only 1 reason that communists like the USSR nationalized everything. To gain CONTROL of it. CONTROL is the goal... ownership is simply one way to achieve that control. The Germans took a different route to the same destination.

[@admontblanc]

You mean how the stock markets operate anywhere? That's just what it is, as long as there is a thing like the stock market you can parcel ownership of things listed for sale and still retain majority ownership of that thing you are parceling out. In theory you can sell just enough of something that you still have absolute authority over its use, while making money off of the fact you just parceled it among several entities.

[@ladosdominik1506]

@@admontblanc Well yes, but om the stock market you give away some of the money from it, don't you?

[@gggo1789]

If there's something you could sell, that's definitely the thumbnail. It's pure gold.

[@neonschaf]

The Point of Karl Marx calling for Central Banks is actually Point five, not the sixth one, which is the centralisation of transport and communication.

[@gg_rider]

Alexander Hamilton founded the first central bank in America. It was owned and controlled by shareholders and for-profit. I suppose some people think the USA Fed is Communist, because of the timing, the year. Unlike the original Hamilton private central bank, the Fed gives 100% of net profits from operations directly to the Treasury. It has a board of directors called the Board of Governors, so it's structured like a for profit corporation. Normally, top voting shareholders choose the Board. The Board at the Fed is chosen by the US President and approved by the US Senate. But they aren't really identified as Party members. If they you think if Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, etc, they probably are registered voters of one or another party, but are not party officials. No private individuals own stock. Shares of Fed stock (I think that's shares of one of the regional Feds) MUST be purchased by Member banks, which operate kinda like franchises under the parent. The Member banks don't own voting shares, so they don't exercise that influence over the Board. They can't sell shares to anyone or trade shares. The amount of shares each bank Corp has to buy is determined by Law by some formula based on size, so if two banks had a corporate merger, the result would be more Fed shares owned. Shares must be held indefinitely, up to the time a banking Corp completely went out of business for any reason. I know a man (online) who opened a bank in the Virgin Islands protectorate of the USA. He had to buy Fed shares. He can attend some meetings where policies are presented, say about regulations. He can raise his hand to speak an opinion but he has no vote on policy.

[@EddieReischl]

I appreciate these sorts of videos as they are very instructive, hopefully, to people watching them in the States, so that they can begin to observe the instances of fascism here, corporate welfare, "too big to fail", government subsidies for favored industries of the party in power, etc. Some may feel that there are instances where it is beneficial (a state in the U.S. makes a deal to keep an NFL football team in their biggest city by helping fund the building of a new stadium, e.g.), but honestly, it foments unethical behavior amongst politicians and businesses alike, and is pretty much universally bad. Edit: And the problem with others forms and variants of socialism is that they do the exact same thing.

[@EddieReischl]

@tekinfomedi However truly egalitarian a society may start out as, it will always become malignant. Bad intentioned people will always be attracted to the power of redistributing wealth and will devise ways of attaining that power that are misdiagnosed by the humble masses as remaining egalitarian intentions.

[@razzberry1262]

Most everyone in genpop is a socialist when it's their preferred application of socialism thats going on.

[@oxdeadbeef]

I always use the term National Socialist instead of Nazi, it makes certain people really defensive

[@Alte.Kameraden]

I don't because there are other groups that can be defined as National Socialist who are not "Nazis." Czech National Socialist which ran Czechoslovakia at the time for example.

[@sdrc92126]

The DAP had the ns added under H. People will deny it. Show them the 25 points of national socialism.

[@ivan5595]

SOciAlIsM iN oNE cOuNTrY

[@lippi2171]

the Nazis were very careful with their words and phrasing, it was basically one of their trademarks. So the argument that they would lie about the "Socialist" part of their name is pretty weak. They really did think they were National *Socialists* and they named themselves so for a reason.

[@mikeb5372]

I include the word German so as to not be misunderstood. Sometimes also include workers party for good measure

[@aryeh-xw7mi]

The quote from Harold James about the "fundamental principle of property rights was left untouched" while at the same time the nature of those rights were "utterly transformed" describes leftist narrative wonderfully. He still calls it "property rights", touting the "principle" while at the same time so altering the definition and practice of "ownership" so that it was not the same thing at all. Orwellian new-speak. Thanks for doing this.

[@RafaelSantos-pi8py]

Its not private if its owned by members of the government and run by and for the state.

[@KansasHempMan]

So your house, property, children, and literal DNA isn't yours today? All modern governments control everything you just listed, fool

[@stoggafllik]

Singapore has the same thing

[@chrissedaka8141]

The contradictions are the point. They know they're contradicting themselves. We know they're contradicting themselves. They know we know they're contradicting themselves. And, still, they contradict themselves. Their gnostic faith allows them to hold to competing mutually-exclusive ideas, without the cognitive dissonance that anyone thinking logically might othewise experience faced with such. It's a war of attrition, in which they spread their ideas not through their merit, but on frustating would-be dissent into resigned demoralisation. It's aggravating by design. Keep fighting the good fight, TIK.

[@alejandromolina5645]

Excellent content Tick!

[@BernardoTrindade-t1r]

Thanks for your work, TIK👊

[@shawnflynn1713]

This should scare everyone today concerning modern governments and states. Total power. Im really not sure why anyone would argue on this subject. This was clear to me when I first started reading about the reich. But people want to separate certain words to accommodate their own beliefs and perceptions. Everything and anything had to run thru some organization of the reich. Good video that unfortunately needed to be made. ❤ great work!

[@radimnechut519]

Yep. Diversity advisors or diversity whatevers are definitely liberal and democratic.

[@katrinapaton5283]

I really wish I'd known all this when I was a kid. I spent so long believing Nazi Germany was Fascist and ultra right wing. It's not only stuff like that that you have straightened out for me, I now have a far better understanding of how Germany worked. And meanwhile "historians" like these fools continue to push the same BS agenda that led to my ignorance in the first place. Thank you TIK, it's no wonder you find this disinformation campaign to be so frustrating but I am so grateful for all the work you do to bring us the truth.

[@larryroundtown]

The water skit was hilarious. Do more skits

[@morningstar9233]

As someone for whom the Third Reich has been a pass time interest for decades it was always unquestionably a socialist form of government. I was surprised to discover professional historians, academics and authors who would argue that it was capitalist. I'm thankful we've an historian in Tik who explodes these willful distortions of history to an extent I could never articulate. I can appreciate Tik's exasperation with these agenda driven operators.

[@kernowpolski]

Very well covered TIK - you really socked it to them!

[@Sugarmountaincondo]

No matter what the topic you discuss is, I love it when you call out so-called "Historians" for spewing misinformation.

[@steveclarke6257]

TIKhistory, thank you for yet another Interwar historical overview video

[@vaskoz3700]

fuck my sleep schedule a new tik video is dropped

[@KansasHempMan]

Good, I hope your following day sucks. Wasting time on Tick is a worthless venture. You learn more from going to KZbin alternatives.

[@Midrac61]

Very good analysis. Maybe a bit too much Harold James hammering. Your supporters are clever enough to get the idea after 5 minutes. For the rest I can say your videos are definitely 'focussing' my own studies. Thank you 👍

[@TheImperatorKnight]

My supporters are clever enough, but I wanted to address the critics as well in the hope they would listen. Strangely, they seem to be avoiding this video, which is highly unusual. Normally I'm bombarded by naysayers over "my" economics, but in this case they're near silent. Not sure why.

[@Web720]

​@@TheImperatorKnight Probably cause majority don't read books 😂

[@nomdeguerre7265]

Ownership is control. If one has no control over an asset they don’t own it. To the extent owners can use, manage or dispose of assets purely on the basis of their own volition without constraint or influence by force (including force formalized as law or ‘regulation’) that property is private. The National Socialists rapidly seized control over every asset within reach of their force. It doesn’t matter whether meaningless ‘shares’ pretending equity are given to others. Such shares possess no real ownership since they provide absolutely no control over assets. Such shares merely represent a distribution scheme under control of the actual owners, those who exercise actual control. Under the National Socialists this was the National Socialist party or some part thereof. This is similar to Marxist ‘workers ownership’ facades where it is claimed that ‘the workers’ own an asset but in fact it is controlled as entirely as desired by the Communist Party or some part thereof.

[@HansChucrute88]

Try not paying your income tax, not paying your property tax, car tax. The government will take your Car, your house and your freedom. By your logic, if we dont do what the government wants us to do(pay taxes) they take our stuff and even or freedom, so you don't own shit.

[@Alex_Fahey]

The skit at 28:40 was a great addition.

[@user-yv4mm6bx3c]

This is good timing considering the NY ruling on real-estate that just came down.

[@grammaurai6843]

What happened in NY?

[@nco_gets_it]

@@grammaurai6843 really? The top story on ALL media outlets for the past two months is a mystery to you?

[@user-yv4mm6bx3c]

@@grammaurai6843 Trump has to pay fines that he can't pay by the deadline. Either he liquidates or NY takes the properties. Either way other investors are going to leave the state. Tax base evaporates.

[@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231]

@@user-yv4mm6bx3c imagine jeopardizing the financial standing of an entire state just to try to catch the bad orange man. TDS is a helluva drug.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@grammaurai6843 I assume its the 3 year ban trump, his sons and his businesses got from participating in NY real estate and taking loans from NY banks. The orginal ruling also included dissolving all Trump property in the state.

[@thomasandrewo]

This is the problem of having a preconceived conclusion and then trying to find evidence to fit it even if you can't find any.

[@pyrrhusofepirus8491]

I don’t know what you mean Tik, if I’m currently trying to set up a totalitarian regime (wish me luck fellas), the first thing I’m going to do is relinquish my power and authority over the industries and give it over to a myriad of different private individuals for them to do as they please with, without interference from me or my government. I mean that’s just obvious, I am shocked by the mental gymnastics you’re trying to pull on me.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

You're right! And as a free market guy, I will obviously submit to your totalitarian regime, which is what I secretly want, because having a dictator who can execute me at any moment is good for the millions of stocks and shares I own. (In case it's not obvious to the social dullards out here, this is sarcasm)

[@pyrrhusofepirus8491]

@@TheImperatorKnight it literally is as simple as “do you believe the Germans were totalitarian?” Hell do you believe they were authoritarian? If they are, then they *can’t* be free-marketers. And the moment they realise that, the mental gymnastics come out in full swing.

[@justamoogle5268]

This was the same thing I was arguing about with a socialist. You cannot claim the Natzi have privatised businesses when the state effectively controls said businesses, and a controlled market is not capitalism, it's mixed system at best but never capitalism.

[@SoloRenegade]

if you're about to nationalize industries, you first want to sell your stocks before they become worthless. Also called Insider Trading.

[@joesalyers]

I'm glad I have an hour for lunch to watch a Tik Video today since I'm recording a bluegrass band in the studio today!!

[@marcnoday4450]

@TheImperatorKnight While explaining my thoughts on the evils of socialism and how hitler was a socialist my college professor uncle came back at me with “well wasn’t Jesus a socialist” and “ you believe in Jesus don’t you.” I found the argument so dumb I almost couldn’t respond! What are your thoughts on this argument? P.S. I am an army vet with two history degrees in the U.S. (although I’m sure you can tell by my verbiage) and have always found historians views on Hitler disjointed and contradictory but I couldn’t but my finger on exactly why. Then I found your channel and it all started to make sense. Thank you sooo much for what you do.

[@EddieReischl]

That's a sorry situation if he is either an economics or a theology professor. It's fair to say Jesus would have said it was unethical to make an obscene profit selling things, but the seller is entitled to what the goods are worth. Jesus also said it was a good thing to be charitable, but the people receiving the charity are supposed to understand it as such and not look at it as something that they are entitled to or have a right to and are supposed to be motivated by their personal pride and take steps so that they are not a permanent charity case.

[@marcnoday4450]

@@EddieReischl a psychology prof. I made that almost exact point back. I just struggle to see the connection between being charitable and wanting to help others (as Jesus preached) and socialism. I was taken aback by this argument coming from someone who really is very very smart.

[@EddieReischl]

@@marcnoday4450 Awesome. Hopefully he learned something.

[@Nichtzukennen]

Jesus wasn't a socialist, he never said "Give your money to the Romans (state), so that they may or may not give it to the poor.", your college professor is legitimately rarted.

[@JonathanWrightZA]

Jesus said for YOU to give to the poor. Not to create an all powerful government to take it form you by threat of force and give to the poor on your behalf. It is that simple, and why your professor is...misguided, shall we say.

[@markmusser2572]

The best discussion on this nationalization vs. privatization of National Socialism I have heard! Thank you for stating the obvious so loudly, strongly, and so clearly!! Here is an interesting quote from the Fuhrer from the book that "broke history (Hitler's Table Talks)" reportedly stated on October 15, 1941, "Inflation is not caused by increasing the fiduciary circulation. It begins on the day when the purchaser is obliged to pay, for the same goods, a higher sum than that asked the day before. At that point, one must intervene. Even to Schacht, I had to begin by explaining this elementary truth: that the essential cause of the stability of our currency was to be sought for in our concentration camps. The currency remains stable when the speculators are put under lock and key. I also had to make Schacht understand that excess profits must be removed from economic circulation."

[@82dorrin]

I think you could make another 5-hour video about this topic.

[@RafaelSantos-pi8py]

Only 5?

[@liberality]

The Chocolate Museum in Germany has a small area of its exhibition dedicated to the period covered in this video. All manufacturers were required to take part in the Leistungskampf (achievement struggle) regardless of notional private ownership. This campaign included improved conditions for workers, but also firing any remaining Jews. A picture book was published celebrating the most compliant companies, copies of that book are still available. Companies which refused to participate were punished by the withdrawl of raw material allocations. Since chocolate companies depend on imports of cocoa beans, the regime destroyed resistance among the confectionery manufacturers by blocking those raw material imports and bankrupting them. Stollwerck was compliant with the regime's demands, and that's why it became a Nationalsozialistischer Musterbetrieb.

[@rifleman4005]

I saw a New York Times article dated October 31, 1936 which announced the appointment of Josef Wagner as new price commissar. His job was to replace the system of "market prices" with a more "socialistic managed economy". Kind of destroys the whole "privatization" argument.

[@rantcast1345]

Also, a solid idea maybe just as a brief mention is a video on how Social Darwinism has been used as a label to smear advocates of the free market. I've been reading on it a lot in recent weeks and it is very interesting how the term, like Fascism, has been manipulated to suit political narratives. Maybe just a video on "labelling" in general would be a good idea - how political terms of the past can be twisted to make modern ideas look bad? Just a suggestion.

[@Miguel23gt]

Seconding this

[@sircashew1097]

I took several of Dr. Mierzejewski’s (You completely butchered his name which made be laugh 😂) classes while I was in university. He’s an excellent professor whom I greatly respect and loved talking with. An expert in not just German history but also in economic history (his passion) he was firm in telling us, DESPITE both formal and informal resistance from others, that the National Socialists were socialists despite popular belief in the contrary.

[@GoScotland1983]

Keep up the good work, your videos are great.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

In short - There was still private ownership in Germany. The govt simply redefined what private ownership meant.

[@forgetmeshots]

32:12 My head hurts too. Absolutely nuts. You cannot make this shite up. Great channel. 💯👍🏻

[@greyone40]

Imagine going into a McDonald's and finding a National Socialist officer behind the workers enforcing party ideology, and with no concern for profits. We have a version of this with the new DEI officers in corporations. it is disastrous and harmful, but also seems to be taking place more or less voluntarily. A bad case in banking would be the regulations that eventually brought the housing crash in 2008, where political aims were enforced above monetary concerns, forcing banks to make loans (sub-prime) to standards that made no sense financially. It ended up causing great harm while supposedly trying to help people.

[@ladymacbethofmtensk896]

And the bad banking regulations began with a class-action lawsuit brought by a young Barack Obama.

[@W5nmwh50]

Totally brilliant as always

[@Trail-tl9dd]

I think it all goes back to "If I were in charge, it would have worked." Hitler may have called himself a socialist, but "that wasn't real socialism" making Hitler not a socialist. Obviously, this is overly simplistic but they have so much faith in their worldview, they cannot possibly believe they could be wrong.

[@robonator2945]

This is the thing a lot of people either don't or pretend not to understand; 'ownership' is just a descriptive to explain the level of control you have over something. Just like 'money' is just a representation of value which is only raised through labour and productivity, (so 'just print more' will never work even though nothing is technically stopping you from doing it) 'ownership' can't actually be granted without giving people more rights to do things with it. If you sell your house to someone, but you still get to decide it's color, get final say on any additions, decide who is allowed to be present at all times, set a noise level, etc. then you didn't really 'sell' it. If the buyer doesn't care about any of those things and chooses to buy it anyway knowing those restrictions then that's not morally wrong, but they don't 'own' it. It's fine to *_say_* you 'sold' it for ease of communication, but the second people start abusing that terminology to make a point it can't be understated that, no, you still have 'ownership' over it. Ownership is the descriptor for the capacity to justifiably dictate usage, if you have the justified right to dictate it's usage (which you do if that was the agreement you sold it under) then you still 'own' the house, irrelevant of however people want to talk around it or fixate on what it says on a piece of paper. I can't even give benefit of the doubt here when people don't put this together because it's clear that most people have the capacity to understand this premise. The "Right to Repair" movement (you don't have a "Right to Repair", you have a right to buy repairable products. I don't have a right to simply bulldoze houses, I have a right to buy a house and bulldoze it. I don't have a right to encrypt data, I have a right to encrypt *_my_* data. If I upload ransomware to your computer and encrypt *_your_* data, I'm in the wrong. Rights are (in 99% of cases) negative freedoms, not positive.) frequently uses this as a talking point. People clearly understand the difference between "owning" something and having actual ownership over it, so frankly I think this is either just wilful ignorance or outright deception when they talk around it.

[@kikastra]

Just re-watched your 5 hour Hitler was a socialist video last night, so this is great timing. Thanks for your work!

[@jacquolen1952]

Bravo! The best explanation of the truth behind the Third Reich’s control of the German economy. Brief and concise. You make the argument seem so obvious.- Rich

[@jamestuck6764]

Germa Bel has been openly socialist since a young age. They always have huge difficulty in accepting that Hitler and his political ideology of National Socialism was in fact very closely related and that both him and Mussolini started their political journey as Marxists. From my own memories and experiences the Fascists were always portrayed as right wing and capitalist but never with any supporting evidence. It was basically just propaganda. Naturally high profile politicians / authors / academics, etc can't accept they might be wrong. They would look silly.

[@UsoundsGermany]

of course, socialist / marxist.. left/right is the same...only dumbdumbs beLIEve still in these left/right paradigms which the cabal made up

[@JonathanWrightZA]

When people say "freedom of contract was respected", I respond with "well yes, I would also respect freedom of contract when I contract with myself"...

[@varvarith3090]

37:44 In a free markets economy state can't exist because violent extortion of taxes violates market freedom. We live in controlled markets economy when state allows restricted property rights and restricted economical freedom to reap the profits of free market, but not lose control over it. This is why economy changes in waves: States lift regulations to allow people to prosper, then stricten them to reap the benefits repeatedly.

[@Spido68_the_spectator]

Well, why didn't the deregulations of the 1980s lead to prosperity? Wage have stagnated still since then, while income inequality went through the roof.

[@Web720]

​@@Spido68_the_spectator Probably cause increased spending and currency printing, trying to bankrupt the Soviets. Neoliberalism at play.

[@razzberry1262]

​@@Spido68_the_spectatorBecause we had just gotten off the gold standard, and the era of credit expansion began to rear itself. Collateral begets credit which begets collateral, and so on. Inflationary credit expansion causes assets to accumulate premiums, and perishable goods (like human labour) to accumulate discounts. Everyone has the incentive to always be fully levered up and fully invested at all times, because inflation postulates future increases in revenue and the draw down in the value of previous debts denominated in nominal terms.

[@Spido68_the_spectator]

@@razzberry1262 And that credit bubble will come down in the coming years according to some qualified people... So yeah, a waste and people didn't become richer. Disconnecting wages from the reality of the economy was done on purpose

[@JimLaifstail]

Love this in-depth videos on economic topics in the Third Reich. In my opinion „Reichswerke“ can also be translated into “federal/state plants“ or “federal factories”.

[@jangelbrich7056]

Actually it would translate to "Imperial Works", as Reich = Empire. But the essence is same, state run.

[@JimLaifstail]

@@jangelbrich7056 yes, I agree. The British also made a distinction between German Empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich, where there actually was an Emperor/Kaiser) and German Reich, which the Weimar Republic was called in English after 1919, since there was no ruling Emperor anymore.

[@jangelbrich7056]

@@JimLaifstail It is indeed tricky. Germans today hardly still know it, this is too long ago, but the "Weimar Republic" was never called like this by contemporary people, it is a term created by later historians. German people continued to call their country Deutsches Reich, the Reich or simply Germany, and the fact that there was no more emperor after 1918 did not change that. Also the terms "Second" or "Third" German Empire were not contemporary, but categorizations by historians, and we use them today to distinguish the different phases of history. People prefer simple names. We don't say "Federal Republic of Germany", it is simply Germany, now since the reunification of West and East Germany.

[@jacksonnn1661]

"Why can't I see any water!? Guys I don't understand!!" This had me rolling tik 😂

[@mrmeowmeow710]

Another great think piece video loved it👍👍from a happy subscriber

[@DjDeadpig]

Call me cringe, but whenever I write an essay about Nazi Germany, I always refer to the Nazis as what they are, socialists.

[@WarHammer1911A1]

It's in the name...

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

I always say "NSDAP"

[@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231]

No, that's not cringe, that's just being accurate. Cringe is people who try to deny it.

[@sdrc92126]

What's the difference between The 25 Points of National Socialism and the 10 Planks of Communism?

[@ILikeMilk-es5ii]

Cringe that you still think socialism is good anyways

[@royale7620]

Tik can you do a video on Mussolini's economic policies in DETAIL to see how they compare to your 5 hour long Hitler video? please

[@lochnessmonster5149]

The companies sold shares to raise money for the state. That's pretty much it.

[@FaithfulObjectivist]

Tik: In case not already aware, recommend Peikoff lecture “The Role of Philosophy and Psychology in History”

[@cas343]

Our years of posting Piekoff quotes has finally paid off lol

[@some1online2]

Simply call socialism capitalism and people will ask for socialism as an antidote to capitalism, a simple trick of the tongue that lead us to where we are today.

[@whisped8145]

How can you even have Gleichschaltung and Privatisation at the same time?

[@drakmatheism]

"But he crushed the trade unions" That was my very last argument against your narrative (And you debunked it with amazing accuracy).

[@ironinquisitor3656]

I hate it whenever people bring up the so called "privatization" they act like it means the state had no hand in the economy.

[@Brosowski]

At the very least, I refer the the Nazis as seperate from Fascist ideology. I never combine them anymore due to TIK's videos.

[@ironinquisitor3656]

Yup they were different. They were both Third Position ideologies but not the exact same thing.

[@PaulHosse]

Another book relating to Nazi Germany's economy, which you may enjoy is "Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, And The Nazi Welfare State" by Gotz Aly.

[@CoLdPlAyEr1694]

I would like to ask, having watched the video, what is meant by "selling stocks" inside the company? This action does not make sense in itself, as it would not do anything; is there even something "sold" (shares)? Does it maybe somehow relate to give control over certain parts to someone? If TIK did address this, please direct me to it via a timestamp.

[@RaderizDorret]

Likely they sold "shares" of companies while promising profits (but no guarantees) while not ever giving up control. There is also something called a share split where you simply create more shares in a company but sell them at a lesser value than old shares to entice new money to come in as those shares are cheaper.

[@benmoi3390]

in short he just nationalised by using the law... there no need to use economical way to take controle when you just take directly controle over the place... it's like a government expropriating people with or without compensation.... in the end it's expropriation... the fact that you are compensated or not doesn't change that the property is now in the hand of the government.

[@tobiastook2427]

Perhaps the Harold James quote is him pointing out the sleight of hand used by the Nazis. They let the idea of private ownership remain, while legally changing the meaning of ownership.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

But it's not private ownership. A giant public company is not "private".

[@JonathanWrightZA]

You would probably be better of describing it as 'letting the 'owner' retain possession (possessio),. but the Nazi party/state got the ownership (detentio)'. Detentio is the unqualified 'power' within ownership. Possessio is merely a limited right at best.

[@christophertheriault3308]

The idea would still be false since the rights to private property were explicitly repealed from the Weimar Constitution.

[@weed...5692]

I disagree, because the language used leaves no room for interpretation: he said that the fundamental principle of ownership was left "untouched", but it wasn't untouched - it was pawed over.

[@JohnMcDevitt-f4o]

PLEASE don't stop these kind of lessons! The world needs TONS more of these types of videos. Preach it, brother, and God bless you, lad! Always remember that socialism is government CONTROL of the means of production.

[@Web720]

​​@tekinfomedi Marx doesn't have a monopoly on socialism. There were socialists before Marx like the Diggers/Levellers in the 1650s. Stop thinking Socialism is an ideology that started in the 1800s.

[@cyrusfreeman9972]

Fascism and communism produce identical results, therefore they are to be treated more or less identically, not as opposite ends of a spectrum. Change my mind.

[@shusterandy]

Yeah as you said people want to say that Hitler was a free market and not socialist. So they can say that free market is bad. I think people like to have that in their world veiw and it is dangerous. I feel even our government in America is in a similar place or at least heading down a similar fate. The national socialist thing is kinda tricky, it's almost like a stealth socialism. So like the government preferred party has their hands in the corporations, like the media and Hollywood and arguably other big corporations are run by liberals and or the left and have their influence in it. But it is almost disguised as "Capitalism" which can be deceiving. On top of all that all these corporations call any one opposed to them to be Nazis or Fascists when that couldn't be further from the truth. Now I know these companies like the media are allegedly run independent from the government, but they have a sort of leftist partisan control it seems. Now you can argue it's not exactly Socialist Fascism either. Can't necessarily say that it is National socialist because the leftists in America are neither Nationalist or neither about race. But still seems to be a variation of it. Now he said Russia and China is more like Nazi Germany in terms of economics. That makes sense because they allow some "Free Market Business" supposedly just still synchronized with the state and state policy.

[@briannewman6216]

The movie Schindler's list gives some insight into how the Nazi economy worked. It should be noted that Schindler was always wearing his NSDAP badge.

[@nigelbagguley7606]

This episode gave me massive flashbacks to my own economics studies back in the late seventies, when the only times my teachers/lecturers departed from Keynesian theory was when they went full blown bloody Marxist.There is no arguing with people who have been installed with an ideological filter because any and all new data goes through that filter which then distorts it into something that supports the pre-existing ideology.In effect,they need to undergo the same deprogramming process that have been used to extract people from religious cults.( lol, lol, lol)

[@Pan_Z]

Feels like Keynesians look at how eeriely similar Nazi and Fascist economic policies are to their own, and distort their conclusions to feel more comfortable.

[@0giwan]

Brilliant video as always.