Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Hitler in 1923, giving an exact answer to the question posed in this clip: “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.”
Politics is about branding. It's very basic what the difference is between Nazism and Marxism.. Hitler knew the word "socialist" was politically popular, he knew it had mass support among the German people, and therefore politically, he catered his messaging to appeal to that sentiment. The Swastika flag was likely red for this reason, (in order to co-opt the popular energy of left wing labor movements) despite the fact that Hitler despised Marxism. National Socialism is a right wing movement because it has nothing to do with class consciousness or class solidarity and has everything to do with ethnic consciousness and ethnic solidarity/supremacy. Hitler wanted all classes of "Aryan" Germans to unite in solidarity around a shared culture and identity as Germans.. and instead of making the oligarchic financial elite the enemy, as Marxism does, Hitler made the scapegoat an entire religion of people in addition to anyone else who was not considered "pure" racially speaking. It's a very basic difference: Hitler wanted people to organize around their shared identity as Germans, not their shared material conditions as workers. Socialism in one country is not what Germany had because Germany was not socialist.. and Hitler did not stay in one country.. he invaded the entire continent lol their name was socialist but their actions bolstered multinational corporations profits and Hitler was backed by oligarchs around the world. Fascism is simply a more crude iteration of capitalist imperialism.. it is motivated by the same incentives, uses the same racism to justify it, and materially benefits the same exact class of people.
No reason to ask a communist Jew if marxism lead to Hitler. Hitler lumped Communism and Jews as the same entity, and the Nazis where a reaction to the rise of Communism in Germany after WW1. Right-wing authoritarianism is often reactionary.
Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxists have stolen the term and confused its meaning… We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.’ - Adolf Hitler
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts)’. Granted, in its first five years in power, the Nazi Party actually sold off many national industries. But Hitler did this to raise money for the government. And he sold the industries to his Nazi mates. The goal of the exercise was state control. As Hitler explained, this nationalisation strategy reflected a general Nazi principle regarding private property: "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point number 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism… The basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners." Hitler’s aim, he told his friend Otto Wagener, was to ‘convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists’. In a similar vein, Hitler sought to convert the German Volk to socialism without killing off inequality. A social hierarchy within the framework of collectivism was in everyone’s interests, Hitler believed. And note: no other socialist regime in history has entirely dispensed with private property or hierarchies. Most tellingly of all, you can point to the connection between Hitler’s socialism and his antisemitism. Hitler was an antisemite because he was socialist. ‘Since we are socialists’, he explained, ‘we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism’. He added: ‘How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist?’ Invoking well-worn stereotypes, Hitler referred to the Jews as ‘this capitalistic people’. He saw capitalism as an international conspiracy conducted by so-called ‘rootless’ Jews spread throughout the world. In Germany as elsewhere, he insisted, these ‘Jewish-capitalist hyenas’ aimed at nothing less that the ‘financial domination of the entire economy’. In contrast, Hitler insisted, ‘socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan’. He surmised: "Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear- socialism, community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism."
Hitler persecuted communists. And democratic socialists. And trade unionists, whom, he claimed, were seeking to ‘smash the economic basis of the free and independent national states, in order to destroy their national industry and their national trade as part of the enslavement of free peoples in the service of a supranational world finance Jewry.’ None but National Socialists were far left enough for Hitler. Viewed in this light, Hitler’s animosity towards communism, and vice versa, can be seen as a kind of local rivalry on the far left of the political spectrum - the kind of rivalry that socialists specialise in. In any socialist society, a privileged elite sets the agenda for everyone else. That's why there's always so much competition between socialist factions. Whether it's Blairites and Corbynites or Communists and National Socialists, the rivalry within socialism is always fierce, even if all socialists ultimately believe in using the government to reshape society supposedly in the collective interest. Hitler told Otto Wagener: ‘What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.’ He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.’ He added: “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it.’ (Again, notice the blending of capitalism with communism: ‘peddlers and pen pushers’.) What Hitler had put into practice was a particularly hideous version of socialism in which antisemitism was supposedly the missing ingredient in Marxism. ‘If the National Socialist movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle [race]’, Hitler intoned, ‘it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground’. He bowdlerised the language of Marxists, lacing it with racism: ‘We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity’. He aped the famous Marxist slogan: ‘Not proletarians of all countries unite, but antisemites of all countries unite!’ Indeed, prior to invading Russia in 1941, the Nazis went as far as agreeing a non-aggression pact with Stalin’s Marxist Russian government, without which the second world war would never have happened. In his Second Book Hitler mused that Russia might soon achieve an ‘internal change’ and become an ideological ally of the Nazis. ‘It could not be excluded that Russia’, a country which was ‘today in reality Jewish-capitalist’, would end up ‘national-anti-capitalist’. In such an event, he later predicted, Russia would abandon its internationalism and embrace ‘panslavism’. For Hitler, racism and nationalism were equivalent: ‘To us state and race are one’, he asserted. In other words, antisemitism was the link between the ‘National’ and the ‘Socialism’ parts of National Socialism. To Hitler, racist nationalism was racist socialism, and vice versa. Alas, this proved to be a powerful electoral combination. In the early 1930s, a majority of Germans favoured socialism of one kind or another. By melding socialism with nationalism, Hitler was able to tap into an even wider pool of support, including the right as well as the left. He appealed to both camps: ‘National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it; national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.’ Hitler never wavered in his racist socialism. In 1944, in the depths of the war, when the military tide had long turned against the Nazis, he was still screeching that Germany is a ‘socialist people’s state’ engaged in a struggle against the ‘Bolshevik-plutocratic world conspirators and their Jewish wire pullers’. Even in death, he wouldn’t let it rest. His last will and testament, composed before he shot himself in a bunker in besieged Berlin in 1945, left little doubt as to the beliefs that had led him there. He railed against ‘international money and finance conspirators’ who had treated the ‘peoples of Europe’ like ‘blocks of shares’. And he prophesised that ‘The sacrifice of our soldiers and my connection with them into death’ would in the end ‘provide the seed for the achievement of a true People’s Community’.
@@solaris413 please check his channel, is amazing. videos are long but very good information with links for sources. one of the best channels about ww2 on the youtube.
National Socialism is different from Marxism because Marxism pitched itself as the globalist worker's party. Nazis were only in it for the Germans... In common - Both shit ideas.
I listened to the whole damn podcast. This guy is a zealot. If you portray your ideology as perfect and try to explain away all it's flaws as tweaking history I can't take you seriously. I've known a several Marxists who I can agree with on a lot and respect quite a bit. They recognize the flaws in their ideology and actually seek solutions. I can't take this guy seriously, he's too utopian.
Yeah, but try to be a little charitable. Socialism and Marxism and even Communism have some decent ideas that can be used for future systems, but the Western world rejects all of it instantly. Wolff is trying to resurrect some pretty good ideas to shape a better economic future, but opponents generally reject it wholesale, and for dubious reasons. So much talk of how evil it is already, he has to cut to the positive points. There is also a lot of historic inaccuracy taught in Western schools. I don't think the man is dishonest, or overzealous, I just think its hard to convince people to take good ideas from unpopular sources and use them in a better context.
@@FreddieFoxxx100 The Western World rejects what? Even America is a socialist country, where Marxism is dominant in every in institution and university across the country. The only people that reject it, are the ones actually creating things of value.
You must of missed this: over and over again, he mentioned that every idea has contradictions (Hegel), that includes Marxism. Also, he points out that Marxism is a critique, NOT a solution. He believes, as do I and many others, that we can do better than capitalism. And history shows that we can.
You are completely wrong. Factually and demonstrably. Hitler went after the communists first and foremost. And there was a lot of blood spilled in the streets in that struggle. This was the early 30's. You have to be deliberately avoiding historical facts to hold your position.
Individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin; you cannot have one without the other. Humans within a society have an obligation to put their points into both skill trees
@@naaro_____ He's using shorthand. He's saying "government policy that ensures individual rights" and "government policy that ensures class/collective rights".
„If, he intimated on one occasion, capitalism refuses to recognise that the National Socialists are the last bulwark of private property, if capital impedes their struggle, Germany may be compelled to throw herself into the enticing arms of the siren Soviet Russia. But he is determined not to permit Bolshevism to take root in Germany.“ - The Guardian in an Interview with Hitler before he became Chancelor
And yet you have the reichstag fire decree “On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defence against Communist state-endangering acts of violence: § 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom, freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
I feel like if this interview was done two years ago, before Lex met his idol Roe Rogan... Lex would have been more open minded. This interview felt like Lex was going through the motions and asking predetermined questions. In his best interviews something sparkles a new curiosity in him and he starts asking impromptu questions. Lex seems closed to the ideas of Marxism. I am not here saying Marxism is the best way to run economies, but it does open doors to important ideas and questions.
@@gengiz80 Wolff can't define what is socialism. instead he wants to kept the definition in a limbo. But history have already showed pretty clear of what socialism is. Prussianism in its most totalitarianism state.
Look at his body language answering this, he knows fine well there are numerous links and cultural social links and influences to Marxism and ideologue thinking.
Professor Wolff explains in simple, understandable terms all about Socialism to those with open minds.most here refuse to listen like a child plugging their ears and screaming so they wont hear
Socialist propaganda Stalin persecuted all the socialists and the Jews both did literally every single step that Nazi Germany did but yet he's a socialist.....
What a stupid premise. It's like saying, "I'm grateful for slavery and segregation in America. Otherwise there would be no hip hop." Or the more negative, "We wouldn't have terrorism without American militarism."
I love this show and respect Lex's approach, but I wish he would bring the same amount of skepticism to capitalist historical narratives as socialist/communist. I know he grew up in soviet Russia, but he has too sharp of a brain not to challenge the narrative by which oppression occurs, regardless of whatever economic or governmental form it presents as.
@@bri_____ I'm not saying he should admire it, but I think he should bring his sharp analytical mind to any economic/political system if he's going to talk about them. According to the attitudes he's presented so far, he seems to be a techno-utopian, which he's smarter than. It's just disappointing to watch him take easy potshots at an old socialist, regardles of whether he's right or wrong, and then watch him be like "when can robots be our girlfriends and drive us around" to elon musk.
Kicked out by the ruling elites because their message of worker solidarity threatened the power of the rulers. It's the same reason the billionaire class in the US have been waging a brutal anti-communist propaganda campaign since the end of WW2. The elites do not want an educated working class. Read your history.
republicans, democrats, nazis all the same thing. All of them exist to destroy communist and socialist countries.. that's what's going on in the real world outside of your propagandized imagination of abstract thoughts
ruclips.net/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/видео.html I would love for richard wolff to watch this video then. Because apparently hitler knew about karl marx quite a lot. In fact they actually had a lot in common.
If by "marxism" you mean "tiny hat money changers" then yes. Check out "the man who saved Europe" a film from the 30s made by tiny hats about tiny hats bragging about doing tiny hat shit. The channel "black pilled" has a great review.
History repeats itself, at least as far as the world wars are concerned, it looks as if we should be more careful. Tired or not, it’s already starting again. So not enough has been learned from history.
Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Hitler in 1923, giving an exact answer to the question posed in this clip:
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.”
source?
@@jeupater1429 that’s all I could find. Not sure the legitimacy
Huh?
I knew that liberals are always were fascists!!!
Politics is about branding. It's very basic what the difference is between Nazism and Marxism.. Hitler knew the word "socialist" was politically popular, he knew it had mass support among the German people, and therefore politically, he catered his messaging to appeal to that sentiment. The Swastika flag was likely red for this reason, (in order to co-opt the popular energy of left wing labor movements) despite the fact that Hitler despised Marxism. National Socialism is a right wing movement because it has nothing to do with class consciousness or class solidarity and has everything to do with ethnic consciousness and ethnic solidarity/supremacy. Hitler wanted all classes of "Aryan" Germans to unite in solidarity around a shared culture and identity as Germans.. and instead of making the oligarchic financial elite the enemy, as Marxism does, Hitler made the scapegoat an entire religion of people in addition to anyone else who was not considered "pure" racially speaking. It's a very basic difference: Hitler wanted people to organize around their shared identity as Germans, not their shared material conditions as workers. Socialism in one country is not what Germany had because Germany was not socialist.. and Hitler did not stay in one country.. he invaded the entire continent lol their name was socialist but their actions bolstered multinational corporations profits and Hitler was backed by oligarchs around the world. Fascism is simply a more crude iteration of capitalist imperialism.. it is motivated by the same incentives, uses the same racism to justify it, and materially benefits the same exact class of people.
No reason to ask a communist Jew if marxism lead to Hitler. Hitler lumped Communism and Jews as the same entity, and the Nazis where a reaction to the rise of Communism in Germany after WW1. Right-wing authoritarianism is often reactionary.
Hitler even called Marxism a Jewish ideology that would destroy the west in two weeks if Marxists came into power.
That s so true.
Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxists have stolen the term and confused its meaning… We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.’
- Adolf Hitler
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts)’. Granted, in its first five years in power, the Nazi Party actually sold off many national industries. But Hitler did this to raise money for the government. And he sold the industries to his Nazi mates. The goal of the exercise was state control.
As Hitler explained, this nationalisation strategy reflected a general Nazi principle regarding private property:
"To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point number 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism… The basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."
Hitler’s aim, he told his friend Otto Wagener, was to ‘convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists’. In a similar vein, Hitler sought to convert the German Volk to socialism without killing off inequality. A social hierarchy within the framework of collectivism was in everyone’s interests, Hitler believed. And note: no other socialist regime in history has entirely dispensed with private property or hierarchies.
Most tellingly of all, you can point to the connection between Hitler’s socialism and his antisemitism. Hitler was an antisemite because he was socialist. ‘Since we are socialists’, he explained, ‘we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism’. He added: ‘How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist?’ Invoking well-worn stereotypes, Hitler referred to the Jews as ‘this capitalistic people’. He saw capitalism as an international conspiracy conducted by so-called ‘rootless’ Jews spread throughout the world. In Germany as elsewhere, he insisted, these ‘Jewish-capitalist hyenas’ aimed at nothing less that the ‘financial domination of the entire economy’. In contrast, Hitler insisted, ‘socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan’. He surmised:
"Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear- socialism, community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism."
Hitler persecuted communists. And democratic socialists. And trade unionists, whom, he claimed, were seeking to ‘smash the economic basis of the free and independent national states, in order to destroy their national industry and their national trade as part of the enslavement of free peoples in the service of a supranational world finance Jewry.’ None but National Socialists were far left enough for Hitler.
Viewed in this light, Hitler’s animosity towards communism, and vice versa, can be seen as a kind of local rivalry on the far left of the political spectrum - the kind of rivalry that socialists specialise in. In any socialist society, a privileged elite sets the agenda for everyone else. That's why there's always so much competition between socialist factions. Whether it's Blairites and Corbynites or Communists and National Socialists, the rivalry within socialism is always fierce, even if all socialists ultimately believe in using the government to reshape society supposedly in the collective interest. Hitler told Otto Wagener: ‘What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.’ He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.’ He added: “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it.’ (Again, notice the blending of capitalism with communism: ‘peddlers and pen pushers’.)
What Hitler had put into practice was a particularly hideous version of socialism in which antisemitism was supposedly the missing ingredient in Marxism. ‘If the National Socialist movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle [race]’, Hitler intoned, ‘it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground’. He bowdlerised the language of Marxists, lacing it with racism: ‘We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity’. He aped the famous Marxist slogan: ‘Not proletarians of all countries unite, but antisemites of all countries unite!’ Indeed, prior to invading Russia in 1941, the Nazis went as far as agreeing a non-aggression pact with Stalin’s Marxist Russian government, without which the second world war would never have happened. In his Second Book Hitler mused that Russia might soon achieve an ‘internal change’ and become an ideological ally of the Nazis. ‘It could not be excluded that Russia’, a country which was ‘today in reality Jewish-capitalist’, would end up ‘national-anti-capitalist’. In such an event, he later predicted, Russia would abandon its internationalism and embrace ‘panslavism’.
For Hitler, racism and nationalism were equivalent: ‘To us state and race are one’, he asserted. In other words, antisemitism was the link between the ‘National’ and the ‘Socialism’ parts of National Socialism. To Hitler, racist nationalism was racist socialism, and vice versa. Alas, this proved to be a powerful electoral combination. In the early 1930s, a majority of Germans favoured socialism of one kind or another. By melding socialism with nationalism, Hitler was able to tap into an even wider pool of support, including the right as well as the left. He appealed to both camps: ‘National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it; national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.’
Hitler never wavered in his racist socialism. In 1944, in the depths of the war, when the military tide had long turned against the Nazis, he was still screeching that Germany is a ‘socialist people’s state’ engaged in a struggle against the ‘Bolshevik-plutocratic world conspirators and their Jewish wire pullers’. Even in death, he wouldn’t let it rest. His last will and testament, composed before he shot himself in a bunker in besieged Berlin in 1945, left little doubt as to the beliefs that had led him there. He railed against ‘international money and finance conspirators’ who had treated the ‘peoples of Europe’ like ‘blocks of shares’. And he prophesised that ‘The sacrifice of our soldiers and my connection with them into death’ would in the end ‘provide the seed for the achievement of a true People’s Community’.
Richard Wolff = If Dick Cheney was a commie.
lol
What is the equivalence?
Lol
treaty of Versailles led to that not marxism
That is not truth, seach Tik channel on youtube. He can explain you better then me
@@radupatron6137 can u please give the video link
@@solaris413 yes.
ruclips.net/video/dR-4RTSJ_yo/видео.html&ab_channel=TIKhistory
@@solaris413 please check his channel, is amazing. videos are long but very good information with links for sources.
one of the best channels about ww2 on the youtube.
@@radupatron6137 that’s pure revisionism.
"National Socialist German Workers' Party" , the "socialist" part should be enough to aswer the question
Wow, clearly didn’t bother watching the video or didn’t understand it. He explained that part pretty well.
@@michael_tullius a marxist explaining why Hitler wasn´t a socialist? what else?are you going to trust Pelosi´s explanation on why Biden doesn´t suck?
@@RCGolf you just did
National Socialism is different from Marxism because Marxism pitched itself as the globalist worker's party. Nazis were only in it for the Germans... In common - Both shit ideas.
You're so right. Just look at The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, aka North Korea. Clearly a democracy because...words.
I listened to the whole damn podcast. This guy is a zealot. If you portray your ideology as perfect and try to explain away all it's flaws as tweaking history I can't take you seriously. I've known a several Marxists who I can agree with on a lot and respect quite a bit. They recognize the flaws in their ideology and actually seek solutions. I can't take this guy seriously, he's too utopian.
Yeah, but try to be a little charitable. Socialism and Marxism and even Communism have some decent ideas that can be used for future systems, but the Western world rejects all of it instantly. Wolff is trying to resurrect some pretty good ideas to shape a better economic future, but opponents generally reject it wholesale, and for dubious reasons. So much talk of how evil it is already, he has to cut to the positive points. There is also a lot of historic inaccuracy taught in Western schools. I don't think the man is dishonest, or overzealous, I just think its hard to convince people to take good ideas from unpopular sources and use them in a better context.
@@FreddieFoxxx100 The Western World rejects what? Even America is a socialist country, where Marxism is dominant in every in institution and university across the country. The only people that reject it, are the ones actually creating things of value.
You must of missed this: over and over again, he mentioned that every idea has contradictions (Hegel), that includes Marxism. Also, he points out that Marxism is a critique, NOT a solution. He believes, as do I and many others, that we can do better than capitalism. And history shows that we can.
@@aklem001 critiquing without an attempt to solve the problem is just complaining.
No, he's not utopian at all. You listened through the filter of your stupidity and capitalist brainwashing.
Why doesn’t he bring up Hitlers anti capitalism?
Do you know why he was anti capitalist?
>no true Marxist
Absolute charlatan.
Yes it did, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot. At its core Marxism replaces god with an all powerful state.
and it replaces your kind with elsewhere kind, leaving jewish-friendly rulers behind
At its core, Marxism is about the worker owning his work, and the state not getting in the way. You're talking like a Fox News pundit
Same with dems
And Capitalism replaces God with Gold
You are completely wrong. Factually and demonstrably. Hitler went after the communists first and foremost. And there was a lot of blood spilled in the streets in that struggle. This was the early 30's. You have to be deliberately avoiding historical facts to hold your position.
Individualism > collectivism
Individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin; you cannot have one without the other. Humans within a society have an obligation to put their points into both skill trees
Your family value is collectivism
Any time you see an imbalance between individualism + collectivism you will find fascism. We're seeing it now in the US.
based
@@naaro_____ He's using shorthand. He's saying "government policy that ensures individual rights" and "government policy that ensures class/collective rights".
„If, he intimated on one occasion, capitalism refuses to recognise that the National Socialists are the last bulwark of private property, if capital impedes their struggle, Germany may be compelled to throw herself into the enticing arms of the siren Soviet Russia. But he is determined not to permit Bolshevism to take root in Germany.“ - The Guardian in an Interview with Hitler before he became Chancelor
And yet you have the reichstag fire decree “On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defence against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:
§ 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom, freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
5:39 “the smasher of socialism” lol you need to watch some tik history my friend.
We are a rep democracy. Not a direct democracy. Using "democracy" in name as our sole identifier is dishonest.
In a constitutional republic that document is the supreme law of the land, even when a majority try to subvert it via democracy.
Expecting a commie to be honest?
Lol hilarious pseudo intelectualism
I feel like if this interview was done two years ago, before Lex met his idol Roe Rogan... Lex would have been more open minded. This interview felt like Lex was going through the motions and asking predetermined questions. In his best interviews something sparkles a new curiosity in him and he starts asking impromptu questions. Lex seems closed to the ideas of Marxism. I am not here saying Marxism is the best way to run economies, but it does open doors to important ideas and questions.
Who was Marx father. Might explain his mindset.
Marxism is trash
@@richardtyler3498 what does being a rabbi have to do anything with Marxism?
Just one in the same thing, you just fill in the blank in term of policy with its socialism ideology. One is nationalism another internationalism.
nope. you didn't even listen did you. have your own opinions but not your own facts.
And neither respects individual rights. Quite the contrary.
1:13 then 3:43. He refutes his own point about whether Hitler was aware of Marxism.
@@mustang607
No system respects individual rights.
@@gengiz80 Wolff can't define what is socialism. instead he wants to kept the definition in a limbo. But history have already showed pretty clear of what socialism is. Prussianism in its most totalitarianism state.
Look at his body language answering this, he knows fine well there are numerous links and cultural social links and influences to Marxism and ideologue thinking.
The ex-commies were so numerous amongst the SAs that they used to be called "beefsteaks", brown on the outside, and red on the inside.
Common to the far right and far left --> the bourgeois as the enemy.
@@FabricePBeland interesting
@@FabricePBeland which is what precisely led to the night of the long knives.
Talk about a lack of historical knowledge...
Most people's ideas about history are actually myths and legends.
@@comfortablynumb9342 it's sad how true this is. It's such a hard battle, trying to take people out of their little mind cave and into reality.
What? Give us your version of history then.
Professor Wolff explains in simple, understandable terms all about Socialism to those with open minds.most here refuse to listen like a child plugging their ears and screaming so they wont hear
Richard knows his stuff however war is personal, economics is how much ammo you have left.
What do u mean
Socialist propaganda Stalin persecuted all the socialists and the Jews both did literally every single step that Nazi Germany did but yet he's a socialist.....
What a stupid premise. It's like saying, "I'm grateful for slavery and segregation in America. Otherwise there would be no hip hop." Or the more negative, "We wouldn't have terrorism without American militarism."
how the fuck does he know the minds of the german people at that time/.
You read, Mr enlightened.
@@Brian-ve7ds doesnt make it true
I love this show and respect Lex's approach, but I wish he would bring the same amount of skepticism to capitalist historical narratives as socialist/communist. I know he grew up in soviet Russia, but he has too sharp of a brain not to challenge the narrative by which oppression occurs, regardless of whatever economic or governmental form it presents as.
I wish he gave as much criticism to physicists as he gives to magicians.
The only people who admire communism are those who have never lived under it.
@@bri_____ I'm not saying he should admire it, but I think he should bring his sharp analytical mind to any economic/political system if he's going to talk about them. According to the attitudes he's presented so far, he seems to be a techno-utopian, which he's smarter than. It's just disappointing to watch him take easy potshots at an old socialist, regardles of whether he's right or wrong, and then watch him be like "when can robots be our girlfriends and drive us around" to elon musk.
Nothing worse than to see an old fool.
Imagine being someone who actually defends communism😂😂
Imagine being someone unwilling to hear him out
Yes I can imagine. Nothing funny here.
Imagine not knowing anything about what Communism actually is 😂😂
"With a D.".... yes Mr Wolff, with a D 🤨🙄
Well who funded Hitler and why? Wolf says himself, it appeared everywhere and a shock to Europeans.
Who?
@inconsistent Jewish bankers.
If you were kicked out of 109 bars at what point is it your fault when a bouncer kills you?
What if the bar's owner invited you in and took loans from you
@@BlastinRope were the loans predatory?
Kicked out by the ruling elites because their message of worker solidarity threatened the power of the rulers. It's the same reason the billionaire class in the US have been waging a brutal anti-communist propaganda campaign since the end of WW2. The elites do not want an educated working class. Read your history.
@@JohnDoe-do8fh good take and good username
Drop the metaphor and say exactly what you mean. Don’t be shy.
Socialists, communists, Nazis, democrats… all the same thing.
republicans, democrats, nazis all the same thing. All of them exist to destroy communist and socialist countries.. that's what's going on in the real world outside of your propagandized imagination of abstract thoughts
1:13 then 3:43. Square it for me. He refutes his original point.
how?
@@OdieSalmon says hitler wasn't aware of marxism, then says he was
@@richardtyler3498 No. He says Hitler didn't know anything about it. You can be aware of something without understanding it.
ruclips.net/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/видео.html
I would love for richard wolff to watch this video then. Because apparently hitler knew about karl marx quite a lot. In fact they actually had a lot in common.
And this one as well.
ruclips.net/video/u5OrQqRV5nQ/видео.html
Why even Stalin acknowledged him as a social Democrat?
WW2 was Man vs. Evil and Man lost
357th Like. Elmer Keith Is Here, watching Aunty Anti shuffle around to The Al Gore Rhythm Machine's take on "Flight of the Bumblebee".
If by "marxism" you mean "tiny hat money changers" then yes. Check out "the man who saved Europe" a film from the 30s made by tiny hats about tiny hats bragging about doing tiny hat shit. The channel "black pilled" has a great review.
Never heard of this. I’ll check it out and the review. Thanks 👍
@@michaelfern4079 black pilled did great reviews of movies and the propaganda they contain. Wish he was active on here still.
Nada Gain Again never heard of him. kinda Surprised!
tldr; OH FUCK YES
This guy is not very intelligent.
This man is a brilliant scholar, everyone should be a little bit humble, to learn a lot from him.
completely agree
had to take a deep look at my own beliefs and i think people who make us truly question things are the ones we should listen to
Haha no. Hack ideologue
@@wtice4632 solid rebuttal. I'm sure you're rational and well-informed............................
Your obsession with Hitler seems to be like an admiration. Stop giving him a platform twice a week. I’m Jewish and I’m tired of it.
Grow up.. We don’t care
Then don’t watch dingus 🤡
History repeats itself, at least as far as the world wars are concerned, it looks as if we should be more careful.
Tired or not, it’s already starting again. So not enough has been learned from history.
You know he’s Jewish, right? It’s always best to know your enemy.
A jew telling another jew to stop talking about Hitler. 😂