Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming

"I am a socialist.” - Hitler, from his "Zweites Buch" (Second Book) Page 50.
Some continue to believe that Hitler and National Socialism wasn't REAL Socialism. Some believe that the totalitarian State of the Third Reich had no power at all, and that the market was 'free'. They want to believe that Hitler and his State "privatised" the industries, and had NO control over the economy. Worse, they even think that Nazism didn't call for the creation of a 'People's State' after the conquest of Lebensraum. Yes, 80 years after the events in question, many are still pushing a contradictory narrative that directly goes against the overwhelming evidence pointing towards the complete opposite conclusion, and then refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong in their interpretation. Well, having produced a 5 hour video on this subject (link • Hitler's Socialism | D... ) only for it to be ignored and dismissed by my critics, and my supporters requesting a shorter version, I've created a condensed and updated video that hits all the main points. Using numerous primary and secondary sources, this video shows the substantial amount of flaws in the Marxist-denialist argument, and presents a solid interpretation of the evidence that makes much more sense than the denialist argument ever has.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
The source list is provided at the end of this video's PDF Script, which you can find here drive.google.com/file/d/1D76x...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Photo by Pixabay: www.pexels.com/photo/agreemen...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from KZbin ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

People asked for a condensed and updated version of my 5 hour Hitler’s Socialism video, so here it is. A lot’s been cut out, but it also has new evidence, so enjoy and please share with others! The script and source list can be found in this PDF: drive.google.com/file/d/1D76xf4yemsN25A21jpw-GokPq47IijPd/view?usp=share_link

[@openeroftheway8596]

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

[@scotty101ire]

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

[@QuizmasterLaw]

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

[@robert48044]

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

[@hafizihilmibinabdulhalim1004]

Hey Tik do you have an opinion about a video by socialist KZbinr called Second Thought where he tried to explain that Nazis were not Socialist but he gave a very weak argument like Nazis were not socialist because they killed other socialist. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmrIq2mtaqeIg68

[@benedeknagy8497]

"Farmers were encouraged to stop producing meat and eggs." Waaaaait a minute....

[@boobah5643]

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

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

underrated little gem of a comment here.

[@Ripper935]

Fear is big business.

[@chriskostopoulos8142]

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

[@steviewondek]

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

[@NoFlu]

My favourite form of "free trade" is when a guy with a gun tells me what and whom I may trade with and promply puts me into a slave labour or death camp if I disagree with him. A truly free market....

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@piotrmadalinski8618]

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

[@deriznohappehquite]

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

[@mkzhero]

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

[@its_gerryz14]

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

[@carlodebattaglia6517]

As an Italian, I would say that the most profound philosophical imprint on Fascism was not the actualism of Gentile (too cerebral, complicated and known by very few) but the ideology of D'Annuzio, who was a great communicator and has been a true and influencial "superstar" for decades.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@romulusmars3766]

Gentile is based

[@4h844]

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

[@romulusmars3766]

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

[@4h844]

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

[@kosakos1999]

Personal timestamps: 5:13 Nazi and Soviet economy 11:42 Planned economy 17:49 Labour policy 19:03 War as a means to export inflation 25:59 Socialist rational regulation 26:57 Pre-Marxist socialism 27:59 Race socialism 28:48 Nazism without racism is plain socialism 31:02 National VS international socialism 32:03 Marx's anti-Semitism 32:51 Hitler's anti-Semitism 33:47 Hitler's opposition to Marxism 36:53 Hitler's ideological war 38:24 The (German) People's State 39:24 Nazi revolution 42:33 Hitler is a socialist

[@user-qw6zj5ix9k]

Goebbels would be proud of you

[@kosakos1999]

@@user-qw6zj5ix9k Do you not understand the meaning of "personal"? Get lost!

[@edoboleyn]

Thank you, Kilophilos!

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Kronie spotted

[@ot4kon]

now it is OUR timestamps

[@johnsanko4136]

I think one of the major issues of discussing Socialism in America is that Americans tend to conflate "Socialism" with Marxism/Bolshevism. Many of the arguments I've heard against German National Socialism being "not true socialism" are really arguing that it isn't Marxist.

[@user-ss3nk5fz6n]

Not just America, unfortunately. There is a belief among many Marxists that if marx didn't write it himself, then it isn't true socialism. This is why when you ask a Marxist to define socialism, they'll go on about a society without a hierarchy, which is explicitly for the benefit of the working class. They've added those parts to it to allow them to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany were not real socialists. (The funny part is, of course, that they do not understand that in Hitlers mind, Hitler was trying to save the working class and that it is what his anti-Semitism was.)

[@ismaelsantos5378]

@@user-ss3nk5fz6n Also, a looooot of people supported BLM even tho blm uses the same core foundations of National Socialism. All you have to do to make it more obvious than it is already is to change "black/poc" for "german" and "white" for "jew" and then it clicks in the minds of normies and leftists alike, the former going "oh, oh, OH I see it now!" and the later simply raging because it defies the cult's doctrine.

[@mylesg7278]

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

[@SabotAndHeat75]

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

[@user-ss3nk5fz6n]

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

[@carterghill]

Tried convincing ChatGPT that Hitler was a socialist purely by asking for definitions, siting what he said and did, and requesting logical conclusions on that basis. Not only were the answers very different than from what I'd get by asking flatly if Hitler was socialist, but the damn bot crashed right when I thought it would make the conclusion. It may have been a coincidence but I've made it crash multiple times now and it's always on that controversial step

[@buzter8135]

🤨 That's one way to use it.

[@Destro7000]

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

[@destubae3271]

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

[@buzter8135]

Have you tried one of the jailbreaks though?

[@MR-nl8xr]

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

[@Acarson87]

Thank you for addressing Reddit's badhistory post about you. I find it ironic when they try to say that you are a liar but then they don't even bother to cite anything disproving your claims and your evidence and references. It just is a massive whinge post.

[@ven11235]

Libtards never provide evidence, they just bitch

[@Jenseduca]

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

[@verscarii3238]

​@@Jenseduca What a convenient excuse.

[@Jenseduca]

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

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@sirfrozsomji3984]

It's a race - ie Germanic - based Socialism. In other words, it's Socialism based on kinship and ties of blood. He saw the Germans as being members of one big happy family, related to each other as blood relations. Socialism from that angle - the group thing - doing everything together as a group whether in work or outside of work, melding together as a particular race, which would exclude the outsiders who are not seen as being of the same blood; that would also exclude Internationalism or the world brotherhood or we are all one, idea. Hitler said that "Socialism is dealing with the common weal, is an ancient Aryan, Germanic Institution". Nothing to do with Marxism or Communism which is internationalist in its outlook. "and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic" and he also said: "Socialism unlike Marxism does not repudiate private property". He also said: "We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of the race solidarity". This is what he said in 1923. It'a a peculiar form of socialism with do with the advancement of a particular race.

[@directAction3389]

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

[@swagkachu3784]

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

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@JanRiffler]

Ethno National Socialism.

[@mikem.s.1183]

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

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Does anyone know any modern capitalist corporations that are staffed with governmental political party members dressed in military style uniforms? I seemed to have missed that part of modern day capitalism

[@nemamiah7832]

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

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

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

[@QuizmasterLaw]

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

[@QuizmasterLaw]

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

[@Lonovavir]

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

[@AFGuidesHD]

"The Germans viewed private property as conditional" I mean you could argue that is the case for every country in the world. How often do plutocrat governments seize private property for their own uses? In fact Britain did it quite a lot in 1939. There's no such thing as "fundamental rights" especially not given by a government.

[@colebehnke7767]

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

[@kabedonovan5555]

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

[@colebehnke7767]

@@kabedonovan5555 what?

[@kabedonovan5555]

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

[@colebehnke7767]

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

[@elichase2760]

Have you considered typing this up publishing it into some type of article? It’s a lot easier for people to write this off as “just a KZbin video”, as opposed to being presented with an academic paper. Just found your channel, it’s great!

[@colebehnke7767]

@Pawwel Mussial but the Nazis had this plained economy years before the war, so it’s not comparable.

[@snakeace0]

Sadly academia has become the breeding grounds of socialists, and objective opinions like these are simply not welcome there.

[@Ftanftangfnarrr]

It'd be ripped apart. Hitler privatised the national banks, railways, utilities etc. Which country didn't have a planned economy in WW2? This video is very well informed factually, but with sub-GCSE reasoning.

[@Noodlepunk]

I would love him to write a book.

[@azzor4134]

Of course not. The reason he resorts to KZbin is that his work wouldnt stand to scrutiny. Dont take that seriously. He's better off doing KZbin videos anyway, and it is a better venue to spread his opinions to lay people than an academic paper. Lay people rarely read an academic paper in a subject they're interested in. I would even be willing to bet that they only become interested in a subject when KZbin shows them a video about it, and then forget it until another video shows up.

[@danstone8783]

Goebels called Marxist socialism 'socialism of the belly' and National Socialism "socialism of the soul".

[@kyle88740]

Claiming Hitler wasn't a socialist because he killed Röhm is like claiming Lenin wasn't a socialist because his Bolsheviks killed Mensheviks and he banished Martov

[@thenarkknight278]

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

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@thenarkknight278]

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

[@AverageAlien]

@@thenarkknight278 name them

[@thenarkknight278]

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

[@bigtittie7295]

He was a socialist, not a communist or marxist, a socialist is an umbrella term, many socialist ideologies are very different, but in the idea of collectivization of the people Hitler was clearly a socialist

[@MisterS.]

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

[@bigtittie7295]

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

[@laisphinto6372]

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

[@bluegamer4210]

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

[@josejaquez4100]

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

[@officeofpeaceinformation5094]

The sky is blue: the evidence is overwhelming

[@bluegamer4210]

I'm not a doomer but seeing these makes me understand the mindset

[@Madridy1996]

Rise against the WEF!!! I regret that I haven’t found your channel earlier sir. Greetings from Baghdad, Iraq

[@SittingOnEdgeman]

It's one of those things that is so hard for a normal person to believe that even my brother - who loves most of your work and has a masters in history - has a hard time stomaching this one. He hasn't identified any specific flaws in your sources or reasoning, so I think it's more just, how unthinkable it is to him in his worldview. I appreciate your hard work in this front and hope it gets recognized!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@SittingOnEdgeman]

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

[@SittingOnEdgeman]

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

[@joshuamaurer9784]

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

[@SepticFuddy]

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

[@citomp1240]

This is exactly what Klaus Schwab preaches today. It's beyond me why people can't see this.

[@FM-dm8xj]

because its (D)ifferent

[@millenniumvintage9726]

Because it’s not true

[@farzanamughal5933]

Here we go

[@Ashigeru47]

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

[@Biggiiful]

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

[@jrk1666]

Can't wait to show this to my history teacher only to be told to go fuck myself

[@danielk301]

Interesting. I've seen the following happen numerous times in internet discussions: 1. Someone even implies that Nazis were socialists. 2. Someone else gets peculiarly mad for such a neutral statement and starts yelling how the word 'socialist' in the name of NSDAP was basically a scam. 3. If someone asks his rationale for this claim, 9 times out of 10 the answer is "Hitler was funded by capitalists and he crushed the labor unions". 4. End of discussion. This is the basic level of intellect when it comes to debating whether nazis were socialists. My hypothesis is that it's mostly because in the cold war era being a "socialist" was fashionable among western humanist academia. The actual line of reasoning behind the rational facade is obviously this: Nazis are evil, socialists are good, thus nazis can't be socialists. Or, as you described "Marxism is socialism, nazis were opposed to marxism, thus nazis can't be socialists".

[@gamerpro2222]

I swear that the rebuttals you mentioned have been mentioned several times in this comment section. It's pretty hilarious how people continually try to bend the socialist definition to fit their marxist ideology, but it clearly applies to nazi germany as well.

[@pedroribeiro7922]

You know you've touched a nerve when Facebook suspends your account for sharing this video. Double thumbs up and continue the awesome work you do. Never surrender.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@Biggiiful]

Maud'Dib

[@alphabetpeople2902]

poor fascist, can't take fascism

[@Joshua-dc4un]

That's actually a fallacious argument 🤣

[@cosettapessa6417]

@@Joshua-dc4un cope

[@Bartolomeus002]

Nazi Socialism is a great example of how tribal humans still are. Nazis were CLEARLY socialsts, it doesnt mean socialists are or were nazis just because they share ideas on economy.

[@oscartang4587u3]

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

[@Admiral-General_Aladeen]

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

[@Admiral-General_Aladeen]

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

[@colebehnke7767]

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

[@Admiral-General_Aladeen]

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

[@silkok6346]

The main reason why most politicians and journalist and leftwing people say that hitler wasn't a socialist is because they always want to frame rightwing political partys and politicians that they are nazi's or support the ideoligy. The only thing righwing party's and Nazi's have incommin is conservative values and nationalism but that are the only 2 things. In fact for many people at the time the Nazi party was actually quite progressive as it was figthing for a new state and new way of live and culture, yes it wanted to recreated a german empire so that has some conservatisim to it but it actually was quite progressif. Most politcians to day don't want to agree that the nazi's where socialist because nazi's comes closer to leftwing politics than rightwing and they dont want to be comperared to it so that blame the rightwing party's. In reallty true historians knows that NationalSocialism is such a complext and differend ideoligy that u cant place it in the democratic political spectrum of rightwing and leftwing but that is an hole spectrum of its own.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

Right wing is radical and not conservative. Conservative and liberal are the centrist labels used in almost all liberal democracies.

[@jacobfrancis-burnett6837]

Privatisation is right wing. The reason things became under the controlee of the state...? You got it... Its called a war time economy. However contracts were provided to who...? Privet companies to produce war machines. He was not left wing. He was right wing. He was a fascist. Fascism literally and categorically only exists under right wing capitalist policy. What else did Hitler do? He purged the party of the actual socialist and dismantled their socialist policies and tried to frame the Communist party of crimes the Nazi party committed because communism was gaining traction with the public.

[@Biggiiful]

This is my FAVORITE topic of yours. Including the videos on Fascism, Public vs Private, Hitler's Vampire Economy, and the follow up supplemental and reaction videos etc. They've helped me understand, to the point that I've actually changed a few minds myself. Please keep at it, if you have more. Any and all information and evidence on this topic is especially important in our modern day. This giant historical misunderstanding/lie is possibly THE key to having a "mass awakening" to the control and oppression that socialism/Marxism/fascism/collectivism have held and still hold over the modern world.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@Biggiiful]

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

[@classicalextremism]

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

[@LoganLS0]

Have you checked out Dr. James Lindsay?

[@chrislambert9435]

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

[@Marchand848]

This is literally the funniest video I’ve seen on your channel. In a world where people can fight over who’s the football GOAT, but never define or agree on what the qualifications are required to be said GOAT, I can’t imagine how hilarious the comments are gonna be.

[@catinbeanie]

Fun game for you to try. Its pretty easy to find a communist or socialist (They're usually 300 pounds soaking wet) So take the quotes of Hitler, and instead pose them as Marxist quotes. I can easily say that many will fall hook line and sinker for it. Its a fun game you can try at home

[@rickglorie]

No, in Nazism the worker is subjected to the goals of the state. There wasn't any real socialism in there, it was just a ruse.

[@catinbeanie]

@@rickglorie Okay well do you mind to explain to me what happens to the people in say.. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, ETC when they refuse to give up the means of production? I would assume out of the goodness of a comrades heart they would simply leave them be yes?

[@rickglorie]

@@catinbeanie those are likewise totalitarian systems. Better compare it to western democracies. Are those perfect? No, but you try and change that without getting killed or prosecuted.

[@colebehnke7767]

@@rickglorie then the question is, what makes the Nazis different from any other totalitarian socialist state?

[@mansendwish]

@@rickglorie So there was syndicalism! See, no matter if NSDAP were true socialists, they WERE economically leftist, and far-left at that.

[@Merisu_Sheep]

I watched the 5 hour version of this video. It took a long time but I finished it and enjoyed it. I am now going to watch this one. I find it so funny how people will not even bother to watch it and then say you're wrong and stupid. If you do not listen to someone how can you state that they are wrong.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

They have their excuses. Did you see the video where someone "debunked" me? He hadn't watched the video and even admits it kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqO6n6irerNjaJY

[@Merisu_Sheep]

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

[@kitrichardson2165]

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

[@rudania]

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

[@RafaelSantos-pi8py]

I watched the original 5h video twice. Very eye opening and very much in line with what i learned in school about how fascist Spain operated, how they controlled the unions, the media, people's private lives and means of production, etc. It was taboo to point out the similarities between all these ideologies, partly due to the cold war , that being a fierce anti-comunist doesn't mean that your goals and methods are not in fact quite similar.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@ulflyng4072]

@@TheImperatorKnight Easy-peacy lemon squeezy - QED

[@executivedirector7467]

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

[@cyberputo]

@@TheImperatorKnight everything is possible when you lie.

[@wtice4632]

@@cyberputo you mean modern socialists?

[@ptkiller26]

Have you read Nathan Otto’s contemporary analysis on the Nazi Economic system (it’s a primary source)? It’s so detailed and gives so much information on the economic interventionist behaviour of the Third Reich.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@jakman2179]

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

[@ptkiller26]

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

[@davethompson3326]

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

[@jorgeR393]

@@TheImperatorKnight in libgen.?

[@Keiranful]

My great grandfather was a factory owner in southern Germany. The party sent him an application for party membership three times, the last time fully filled out. After that, they simply sent him the party book. He was also forced to take on prisoners as forced labour, french POWs for example.

[@thenarkknight278]

That isnt socialism tho.

[@Keiranful]

@@thenarkknight278 did I talk about socialism? No. What I was talking about was the ways the party forced factory owners to conform. But if you are stupid enough to deny the evidence in this video, the distinction won't mean much to you...

[@122jonte]

​@@thenarkknight278 yeah. There's by definition no factory owners in a socialist society

[@haraldthorson9153]

@@thenarkknight278 For TIK everything that involves authority is socialism.

[@kristoffer3000]

@@thenarkknight278 You think these dumb mofo's have any idea what socialism actually is? lol

[@bfranciscop]

Socialists: Capitalism has to conquer their neighbors because they will run out of food and wealth. Capitalists: We are having a serious obesity crisis, and everyone thinks we're bad because we produce more than what we need. Socialists: Inmediately run out of food and wealth, start conquering their neighbors.

[@selmakaplan1053]

obesity crisis; CHEAP FEED NOT NOURISHİNG

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@invasion8318]

yeah that china is starving hard, sure buddy

[@irishblockade2556]

I just now found your content and subbed. I'm catching up now on some of the ridiculous critic drama. I was looking for a better definition of fascism and found your content to be extremely helpful. Online forums are magnet for the ideologically driven narcissist and sociopath so I'd simply give no weight to anyone who can't be civil. I immensely appreciate your time, effort and citations. My dad was a history major and a govt intelligence analyst. He used to say "If you want to know what is in someone's head, look at what they say then how they spend their money. " Keep up the great work!

[@leonardticsay8046]

Your dad is a very wise man.

[@SteveB-nx2uo]

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

[@walterbailey2950]

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

[@walterbailey2950]

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

[@SteveB-nx2uo]

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

[@stephenkneller6435]

I have watched your 5 hour video three times. So much there to digest. Great videos!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@michaelmcclure3383]

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

[@pinochet3698]

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

[@michaelmcclure3383]

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

[@michaelmcclure3383]

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

[@zvezda_novah122]

This whole comment section is reflective on people not wanting to accept evidence of the dying cause rip

[@lindimashinini7237]

I can't believe it's the year 2023 and this topic is STILL up for debate

[@Supernautiloid]

It's not. It never was. The Nazis were capitalist. This was resolved a long time ago.

[@malcolmfreeman7802]

because people are miseducated and it takes awhile doing own research to get the truth. Fascism and national socialism is one of the harder ones to get. socialim is hard because the left and right have different opinions on what it is

[@seanmatto2258]

Humans are very stupid

[@digitalis2977]

A better color description for Socialism would have been: "This is Socialism...it is Red. This is Marxism...it is Orange. This is National Socialism...it's Brown. And this is Fascism...it's Purple. Now, these three colors aren't Red, *but they all have Red in them and cannot be made without it."*

[@louyachty9037]

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

[@robert48044]

This is prob my favorite topic that gets discussed on the channel.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@user-yv4mm6bx3c]

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

[@0944clayton]

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

[@SepticFuddy]

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

[@bakters]

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

[@TheUnplugged1]

literally got my Facebook restricted for 60 days for posting this

[@vascosantos5489]

Hello. You brought up an extremely interesting and controversial topic up for debate, and I would like to share my thoughts: Based on my readings and understanding of history, I wouldn't say Nazi Germany operated as a socialist or as a capitalist state either, to be fair - an argument I don't see too often being defended. Fascist regimes viewed the economy as a means to attain their main goal: expansion. In reality, they were much more concerned with the concept of nation, race and their imperialist agenda rather than following a specific state model. Their economic policies were mostly opportunistic and delivered with the intent to simultaneously hide key aspects of what was really happening as well as to get the popular support they needed in order to go to war This is why they could very easily borrow distinct elements from various seemingly incompatible ideologies from all over the political spectrum such as keynesianism, classic liberalism, conservatism, etc...if you think about it, this was an almost avant-garde way to deal with the economy at that time. Economics aside, there is no room for any reasonable doubt regarding the fact that Fascism is in essence a RIGHT wing ideology NOT a left wing one. And, Nazi Germany was no expection. Lets not forget the constant prosecution of leftists (communists and soc dems) by the government, how he linked the jewish people with a leftist plot, the purge of the left wing elements of the Nazi party that took place on the Night of the Long Knives, the fact that Hitler initially entered government in a RIGHT wing coalition and consolidated his totalitarian power with the support of every right wing party in parliament (both moderate and hard right) who voted in favor of his proposal, etc...I could go on and on. To say Hitler had any sympathies for the left would be a factual fallacy - and a very dangerous one too, as it would be an attempt to rewrite history - which I know you would oppose to as well. That being said, and as someone on the left, I will accept that objectively speaking there were socialist elements (and I stress the word elements) in Nazi Germany too (the state control over the means of production and the planning as well as a few other programmes, etc...). Now, if you look at the timing, it coincided with the war economy Era - which changed their approach drastically. Same happened under Churchill and I doubt his Conservative government is seen as socialist. Yet, his war economy measures included nationalisations and more state. I do mean this in the most respectful way though, as you are a great content creator and speaker and I have enjoyed watching your videos. Cheers!

[@oscartang4587u3]

What is your definition of fascism? Fascism hate the late stage Capitalism as much as communism did in their ideology. If Fascist was Protestant in 16th to 18th Centuries, bourgeoisie would be the Satan, and Communist would be the Catholic. "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell ,despite scattered, illustrated the the Socialist origin of Fascist economical and political ideology. The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors: 1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price. 2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism. 3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency). 4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away) 5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes." 6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions. The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) "class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52) The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147) "In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66) Yet archive this final goal, a Revolution would still be required. (Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part. "The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52) ) The economical aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics. The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society. To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole. In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation. Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order. As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production. One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests. Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process. The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems. Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)

[@oscartang4587u3]

The reply did make me look like I am defending fascism. I might need to put an disclaimer here, what people want to achieve didn’t really reflect what they can achieve. Even with good intentions, allowing an entity(not just government) to control everything/ too much things in society would very likely cause disaster.

[@harry4rrtiiurrr]

It was not a right-wing ideology and still isn't. What left and right ment back then was completely different and for simpler terms there was a left and a right socialist group in which Hitler was on the right as his ideas were in no way inline with moder Conservative/right wing ideas or even old. Hitler called himself a socialist and said many times how he took inspiration from the socialists and saw his version as the better more reformed/final version of socialism as in which many have taken inspiration from and formed their own doctrine e.g Karl marx, stalin, lenin or Mao. Fascism is just the final form of communism where those people understand that the only way to sustain their "utopia" inevitably includes capitalism to some degree. Arguably, China is truly what a fascist country looks like. As the only true difference between communism/socialism (as communism is just the goal of socialism) and facism is one has capitalism and the other doesn't.

[@sebastiaosousa5730]

Just a small commentary: The concept of Left and right, since its creation, always meant progressism and conservatism respectively. This happens because, in French "general States" ( i belive this was Created in the absolutist era, but correct me if im wrong) where the guys that wanted progress would sit on the Left side of the kings POV and the conservatives on the Right. By this definition, we can argue that, as declared conservatives, the Nazis could be placed on the right, with your argument that the concepts were different losing its effect. Its just my opinion though, and it can be wrong😊 Have a Nice day, yall h​@@harry4rrtiiurrr

[@dreamdiction]

The German definition of "privatization" means taking farms and business OUT of the speculative market, as in (private limited) as opposed to public PLC. Hitler correctly called himself a "National Socialist". Quoting speech by Hitler on December 28, 1938: "A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false." (- Speech given on December 28, 1938, quoted in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93.) Quoting "The Red Network" 1934: "Fascism, the bitterest enemy of Socialism-Communism, resembles Socialism in the respect that it gives great power to the State and dictatorship over all industry, employment, education, freedom of the press, etc . The points of difference which make it violently hated by the Reds are : its opposition to the "class struggle" and the subjugation of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat . Rather, it seeks a harmony between all classes and concedes to industrialists, white collar, professional, as well as laboring workers, a place in the social order as necessary parts, not "class enemies," of the whole, but under State control . It defends some property rights and religion . It opposes Marxist philosophy and the Communist and Socialist Marxian parties . Fascism in Italy is not anti-Semitic . The problem of the large number of revolutionary Russian Jews in Germany doubtless contributed toward making Fascist Germany anti-Semitic. Fascism arose in Italy and Germany as the result of the weakness of Democracy in combating the Marxian poison which had been allowed to disintegrate the entire social fabric of these nations with agitations for strife and disunity. It took over power at a time in both countries when the choice lay between Fascist or Red dictatorship . It is the only enemy feared by the Reds, because it is the only system which opposes militancy with militancy and puts down one dictatorship by means of another. The price of Democratic freedom is eternal vigilance . When a people are too indifferent to the loss of their liberty, too blind to see that unchecked Marxism will result in complete chaos, disunity and national helplessness, too lazy to bother to protect their form of government, or to govern themselves, then some form of dictatorship will arise to take over the task for them. Unless large numbers of Americans (and Europeans) shake off their present indifference to fast disappearing liberty and to danger from within, and combat Socialism-Communism vigorously, some form of Fascism will arise in America to do battle with Socialism for the dictatorship over the indifferent. As the strength of Socialism-Communism increases, the chance to preserve Democracy decreases, until eventually Fascism becomes the only alternative to Socialism-Communism. It is late, but not too late to save American Democracy if Americans will awaken-now/ Where are America's leaders?".

[@Cezarkiewicz]

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

[@anthonyyawtwumasimensah197]

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

[@abaker4692]

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

[@grahamskippy]

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

[@BrutusAlbion]

Hitler: I'm a socialist. Modern Socialists: NoOOOooo! It can't be!

[@evanmoreno360]

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

[@BrutusAlbion]

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

[@evanmoreno360]

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

[@BrutusAlbion]

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

[@Lilliathi]

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

[@Croz89]

There's a lot of people out there who desperately do not want to believe that socialism can exist within an authoritarian and malevolent society. They want to believe that there is something so inherently virtuous about the ideology that it is impossible for evil to be done under its name. I do understand that some may feel linking nazism with socialism will be used as a kind of "gotcha" against socialism, which would be short sighted, great evils have been committed under pretty much every shade of political ideology that has been popular in history. It's certainly not fair to say socialism or communism are evil just because Hitler or Stalin were subscribed to those ideologies.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@hanklesacks]

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

[@evanmoorman3828]

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

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@js290]

@@soulcapitalist6204 "Scaling... you could be a libertarian at a state level and communist at the commune level and it's not incompatible... what works in Norway (size of NYC borough) won't work for 300M people." kzbin.info/www/bejne/ep_CiXh6ha6Yi5om8s

[@frankdecardenas53]

As a person that expended his childhood in Cuba from the very beginning of Castro reign, I can say that this guy is really on point there are so may parallels that is actually surprising. Thank you for uncovering this with can be applied to many countries domestic policies including our own.

[@bryanutility9609]

Does Cuba have gay parades and trans kids?

[@soulcapitalist6204]

@@NullParadigm Cuban communism was started in a putsch like the soviets. This makes it hard to say that any populace approved of what was put in place. Actually, we see counter rebellion in both nations because the communism was hated.

[@On_The_Piss]

How many Cuban national industries did Castro privatise? Remind me.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

@@On_The_Piss The Cubans went on a spree of expropriation without compensation, just like nazi gleichschaltung. Neither privatized any national industry. Germany engaged substantially in privatization during Weimar Republic, for example, all of the forestry works in Rhineland. Not true of 3rd Reich.

[@AceFromGorillaz]

Castro popular in privatizing industry. Christ you clowns are so uneducated

[@laurenjeangreenbean6301]

Oooh! Saw my name in the donation scroll, and I am proud to say I was able to take a .0001% credit for the excellent content. I am just beginning to get the idea of socially (whether by class, religion, race) structures are still misrepresented and misunderstood based on current economic hooey. I started watching History for Thinkers, but I am not sure how to be so dismissed as to alter your own rational thoughts 🤔

[@M0rshu64]

TIK, I just want to say that I've been subscribed to you for several years. Your content has really changed my perspective on politics and economics. I like to listen to your videos including your 5 hour one when I'm doing long hours of work on my computer. I even downloaded it as a back up in the event that it gets taken down or your channel gets terminated.

[@farzanamughal5933]

www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

[@segretoesconociusto]

I also was struck when I, being a socialist, concluded that Nazism was a variation of Socialism. I fought a long time against it, because I was really convincend of the moral superiority of Comunist values, altruistic empathy towards the weak in power relations. I am a descendand of jews killed in camps, but one of jews that survived in my family was a Comunist in Brazil. Even him lived a life not realizing the ideological links between different strands of Socialism.

[@LevisH21]

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

[@brandonmorel2658]

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

[@greierasu]

I lived in a former socialist country, Romania, and I confirm that in true SOCIALISM workers couldn't just change jobs, they had to ask the party to approve the "transfer" to the other state owned firm. Workers cannot even quit their job easily, If a worker dared to quit his job, he was considered a harmful "element", a bad example for workers. This act was recorded in the "work card" as an indelible stain. Also there were almost no strike, the unions were merely tools of the party and secret service.

[@rwcowell]

TIK I love the way you can cite your discussions from written sources and authors, then converse them into a sensible and based argument. You are a scholar and gentleman. Although I enjoy your battlefield discussions, I commend your efforts to educate people that nazis, marxists, fascists, and communists are all based from socialism and to correct the misconceptions that capitalism and free market economies are attributed to nazism and fascism, are much more critical and important discussions to have considering our current events.

[@werrkowalski2985]

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

[@executivedirector7467]

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

[@colebehnke7767]

@@executivedirector7467 can you provide a sample?

[@kanekarazi6477]

@@colebehnke7767 Just trust him bro

[@executivedirector7467]

@@colebehnke7767 Read what Adam Tooze really said.

[@arvidkoop6738]

Hi TIK as a native German speaker I wanted to ad that "Gleichschaltung" is even more than synchronization. It means more something like making everything the same as the word is made up of two words which mean Gleich = same and Schaltung = switching. So I would interpret "Gleichschaltung" as incooperation into to the nazi and state agenda and the interest of the state.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@arvidkoop6738]

@@TheImperatorKnightthat's great thanks!

[@TheFjordflier]

Hi TIK Great video. Not sure how much you know about the Quisling regime in Norway during WW2. The only legal party was the "Nasjonal Samling", lead by Vidkun Quisling. They had a uniformed paramilitary organisation much like Hitlers SA, called "Hirden". Not sure what that translates to in english. They had naturally their own songs, often performed during marching. Some lines of one particular song lyrics goes: Løftet om Quislings Norge lever i Hirdens tro, vernes av sosialister, ungdom av nordisk blod. Translates to something like this: The promise of Quisling's Norway lives in " Hirdens" beliefs/faith, protected by socialists, youth of nordic blood. They are themself using the term socialists. Strange no one here in Norway or anywhere else mention this fact. Keep up the great work Sincerely

[@robertlehnert4148]

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

[@robertlehnert4148]

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

[@TheBeatlesShow]

Nobody mentions it because it's misleading

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@Alexander-mr4yw]

Hey there TIK. I watched several of your videos and really enjoyed them and appreciated your style. I was really intrigued by your unusual perspectives and interpretations. BUT I subscribed despite detecting an off putting meanness and pettiness. These videos would be more enjoyable and convincing if the snarky bits were replaced with more humor and compassion. Even worse, I found your approach in the comments to be pretty disrespectful to the audience.

[@michealbohmer2871]

My grandfather and his brother owned vineyards on the Rhine. When the Nazi came to power, they told my grandfather he had to give over his land. He tried to refuse but his brother agreed to it. My Grandfather fled Germany and was chased down by the Nazis. He got away but only after having his heel shot during the escape. He came here, to Australia. When war broke out, he was put in a prison camp and remained there until the end of the war.

[@skeezicksz]

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.” - Martin Neimoller 1946

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@steviewondek]

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

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@VolrinSeth]

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

[@liamphillips4370]

TIK! Awesome content as always. I have a question: Considering you renamed this channel "TIKhistory", do you think you'll ever make one about philosophy/economics? I'm thinking like "TIKonomics" or "TIKethics", etc. Not so much that you'll make a million different channels for different subjects, but moreso if you'd make one specifically analyzing ideology (as you do here a bit) and other schools of economic thought. I ask because I think you're probably the biggest AnCap KZbinr, and it's funny because your channel isn't specifically AnCap-focused per-se, but I think if you had another channel that was, and focused on things like Argumentation Ethics and what I've already mentioned, it would be pretty cool.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Interestingly a few people in the comments have asked for the same thing! As I said to them, I could do this, and I have been debating making a second channel for more off-the-cuff type content, so this is a possibility. I will consider it.

[@tyvamakes5226]

In all honesty, I think Tikhistory does stick, most because even discussing just about philosophy and economics require history to give these terms meaning

[@liamphillips4370]

​@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for the response, it would be great to see content like that.

[@liamphillips4370]

@@tyvamakes5226 I think it depends. Saying Nazi Germany was socialist? That's history. Saying why socialism can never even in theory work? That's economics. He could include certain historical examples demonstrating why that's the case, but it wouldn't be primarily history like this video.

[@tyvamakes5226]

@@liamphillips4370 Fair point, though etymologies would still stand.

[@v.mateirotaru9059]

Similarities with Lenin's Socialism end at the economy, and even here similarities waver.

[@rtmclean484]

This whole video is garbage agit-prop

[@piirakkaliisa8340]

Can you tell if any of these books you have used as source has been translated finnish? I can speak and read pretty good in english but it still is easier for read on native language because there is so many words i do not fully understand. Ive been telling people here for a long time that there is basicly no difference for avarage Joe which form of socialism you live under to. State will always strip your freedom away. It is unreal how many finnish leftists totally ignore the fact that soviets and national socialist were basicly the same. Few differences here and there but overall same fate for Joe. It is also custom here in Finland that it is socially ok to be open about if you are a communist or socialist in USSR sence but when someone says out loud Heil Hitler, people freak out. I personally dispase all socialist because i cant stand the idea that state controls my life. Im for public healtcare, transportation , fire department etc. but thats it. State can stay out of my life when it comes toeverything else. I do not need state for telling which time it is ok to me to go buy strong alcohol and where to get it for example. Here state has a monopoly on selling strong alcohol. Anyways. I like this channel. I got a one friend who cant stand the fact that sometimes you get more infromation from youtube than our universities or media. It was also common during in cold war here that if you were openly againts leftists or socialist democrats, you could not get same jobs, education, political changes etc. We have many skeletons in our society when it comes to this subject.

[@dogfacedponysoldier87]

The 4 hour long vid on Hitler “I am a Socialist” is my favorite vid in KZbin.

[@leonardticsay8046]

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

[@littlegamer00]

Hitler was a HEAVILY right wing leader.

[@carlrichieukmusic]

​@Trevor Brannon agreed. #EuropaTheLastBattleDocumentary

[@jasontrauger8515]

Ironically, I watched a video, on Fascism/fascism (upper case, as that video depicted the capitalization for Italy specific), stating that he wasn't a Socialist, and was only fascist, because he privatized things and killed the unions. It is like nobody can think independently, from everything written. This is why I appreciate your work, TIK. You use sources, but you don't parrot the sources.

[@executivedirector7467]

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

[@medmuscle]

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

[@jmgonzales7701]

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

[@rtg5881]

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

[@executivedirector7467]

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

[@drunkenork5373]

There is no point attempting to debate with Socialists/Marxists. They only have one mode and that is to keep changing and arguing the definitions. This is how you know you are dealing with dishonest people.

[@andrewwood6285]

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

[@subsamadhi]

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

[@Goblinhandler]

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

[@AceFromGorillaz]

Brother you don't even know the definition of socialism

[@thomaspayne3347]

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

[@kaunas888]

In addition to the national/ethnic pride element, (and despite National-Socialists not waging class warfare per se), Hitler clearly had his fondest feelings towards the workers, and considered them to be the paragon of German virtue, as opposed to the exploitative wealthy and aristocrats. In a speech he stated his goal that all Germans would/should spend at least some time doing noble physical labor to build infrastructure for the greater good in the RAD.

[@Marinus_Calamari]

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

[@wolfgangdevries127]

So did John Lennon when he was high.

[@js290]

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

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@nollkoll2]

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

[@ovs8691]

"If you care about your own people you're a Nationalist and if you want to help them you're a socialist" - A HOI4 player

[@_sarpa]

american's attempt at logic

[@Xenduigameing]

Hi Tik. I'm not sure if you'll see this, but I want to ask anyway even though I'm not sure if you have an answer. I've enjoyed watching all of your content on National Socialism. Especially after learning that my great great grandfather escaped Nazi occupied Poland in the early 40s. My Grandmother gave me his identification papers that he would have had to present to an officer if he was ever stopped. It's a small leather booklet stamped with the eagle and swastika respectively. Ever since seeing this booklet, I've been trying to learn as much about National Socialism as I can because I find it's evil incredibly unique and horrifying. Something that has been bothering me though is this questions: What are the actual policies that Neo-Nazis believe in? This is a question/point that you made in your previous 5 hour long video (when you asked if Neo-Nazis have actually read Mein Kampf) and I have not been able to get this question out of my head. Have Neo-Nazis actually read Hitler's book? Do they know what National Socialism actually is? Or are they appropriating Nazi imagery for their own version of racial nationalism? I've tried to find answers to this question and all I'm presented with is "Neo-Nazis commit violence". And I'm like, "Yeah, duh. But what are the policies that they want to put in place besides their stupid racial ideas?" I've probably been put on some kind of watchlist by my government for trying to answer this question, lol. But I feel like you can only fight against an enemy when you understand what they want. I don't expect you to be an expert on this topic, but I wonder if you've read anything about modern Neo-Nazi beliefs. Hope this wasn't too much =)

[@TheHelloImTom]

nation socialism is evil and horrifying?

[@retrocomputing]

The main idea is to create a state that's ruled by your ethnic group. The second one is to overcome all the negative effects of the last decades, including replacement by other ethnic groups and low birthrates. The rest depends on local history.

[@richardbechtel8317]

If you ever actually talk to neo nazis you will find out very quickly that they, too, are socialist leaning but not because the nazis were. Just go talk to people dude. Even people you think are evil, especially people you think are evil. My being of Jewish descent didn't stop me from doing so, why should it stop you? Go ask them. In person. They're people. Just, people.

[@Web720]

My best guess is that they have socialistic beliefs, but they don't call it socialism due their stigma and history, as well as them probably not knowing what socialism is.

[@petreanko1237]

Neo-Nazis😅they are just a group of people who thinks they are cool to against the government's policy, If they lived under Hitler's rule, they might have been communists. There is one people in our class, and he probably doesn't know what Germany is

[@brucelittleboy3594]

Sometimes 'socialism' is more about the practical _control_ of business than formal _ownership_

[@VolrinSeth]

Under neither definition was Nazi Germany socialist, as the workers neither owned nor controlled businesses.

[@Axisjampa]

I like this version. I've seen the 5 hours version three times and it's great but tough for new people and difficult to share with friends. In the end, people need to read more so they can it understand better. Love your work TIK.

[@RS-xx5md]

Hi TIK, a longtime fan here. One thing I've been thinking a lot about recently is ideological Nazism, Volkish Blood and Soil Philosophy, and the link between it and the socialism of the Nazis. You explained this a little bit in a previous video, talking about how, unlike Marxism which focused on class struggle. Nazism focused on racial struggle. In this vein, I've been reading Darre and other volkish philosophies. and they strike me as inherently collectivist and lend themselves to a socialist worldview. I think this link between the philosophical underpinnings of Nazism and the practical economic realities, presents a cohesive worldview that the Marxists can't explain. Why would a philosophy grounded in the group Aryan identity and continuation of the race via "blood and soil" be some hyper-individualistic, pro-capitalist, "the individual matters" in economics? These aren't compatible worldviews, and the philosophy and racial theory of these leading Nazi thinkers directly support social (racial) ownership of the economy.

[@kimobrien.]

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

[@_sarpa]

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

[@soulcapitalist6204]

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

[@kimobrien.]

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

[@DarkImplement]

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

[@kkarhiiv95]

Here in the North- Baltics there is a documentary by us of this exact same topic, but it pushes the simularities to communist aspect a lot more.

[@farzanamughal5933]

Because it is propaganda

[@soulcapitalist6204]

@@farzanamughal5933 Because in the 1920s, Hitler and Drexler at least, incorporated Lenin's NEP methodology into the nazi plan. 3rd Reich executed the core aspects of this soviet-styled structural socialism - eliminating capitalist labor, commodity and property/equity allocation in 1933, their first year in office.

[@tamarakalytskaya5082]

Thank you for the enlightening video and for the hours of hard work that you have put into the research. I'm happy to have found your channel.

[@kristoffer3000]

Enlightening video? It's literally just extremely obvious lies upon lies, it has nothing to do with actual history.

[@jacquolen1952]

Though not a historian, I love all things historical. Like many of those who comment on your videos, I too was confused about why Nazi Germany took the steps they did if they were simply a fascist state controlled by big business and the military. Your narrative ties it up quite neatly (and more coherently) than any I have heard. Socialism based on Nazi racism really is the simplest explanation for all their actions.

[@fredneecher1746]

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

[@josephpeeler5434]

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

[@LaOwlett]

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

[@BobAgg-qr2me]

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

[@leonardticsay8046]

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

[@axelbossicard1505]

Ah sh*t, here we go again... but seriously I don’t understand those people who will not listen to your arguments and still say that you’re wrong. Nobody said you had to watch it in one time. It took me a full month and many rewatching to fully grasp all the points you were making. But I’m glad I did.

[@georgyekimov4577]

he is wrong BLACK IS NOT A COLOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is a hill i will die on

[@axelbossicard1505]

@@georgyekimov4577 Tik used black for fascism, fascism is bad, therefore he’s clearly saying that being black is bad. He’s a racist, cancel hiiiiiiim !!!

[@georgyekimov4577]

@@axelbossicard1505 how dare he

[@KissatenYoba]

Here, have counterargument to Tik via the exploration of track record of German private company Krupp kzbin.info/www/bejne/paqthamVprGkqas And it uses Nuremberg materials to show how 1) capitalists brought Hitler to power 2) those same capitalists (sometimes) were punished for urging Nazi aggression abroad

[@bobbwc7011]

Because he is wrong. Any German school student is better educated on the Nazi period than he is because the topic is so present from class 9 to class 12. It's a while ago since I finished school and back then we covered the whole continuous period First World War, Weimar Republic and Nazism three times in the subject History, with some outriggers in other subjects. And a big part even back then was the linguistic analysis of Nazi speech and its comparison to their true politics. So yes, he is wrong. His points are nonsense, and he doesn't speak German so he is oblivious to how the fascist ultra far-right dictatorship worked. He cannot comprehend if something said by Hitler was actually true, or euphemistic or outright trash. Our History teachers had lots of fun demonstrating on us / to us, how effective Nazi speech was if you don't think about it too much and if you lack the education to see through it. Just because it was 80 years ago does not mean modern people are immune to the far-right propaganda of the Nazis or Neonazis. This video is a good example that some people are still fools and still fall for unsubstantiable claims like Nazis = socialists. As a German I'm concerned now, because it's not even your fault that you don't speak German.

[@hrvad]

What many don't know it's that from Hegel sprang two branches. One was the new Hegelians among which Karl Marx was. This gave us Communism. The old Hegelian branch turned into Fascism and National Socialist. The main difference really is that Communists feel that the weak and oppressed were the heroes with the right "Vernunft" (sort of a gnostic/revelatory knowledge ... or "gnowledge"). Old Hegelians felt that it was the strong and capable who were morality right and that they this had the right to rule over the weak. But it was built on the same structural way of thinking.

[@doctorinternet8695]

Communists don't view the weak and oppressed as the heroes with the right "Vernunft". That is a complete misunderstanding commmunism. The goal of communism is to liberate workers simply because it assumes their perspective, and aims to benefit them. Similar to how capitalists have their ideology which benefits them. There are no idealistic categories such as heroes or revelatory knowledge, that is all meaningless. You are attributting something to communism that is completely foreign to the ideology, since it uses the method of viewing how material reality shapes society and then ideology. This method couldn't lead anyone to view a group as heroes, or having some special knowledge. Unless you define those categories a posteriori, but then, since those words have powerful prior conotations, it would be a disservice to understand the reality behind them. What is taken from hegel by marx is the concept of dialectic. Marx applies it to historical phenomena and categories. When a class of people arises, another arises which may have opposing interests, so they are defined by their mutable relationship to each other. For example, when people become slave ownes, there necessarily exist slaves, which them creates contradiction and conflict. The aim of communism is to end this constant contradiction between classes by ending classes. None of this thinking is present in fascism. It's fundamentally different.

[@hrvad]

@@doctorinternet8695 I understand your argument and where you're coming from, I think. I don't really disagree all that much with the perspective inherent in your argument - and I've certainly also entertained the ideaof motivated thinking. I do, however, consider much of what you write to be proximate explanations whereas I was going more for the ultimate explanation. Proximate and ultimate explanations can exist simultaneously and are equally valid. However, as I lead with not many people understand the deep roots of Hegelianism, Marxism and also the old Hegelian Fascism and National Socialism. It's a very deep rabbit hole, especially if we go beyond to find the religious roots of it all :) I'm not trying so much to define the more tanglible goals of Communism, but rather go to the deep philosophical - or rather religious - roots underlying this sort of thinking. So obviously I do not agree that what I've described is either wrong or alien to Coimmunist thought, but perhaps you facts. For the really long explanation I refer you to James Lindsay of New Discourses who have done a brilliant job of drilling down into the religious roots of Communism (and the two others). First off there's the "Verstand" vs. "Vernunft", roughly translated to English as "understanding" and "reason". Verstand has to do with understanding how things works and is closest in concept to what we would consider science. Vernunft is a "higher order understanding" that's holistic in nature and it's supposed to dwarf the "base" understanding of things - Vernunft is also what I would call a gnostic concept. Again ... this may be alien to you, but it's documented by now on New Discourses. Thomas Sowell used the phrase "the anointed", but it points to the same idea: some ecclesiarchy has their own 'special way of knowing' - in myth the spiritual leader goes into a cave for many days, in modern times they're an oppressed minority who - through virtue of their oppression - have gained special insight into the very nature of reality - this is what Paulo Friere calls "conscientization", that is, reaching a new level of consciousness of the correct kind. As James Lindsay (from New Discourses) has documented recently the whole Hegelian part about Verstand and Vernufts may have been simply plagiarized from earlier gnostic and Hermeticist beliefs. He just translated the words into German and presented them as new. The gnostic and Hermeticism texts are rather clear on the basic premise that we're sort of "flung into this world" and that it is in many ways a prison of sorts, and they have this Demiurgos that's like a tyrannical demon (oh dear, our first "systemic oppression"). What those gnostic Hermeticists are trying to do on a religious level is to liberate humanity from this prison of reality ("liberate" is not chosen at random and you should be able to recognize the use of that word in so much Marxist, Socialist and Communist speak). It's one of the basic attitudes that are easy to observe in Leftists - not only are they mad at their perceived oppressors of human descent, but often they resent reality itself which they feel is oppressing them. For example some feel it's oppressive they have to get off their butts to earn money so they can get food. To be liberated in the dialectical sense is to strike at the "shell of oppression" to make it dissipate, since Hegel this is done via the operation of the dialectic (and I'd argue that deconstruction is a modern mutation of the same concept). This view is the root of the relentless criticism (anti-thesis) that they collide with the established order (thesis) in order to arrive at a new idea (synthesis) ... the idea is to rinse and repeat for ever to crank the wheels of the dialectic ever towards the singular point where the Utopia occurs (for Hegel it was the eschaton, for Marx Communism, Hitler believed in his thousand year Reich). That is, the dialectical people believe that you just have to criticize relentlessly to shatter the shell of oppression within which the seeds of the perfect (Utopian) society already exists. If you know of alchemy this should strike a cord. As you may know the alchemists believe that there's gold inside of lead, it's just the "imperfection" of the "base metals" that are obscuring this fact. And they believe that if only you could remove the impurities of those base metals - or rather "base societies" - then the golden society will emerge pretty much automatically. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to call the dialectic the alchemy of society. Whoa whoa whoa ... what the hell is this gnostic Hermeticist alchemist thingamading? Surely it CANNOT be related to anything like the dialectic, Marx or anything like that? Right? Well, let me just put it this way: when I was groomed into the cult back in the 1990's by a lovely Floridian woman and her busband all those mystical concepts were EXACTLY what she used to groom me into being a Socialist and an activist. Here many years later as I listen to James Lindsay lay out these cult practices I've thought many times: "uncanny ... I wonder if James was there?" In practice what these people believe is that if you could only regulate all the social relations to perfection, then the perfect society emerges where every issue (contradiction/polarity/duality/tension) is resolved holistically. And those who have Vernunft have the holistic, gnostic view which - according to them - is the only thing that allows you to understand all the parts. It's pretty much what the WEF, WHO, ESG etc. is trying to accomplish in some communofascist version of the cultural revolution. If we turn to look at Fascism it may not appear to you that this line of thinking is present, but consider this. Whether it's Hitler or Mussolini what they aimed to do was put the great leader on top of society and have him express the so-called "will of the people" (and I'd argue that this definitely dips into gnosticism - the belief that you can get an actual glimpse of the Divine master plan - which to Marx was the arc of history bending towards justice). As such Fascism was largely synonymous with corporatism - which aims to subordinate industry under the watchful eye and control of the great leader as he charts the way towards the perfect state. As the great leader can express the will of the people it's the marshaling of all productive endeavors into the fully regulated and holistically ordered society. How can one man know the "will of the people"? I dunno, but the great leader certainly lays claim to some sort of revelation or gnosis that endows him with this ability to "gnow" the will of the people. Marx and Communism would speak of class and economics, Hitler would have his race Hegelianism, and of course today with Critical Race Theory we once again have some Race Marxism afflicting us all. We usually refer to Communism, Fasism, and National Socialism as "collectivist" ideologies, and they certainly are. It's not a big stretch to observe the emphasis on "holistic" ideas as also being in the collectivist camp. I guess at the end the question is what the fundamentals of the various Hegelian offsprings are? When I look at Hegelianism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism and National Socialism I find that they are remarkably similar under the hood. Outwardly they look much more different, even if they do create relatively similar societies. I guess my preference is to mostly look at the operating system under the hood. Anyway, this has been long enough :)

[@hrvad]

@@doctorinternet8695 James Lindsay has s video that explains how the gnosticism, hermeticism and Hegel, Marx etc is all connected. It's right at the beginning of the speech. I thought you might find it useful👍 kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKiulYpuj5Wmidk

[@doctorinternet8695]

@@hrvad Very interesting text and a very thoughtful one too. Thanks for presenting to me this interesting line of thought. Sorry for having ignored you, I haven’t been using this account much, so I’ll offer my thoughts. Sorry for the long comment too... First I see no problem in finding that ways of thinking may have deep historical roots. From ancient concepts that were morphed into and inspired other ideas. But this does imply some sort of equivalency between current ideas and past conceptions. And then again, we could apply this to all ideas and we’d reach the conclusion that everything has deep historical and religious roots (which would be fine), and that this means something greater (which is not necessarily fine). This would then constitute a method of analysis of where ideas come from, kinda like what hegel was doing. Your suggestion of youtube channel was also interesting , I’ll try to check it out later, but now I’ll focus on your comment especifically The particular connection which you try to present here also hinges on several hidden assumptions and faulty reasoning which I was able to detect: You trace this paralel: Gnosticism had a opressor demon behind reality; marxism claims opression behind society; this is evidence that they are related and have the same fundamental characteristics. First, the use of the word ‘systemic’ to descride the opression preached by gnosticism is na attempt to stablish a false paralel. It would be more accurate description is that gnosticism views opression as ontological, that is, it is a fundamental truth of reality. This makes clear the false paralel, since marxism simply identifies that certain forms of social organization contain opression, not making any ontological or metaphysical claims. On the contrary, marx, despite being critical of hegel in many ways, was inspired by his dialectical method, which was a counterpoint to previous methods that employed metaphysical explanations. Marx’s method of historical analysis utilized the material base of societies to derive explanations, that’s why it’s called materialistic. Another false paralel is the liberation intended by gnosticism and the liberation intended by the communist movement. You yourself say what makes it a false paralel: what gnosticism preaches is ‘trying to liberate humanity on a religious level from the prison of reality’. It’s a religious claim, that is, ontological in nature; trying to say something about the fundamental nature of reality and humans. Plus all categories of this claim are poorly defined: what does this teaching mean by “liberate”, what does it mean by “prison of reality”. This is due to it being a religious claim. The liberation intended by communist is a very specific material claim: in the capitalist system, workers are exploited because part of the result of their labor is forcefuly apropriated indirectly by the owners of the means of production due to the particular way society is organized. The aim is to overcome this societal form and achieve one where workers can have more control of the result of their labor, and use it according to their interests. Another mistake made is to conflate leftism with marxism or communism. Marxism is used to refers to a couple things, but for this discussion, let’s have it refer specifically to marx’s method of historical, so it is not necessarily political. Communism is considered to be a left wing ideology, but it has very specific characteristics, methods and aims, so the ‘basic attitudes of leftists’ can’t be used to derive many conclusions about communism, especially seeing that leftism is na incredibly mutable category from place to place and time to time. What is “basic” where you live may be unheard of where I live, and both may not even be a part of communism. You bring up a good example: communism has it clear that work is a basic human necessity, so no communist views work as opressive. Of course, others problems are identified in things like work relations, the relationship to work, the monetary system etc. A misunderstanding that you present relates to dialectic and marx’s version of it. You claim that “to be liberated in a dialectical sense is to strike at the ‘shell of opression’”. This statement, first of all, has little meaning at this point of the discussion, because no definition is provided for ‘shell of opression’, nor what it would be to strike at it. Then if we had definitions for these, the statement would be wrong, as far as I know, because dialectic is simply a method, there iwould be dialectical sense of being liberated (I’m not very knowledgeable on hegel’s dialectic, so my claims may not be accurate). Nor is dialect used to make the “shell of opression” dissipate, since opression is a material reality, so a philosophical method would simply have no direct effect on it. A dialectical method could be used instead to question basic assumptions and premisses that underlie societal organizations, alowing people to then work on changing it. What you claim as the point of dialectic is also not accurate, as far as i know. Hegel used it as a method to find truth, not some utopia. Marx’s dialectic relates to historical categories, he indentified that historical categories can’t be analysised nor explained as rigid or in isolation. For example, the historical category of a slave owners necessarily creates and relates to the category of slave, and they are both contradictory, since what is good for one is bad for the others and vice-versa. You can’t understand one without the other, and you can’t understand the societal effects of that relation without taking into account the struggle bewteen their competing interests. Now this says nothing about goals, the goals come with communist ideology which has the aim of stablishing a society whcich doesn’t have classes with competing interests which create human suffering. The goal is also not some utopia, because while the aim is that, it’s not an absolute, it’s gonna depend on material conditions. In the future, if we get closer to that, we will be more able to accertain the feasibility of such an endeavor. It’s more analogous to a scientific exploration: in science we may have a goal, such as creating a fusion reactor. The procedure is to aplly the method and do engineering until we find out how. There is no guarantee that we will find out a precise solution, but we as scientists will aim to make the best use of whatever we do find out. Still the reactor is the ultimate goal. You then trace another false paralel, just because we can bring examples of fascism having a goal and communism having a goal, that does’t mean that any of that has any relation to each other. “Dialectical people beleive that you just have to critize to shatter the shell of opression”. This statement also has little meaning at this point. What are the “dialectical people”? Are they the one that aply dialectic like hegel and socrates did? If so, it would be a method of finding truth, so it doens’t follow that they would believe that simple criticism would affect material reality, that makes no sense. Are they aplying marx’s historical dialectic? If so, as I explained we can’t affect reality by simply using a method to understand historical relations. Then, I think this is also a strawman, as I fail to see how someone would actually believe that criticism would solve anything. If the goal is to change reality, we must have real actions, every communist knows and practices this; everyone interested in changing things actually. Criticism, as I said before, may be used to question premisses and asusmptions that lead people to reproduce a certain societal form. But no one thinks that’s enough. Your point about “golden society coming about automatically” also does not apply to communism. This is a misunderstanding that you used to trace another false paralel to religious concepts. Communism contains the method of scientific socialism, which we could view as study and practice of what to actually do in practice to achieve the goals of communism. As the name says and as I said above, it’s analogous to a scientific endeavor. It involves understand mechanisms, making hypothesis, preparing the groundwork, acquiring required resources, trial and error, and refining theories. In light of this, we see that such a view as a “golden society coming automatically” is antithetical to communism. In fact, scientific solcialism was developed in opposition to utopian socialism which believe that society could have such changes from above. If it isn’t too tiresome for you, could you elaborate about what happened in that situation that you now call “being groomed into the cult”? I became a little curious. In practice, what “these people” (assuming you are talking about communists) do is the opposite of what you say, and in theory as well, as I explained above. Nor is what you call vernunft a part of the ideology. I’ll stop my reply here, because it's huge now. But I think that what I’ve clarified allows us to see that the paralel communism-religion-fascism does not apply, nor do communism and fascism have any fundamental similarities.

[@appalachnik]

It is very simple to grasp. Those who say they don’t get it are willfully ignorant and/or in denial.

[@eldenfindley186]

Correct. Hitler said himself that he wasn’t a “socialist” by the common meaning of the term. It’s clear to anybody who knows history that Hitler used the aesthetic and left the ideology.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

​@@eldenfindley186 Hitler used the ideology of socialism, that the state should function as a collective and that the state should own and control the economy to benefit the collective.

[@Web720]

​@@eldenfindley186This guy didn't watch the video 💀

[@jesuschristhomeslice9492]

​@@eldenfindley186But I thought the DPRK wasn't a democracy?

[@libernihilus]

These rightoids are trying to re-write history so they can do the same thing that hitler did while distancing them from unpalatable associations with hitler and to demonize any attempt at social progress. They love to call something as basic as human rights for LGBT people "socialist." What were the first books Hitler had burned?

[@MasterP0R]

Great video! Thank you for your efforts! Actually the Protestant church was „synchronized“ too, they were called „Deutsche Christen“ - German Christians and the modern EKD (evangelische Kirche Deutschlands) took the form DEK (deutsche evangelische Kirche). This took place 1933 when the church „centralized“ itself from a former less organized form. There was an inner opposition called „bekennende Kirche“ (confessing church), but a small minority. One of its most famous pastors was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, mostly known because of Stauffenberg

[@randomhuman2595]

Socialism isn't state control it is worker control

[@patricksachs3655]

@Van Brighouse Mao and Stalin also killed many socialists. So are you going to deny they were socialists, too? And the foreign industrialists and political elites who admired Hitler and supported him were not his support base, as the video points out. Ford liked Hitler because of his anti-semitism and the Democrat political elite supported Hitler because of his central planning and progressivism. No joke. It wasn’t until Hitler started the war did he stop being their darling and poster boy for the merits of a centrally-planned society. Notice how none of these groups you mentioned supported Hitler for his pro-business, pro-capitalist ideology since that actually wasn’t his ideology, as the video clearly demonstrates.

[@patricksachs3655]

@Van Brighouse The point is that Hitler, Mao and Stalin were socialists who killed many other socialists and communists. So to say Hitler wasn't a socialist because he killed socialists and communists does not strengthen your argument that Hitler wasn't s socialist That's the point. And feel free to point out omitted facts (not refuted points) that strengthen your argument and disprove Tik's. You have yet to do so. Also feel free to point out those manipulations and mental acrobatics to get around the historic inconsistencies and inconvenient facts that you have yet to point out. All we see here are a bunch of outlandish accusations and wild assertions on your part with no basis in facts.

[@patricksachs3655]

@Van Brighouse The fact that other non-socialist countries adopted socialistic policies doesn’t prove that the socialist countries that implemented those policies weren’t socialist. That’s a silly, illogical argument. Those policies are called socialistic for a reason, and that reason is that they came from socialist nations. Get it? And setting aside your empirically false assertion that the U.S. committed genocide against the Indians, nobody is claiming that genocides can only be committed by socialists, although they often are. So that’s just a silly straw man in your argument that proves nothing. Again, you have offered no counter argument that refutes Tik and proves your point, just more logically unsound assertions and crazy accusations that you are in no position to make.

[@patricksachs3655]

@Van Brighouse No, , that's not my logic or my argument. Feel free to reread my comment as many times as necessary until you get it. And no, there was no ethnic cleansing or genocide by today's definition of the American Indians and U.S. Grant did not say there was.The evidence that they weren't eliminated in genocide is that many of these tribes freely exist today in the country that supposedly eliminated them. There was war against the warrior tribes that attacked settlers and they lost. Big difference.

[@amadeusasimov1364]

Glad to see this one! I watched your older video, big study on "Hitler's Socialism". Appreciate all your hard work on this.

[@davidjackson9680]

Hitler was not a socialist he literally had his socialist paramilitary purged in the Night of the long knives firmly separating himself from socialism do you idiots not realize the greatest propaganda speaker and giver of all time was lying to appeal to the workers 😂😭

[@demoror5585]

My great grandfather was expropriated from his leather manufacturing business for not helping the nazis

[@poetmaggie1]

The movement towards socialism/communism/fascism/ nazism was being pushed world wide before Hitler and Stalin, Hitler got ideas from all over the world and the States. The nazis lost WW II but the cult that is a mix of all the different branches of socialism has continued and your presentation is excellent.

[@dannysullivan3951]

You need to think about that generalization a little harder. What are America's neo-Nazi's? Not socialists. Fascism can include many of the conservative military dictatorships we've had across the globe, not to mention the conservatives banning books or trying to restrict voting rights. It comes in many colors.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

@@dannysullivan3951 America featured socialists (George Fitzhugh, Victor Berger), Progressive Leftists (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, New Freedom and New Deal political slates (fascist corporative state with apartheid), unionists (whites-only AFL and state labor segregation through NIRA and NLRB), Liberals (Tammany Hall - appointed all our slaving (Dredd Scott) and jim crow (Plessy v Ferguson) supreme court justices and slaver lawmakers (MO Compromise, KS-NE Act, supporting the Dredd Scott decision) and jim crow law makers (James Eastland, Jim Eagleman, Joe Biden, Bob Byrd, Jesse Helms...) and these were always combated by American conservatives. Slaving people and making elaborate apartheid schemes is radicalism, fella. That's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is the opposite role of government than is needed for the government to slave people by law or abrogate rights prejudicially. This is why conservative appointments to the SCOTUS have been on record since and including Dredd Scott, arguing against national socialist ideation of Tammany Hall liberal lawyers in all of the civil rights cases in the US until conservative Warren court settled de jure jim crow. Hitler's on record as having recognized and admired American state bigotry, but the nationalist, national socialist and nazbol (Strassers et al) philosophical traditions in Germany were just as well established if not moreso.

[@nathanashley5260]

This is absolutely one of the best breakdowns I’ve ever heard on KZbin. You had me in stitches explaining things with colors. 😂

[@leonardticsay8046]

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

[@ismaelsantos5378]

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

[@wiolettawilma8881]

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

[@SweatyFatGuy]

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

[@thenarkknight278]

Well heres a better one kzbin.info/www/bejne/noapp3pqh9WqgKs Tbh honest. I didnt finish the video yet but there are already some points that arent right or atleast not evidence for socialism. Three Arrows further ellaborates in this video why expropriation and state run organizations dont mean that the gouverment is socialist. The definition that many relate socialism with "the more the state does stuff the more socialist it is is" is also quite wrong. Its also quite wrong that the companies were state owned. They had guidelines to fullfill but could still act independintly. And this wasnt done out of idiologicy but rather because you have to TO WIN A FCKING WAR. Britain did the same the USA had also guidelines for their industry, it was more or less normal to do this in war economy. And the Labor Union wasnt really a socialist Labor Union it was there to enact more power to be an alternative to socialist believes and strives for better working conditions and you didnt have anything to say in this unions. Well you could rally and try to protest for higher loans if you wanted to end in a KZ. More on the topics in the video. :) I hope you watch it and get to hear some opposing arguments.

[@MentokTheMindTaker]

Okay now this is based lol. It's hilarious, anytime you try to point out that "Hitler was a socialist" people genuinely lose their minds and want to make a lot of excuses. But you've done a great job explaining it

[@jamieburgess1460]

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

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@jamieburgess1460]

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

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@jamieburgess1460]

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

[@jichaelmackson1958]

Love your videos, agree with some of what you said. Specially about what Socialism actually is etc. For context, I am a Capitalist, but I would like to point out a major flaw in your thinking about your point of earning money via our contribution to society (our part in supply and demand). You said rightly that when an individual risks their own time and money and makes their own business that is highly successful, that they earned that and no one should be able to take that away from them. The problem with your Jeff Bezos example and the problem I have generally with Anarcho types, is that you completely miss the point that Amazon isn’t wholly owned nor run by Jeff Bezos, just as Apple isn’t wholly owned nor run by Tim Cook. Yes he created Amazon, but he has voluntarily made it a public company beholden to a board of directors. He isn’t rich because of the value he produces via ideas, implementation, strategy etc. He is rich on paper because he owns shares in a highly valued corporation.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

Corporate equity captures the value of ideas, etc. They are not individually monetized.

[@ArchiduquesaMA]

As an argentinian, I encourage everyone who thinks socialism is a fair and humanitarian way of redistributing money: NO, DONT FALL FOR THAT SHIT, NO, YOUR PUTTING TO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICIANS HANDS, GIVE AS LITTLE MONEY AS POSSIBLE TO THE STATE, DONT LET THEM CONTROL YOU

[@mastererik323]

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

[@ChristianGunNut2001]

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

[@AceFromGorillaz]

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

[@e.l.2734]

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

[@ven11235]

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

[@michaelkovacic2608]

Me, who doesn't give a f*ck about politics because he believes all politicians to be self-serving thugs no matter which political ideology they promote: grabs popcorn while waiting for funny comments 😂🍿

[@blazzinga595]

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

[@blazzinga595]

@Florentino Perez semantics. You don't have to be a democrat or a lib to believe ww2 propaganda of national socialists being baby eaters. You only need be a bleeding heart for them 6 gazzilions war crime casualties.

[@BlitzedNostradamus]

The gents at the Lotus Eaters made mention of this channel and here I am kicking my own ass for not finding you sooner. Excellent work!

[@soulcapitalist6204]

The privatization claim is from Germa Bel, a professor and pundit. It is a semantic equivocation of "reprivatisierung" which was quoted from Economist. Reprivatisierung referred to the return of PRIVATE STOCK - a German private DEBT instrument - and not common stock. It was the end of the German bailout of banks of 1932/3.

[@robertcraigashby9836]

If the government says your factory must produce only this, for this price, your workers get xyz in salary, your profit is this, you can't sale the factory without permission, you must be a party member, and we can take over at any time or any reason; do you own the factory or are you just a middle manager for the government.

[@shaycormac158]

Your videos are goldmine... so valuable to the point if people made aware of this could avoid history from repeating itself. Thank you, it's sacred for humanity for you to have more views and awareness to shine light on the dark censored info treasure troves. God bless you.

[@steviewondek]

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

[@j.k.4479]

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

[@SaturnineXTS]

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

[@SaturnineXTS]

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

[@SaturnineXTS]

@Van Brighouse except the OP lol

[@necropolistc6357]

people get so mad at me when I call Nazis socialists, they literally called themselves socialist what more do they want?

[@hairydogstail]

Yes, they will come unglued, amazing..

[@namenameson9065]

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

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@namenameson9065]

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

[@caIigula]

I got no love for socialism, but I simply can't watch this video without noticing how things are presented in a certain way, often by leaving out opposing factors, that's why I wrote this comment. Oh and some fun at the end =) The examples given, Junkers, Thyssen, Schacht, they were all incomplete when it comes to information, which calls in question this "anyone could be expropriated, just like that"-thing 1. Junkers WASN'T a supporter of Hitler, he refused to help with rearmament after they took power, he had a communist managing director (his friend!) up until the Nazis took over and forced his resignation. He could've said "yes" to rearmament and keep his company, he died (under house arrest though) in 1935, aged 76, during negotiations on how he was to be compensated and if he could keep part of the Junkers shares, so when it comes to appropriation, this is probably the mildest case. 2. Thyssen BROKE with the Nazis, he had his own kind of ideology, he wanted some kind of Ständestaat (not going into detail, Nazis didn't appreciate that) and more importantly, openly spoke against the Pogroms and was against any war. So duh, that maybe a little more important than "oh he was simply expropriated even though he was a Nazi supporter", you can't leave stuff like this out of the picture without making yourself look as if your cherry-picking! 3. Schacht was suspected of being in contact with the 20. July 1944 plotters. That's why he was imprisoned. He was already powerless by that point, because he criticized the usage of the same system to rearm he had created in the first place. (He knew it was a house of cards, he probably couldn't imagine the plundering the Nazis would do in order to pay the debts incurred before the war, like forcing central banks of occupied countries to loan vast amounts of money to Germany) Oh and yes, Thyssen and Schacht are despicable, because both thought the Nazis wouldn't be so bad or do as they are told... Schacht was even a defendant in Nuremberg after the war, but he got away exactly because he was already powerless when most of the mass murdering and such started. Lucky him. And about Röhm: First of all, the talking about a putsch by the SA was said by their murderers, so maybe don't take it at face value? It is rather convenient, and why no trial then? I find it much more plausible that they were murdered simply because of differing ideologies. And how can you ignore the fact that Röhm and most SA-members (who were often from lower classes) wanted this second revolution, which would've been even more socialist! Land redistribution, nationalization of all industry, breaking up monopolies. Socialist heaven! Röhm wasn't a danger to Hitler! After all, he was the only Nazi higher-up able to say Adolf or even Adi, instead of the whole "Mein Führer"-crap! But his motives, and more importantly, those of many in the SA were, that they were disappointed with the LACK of socialism the Nazis brought. Hitler even had difficulties ordering Röhms death, but he knew that he couldn't just purge some SA-members while leaving others alone if he wanted to keep his course. To simply state that this is no factor, is at best, opinion! At worst, clearly ignorant of the facts: If Hitler was a socialist, then Röhm was doubly so. But since that went to far for Hitler, he had them killed. Röhm's main goal still WAS a change in society. Hitlers main goal was to change society in order to rearm and start wars of conquest, and he had done part one already. (I'm not defending Röhm, he may too have started wars with Hitler later, but he was sincere that he wanted to change society, for better or worse) Therefore: what the Nazis wanted, was this so called "völkische Staat", were eveything is done to the benefit of "the people". If that meant for Hitler doing some socialism, so be it, if that meant working with big conglomerates in order to get guns and tanks, so be it too. Hitler was never strict with rules for himself. And this all meant to Hitler to drag the world into another war that would kill tens of millions. With most of the killing done through plunder, resulting famine and mass murder in Eastern Europe mostly. Where does it say "do that" in ANY socialist definition? Oh I got one: "National Socialism"! Yeah I know, reductive. But this whole statement of "Hitler was XY" is reductive. "Hitler was vegetarian" Oh so that tells me much, why? He really wasn't, or rather he did only really rarely eat red meat, he ate fish sometimes, it was a medical thing. Ordered by his trusty dealer-doctor, Theodor Morell, who had the best meth in all of Berlin >.< "Hitler loved animals" Ah yes the Nazis had the first laws against cruelty to animals on the books, wooo nice! They also killed millions of horses (so many more horses than tanks or trucks in the Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS) through a senseless war. Not so nice... "Hitler was married" Ah Hitlers love life! Interesting! How long? For about a day... But maybe he liked being peed upon by his niece, though that's a story told secondhand (by some guy who went to the US and knew her I believe?), but I still find it somewhat believable, I don't know why XD "Hitler was a socialist" Maybe a little bit. But then he wasn't. And what is a socialist again? Oh There are like 50 definitions? How helpful to know! Isn't there some word to specify? National socialist? Ah well, that clears it up, but hey it does seem to do things VERY differently from other types of socialism, with all the hate for anyone different and oh the Jews, why them again? Context. Really. Helps! (The end here is a little sarcasm, duh; I simply think these videos shouldn't stand alone, they really seem so clickbaity, especially with this being not the first, but third video I think?)

[@oscartang4587u3]

You also cherry-picked his point to accuse TIK of cherry-picking. You left out the part TIK quoted in 6:18 [Manufacturers in Germany were panic-stricken when they heard of the experiences of some industrialists who were more or less expropriated by the State. These industrialists were visited by State auditors who had strict orders to “examine” the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company (or individual businessman) for the preceding two, three, or more years until some error or false entry was found. The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error. Obviously, the examination of the books was simply a pretext for partial expropriation of the private capitalist with a view to complete expropriation and seizure of the desired property later. The owner of the property was helpless, since under [National Socialism] there is no longer an independent judiciary that protects the property rights of private citizens against the state. The authoritarian State has made it a principle that private property is no longer sacred.] Also, Nazis expropriated all the private property rights entitled by company shares in 1937. " Correspondingly, when the Nazis turned their attention to corporate law, culminating in the enactment of a new corporate law in 1937, managerial authority was expanded at shareholders’ expense (Levy, 1950: 215). While the 1937 legislation codified various shareholder-friendly measures in the emergency order issued in 1931 a predominant theme was to shift powers away from shareholders acting collectively by way of resolutions and from the supervisory board to the head of the management board (Kessler, 1938). This was done in accordance with the tenets of “Führerprinzip”, with the idea being to have companies run by a strong leader, undistracted by shareholder intervention, to the benefit of employee welfare, the People, and the Reich (Mertens, 2007).24 For instance, shareholders lost the right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96). Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101)." ("THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938", Carsten Burhop). Regarding Röhm, TIK did mention the second revolution in 39:30. Even after Röhm's death, Hitler still implemented many leftist welfare policies, including fixed employment, price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralized distribution of goods listed in 15:30. ["völkische Staat", were eveything is done to the benefit of "the people".] That is just basically Socialism when you mix this idea with totalitarianism, which Hitler rule Germany with. [And this all meant to Hitler to drag the world into another war that would kill tens of millions. With most of the killing done through plunder, resulting famine and mass murder in Eastern Europe mostly.] Communists also love to start wars (Winter War, the Invasion of Poland twice, the Invasion of BalticCountrie,s and the invasion of Afghanistan). They also killed their people through plunder, resulting in famine and the mass murder of tens of millions. That is not even an argument to disprove Hitler as a Socialist. Regarding the definition of Socialism used in this video, it was "Social ownership of the mean of production" in 25:40.

[@SurnaturalM]

Fun fact : Claus Schwabe don't want you to see and understand that video.

[@rt_huxley9205]

I was so ignorant about this topic. Thank you for doing such an amazing job. This is history in the form of art.

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@AverageAlien]

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

[@AverageAlien]

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

[@AverageAlien]

@Van Brighouse nice bot account.

[@strafe155]

This is an excellent video, and I appreciate the fact that you make sure to list all of the sources for the arguments being presented. It just depresses me that the people who need to watch this video will refuse to do so, and simply dismiss it outright because it contradicts their pre-established worldview and political beliefs.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It frustrates me too if I'm honest. I don't mind if we're debating over the details, but my critics aren't even listening. They'll respond to this in the usual way - they'll call me a fascist and "insane", then proceed to state the same old narrative about "privatisation" and so on... It's just crazy how easy it is to "lose" a debate with an opponent who declares themselves the victor without addressing any of the points I've raised.

[@peteberry3826]

TIK, when they start calling you names, you have already won the debate.

[@josephahner3031]

@@TheImperatorKnight good thing we don't have to persuade the diehards, just their less fervent friends and neighbors. We do that and we shift the Overton Window back towards freedom.

[@elLooto]

@@peteberry3826 Unfortunately they consider "youre a bad person" to be the victory condition of any debate. And the faster they can get to that the more decisive the victory.

[@alphabetpeople2902]

socialism is a right wing conspiracy

[@seriamon]

New to your channel so maybe you have already but Have you thought about making this a book?

[@callmeLilSparky]

It's hard to believe that something so obvious had to be explained because people will deliberately misinterpret it.

[@AverageAlien]

Tends to happen when you have power hungry predators (socialist ring leaders) and blind low intelligence cult followers

[@Choo_Choo_Oreo]

Hi, how are you?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

FIRST!

[@briand5170]

It amazes me how much we really don’t learn about in school, and how incorrect “scholarly” sources are

[@alexneubauer7537]

@Van Brighouse ty si dobrý kokot

[@royale7620]

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

[@royale7620]

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

[@royale7620]

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

[@royale7620]

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

[@peterlemer]

at 14:48. If farmers were encouraged to grow more grain, why did grain reserves fall?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Because government "incentives" always achieve the opposite of what they set out to do. For further information, see "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

[@peterlemer]

​@@TheImperatorKnight today we need to turn from livestock to cereal and other veg. It needs to succeed. What can we learn from the Nazi failure?

[@andresanguianozuniga6798]

You know...I really appreciate this video. It is litterally a thesis of how the word "NAZI" as political insult is dangerous...but its overuse and by that it desgastation if its with dumb reasons is EVEN MORE. This because BOTH left and Right don't know what it really means AND DON'T WANT understand and don't want to explain why they use it... Just they use it because the normies don't know all this stuff...and obously get scared if they see someone being called that. Reason why they support misinformation and censorship and propaganda, because both know this knowledge CAN destroy their circuses. We need to keep the free fluctuation of information and seek for the truth on it, by that, we will be able to stop real fascists WHATEVER THEIR WING IS.

[@markushaahr9194]

Hitler was a Socialist, but he was also a Fascist. Its a particular blend which led to his censorship of the opposition, but also the redistribution of resources. Therefore Nationalising the resources was very socialist, however advocating for ultra nationalism and ethnic discrimination was the Nazi’s particular brand of control.

[@markushaahr9194]

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

[@markushaahr9194]

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

[@randomuser3481]

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

[@myworldzvue8248]

I get my definition from the four individuals responsible for the term socialism. Louis Auguste Blanqui, Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon coined the term anarchy, Blanqui is the one who made communism. Karl Marx/ Engels was commissioned to write the communist manifesto. They tell you in there writings where and who they got the information to create socialism. The used tribalism as a base.

[@poetmaggie1]

We have to assume your critics are part of the problem. Nit Picking is part of the program.

[@markdatheist9179]

@TIKHistory I'm an old fan and supporter of your work but have a quick favor to ask. I've been having an argument with a close family member about the socialist roots of fascism, the difference between NAZIs and socialists and the undeniable roots of Socialism in NAZIsm. I know these topics are all connected and you have several hours worth of videos with content overlapping these issues. However, since I'm about to burn years worth of good faith in my familial relationship by asking them to watch several hours worth of your content, I was hoping you could recommend which videos (and in which order) I should recommend them watching - to maximize understanding and effectiveness while minimizing mental burnout?

[@soulcapitalist6204]

Socialism and capitalism are opposites (mutually exclusive). Fascism technically refers to the supercapitalist economics in Italy (of Mussolini and others) and not national socialism in Germany. If you want to educate folks, suggest books and dictionaries. After you guys figure out what capitalism and socialism means by reading several definitions of each, you just need to read about what 3rd Reich did and check what type of system they were running.