If you like what you see and want to stay up to date with Dad Saves America, please subscribe here on RUclips or over on Substack, where you can find weekly articles and the audio version of the podcast, with more to come in the near future! www.dadsavesamerica.com
Fascism was first implemented in the Soviet Union, under the name of "New Economic Policy", on the 1920's. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Peron just copied it, and the longest surviving fascism is the peronist party.
The bad guys are those who initiated the destruction of Germany from London and New York before WWI. Chief H was just a reaction of self-preservation to this destruction. No one thinks it controversial that Germany is a united country today. In 1939, the British made a world war out of it. In 1914, they made a world war out of German market share on the so-called free market. Even if Germans play by British-American rules, they are demonized. This is the real basis for accusing American to be a racist country.
After WW2, my Hungarian grandparents were put into a Soviet run gulag for three years. My grandmother died and my grandfather was broken physically and psychologically. They endured back breaking labour and communist indoctrination for three years telling them they were the worst people in society. Their crimes were that they were farmers.
Contempt for the farmers sounds like today’s UK. Communists badgering normal, decent people with propaganda that they’re the worst people in society sounds like how woke people say about straight, white, males.
Land-owning farmers. Anyone who own anything is inherently greedy and needs to have their belongings taken and given to people who agree with us. Or something like that
“It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Nobel-Prize-winning novelist, historian and critic of Communist totalitarianism
sholzentitzyn was a liar and ofc the west would give him. a price for lying about their enemy ideology. maybe research solzhenitchyn. the greatest huan slaughter is still going on and it is capitalism. just within a year 330'000 palestinians slaughtered inside a concentration camp called gaza.
but Solzhenitsyn 's books were all censored , he clearly tells you who the perpetrators are : the "chosen" people , the so called "eternal victims " : they declared war on Germany , after their multiple attempts at a soviet revolution failed The Weimar republic was jewish bankers punishing the Germans for rejecting communism
do we count how many slaves died from 1500 up to abolition in the hands of capitalist europeans? or how many africans died for lack of food and basic health care due to neo-colonialist monetary policies imposed by IMF and the world bank?
solshenitzin was a liar. how come his is the only testimony and all of you only rely on his testimony? thats not very scientific. lol. capitalism right now is killing all around the world. look at ukraine, look at gaza, look at congo, look at sudan. btw. you can't differentiate between capitalism and colonialism. tell me again that communism (first tried in 1917) killed more people than colonialism. lol. white dudes
Ask yourself: why do we only hear about Adolf Hitler and not Mao, Stalin, Leopold II, Hideki Tojo, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mengistu Haile Mariam, or Idi Amin? Have you ever seen documentaries about them running on a loop on the History Channel? Why not? Is this deliberate? If so, what’s the purpose? Who decides the programming?
Hm, good question and let`s wonder together, but you need to get the books and ducumentaries that swapped germany in recent years. Guido Knopp has them all from A.H. favourite dog, his fav. cameralady, and secretary and so on....what is evident why AFD is at some doubble digit percent, and some random YT coming around like many neocon tv personalities did and claim that AH was a socialist, while at the same time he tried to get rid of them all....
There’s project mockingbird - I’m not sure how far the reach is, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if the narrative manipulation goes beyond news and Hollywood.
National socialism is the ONLY remedy for globalism! Let that sink in! America SUPPORTED the communists in WW2! Germany was fighting AGAINST communism and Marxism!
No of course not. Hitler's actual policies and views never get discussed. The only thing of Hitler that ever gets spoken about is that he was anti-Semitic. Otherwise, nobody knows anything of Hitler, his government, his policies for Germany.
It goes deeper than that within the EU, when countries join the EU, the centralized Brussels government tells farmers what they grow, they tell dairy farmers that you can no longer have cows and you must grow crops we tell you to grow just look at Finland and Ireland for the evidence of that, you coal miners are now unemployed look at the UK and Germany for that, you gas workers are now unemployed, you oil workers are now unemployed, you nuclear workers are now unemployed, you car workers are unemployed, you ship builder's are unemployed, you steel workers are now unemployedyou fisherman are now unemployed. And all the towns and cities that had those industries become ghost towns, and the inhabitants rely completely on government handouts, countries within the EU no longer have sovriegnty and will obey the dictates, rules and regulations of the EU council which no citizen within the EU gets to vote on. You will have a single currency a single flag, and now a single military. Not bad for an organization that started off as a trading block. Slow rolling continental socialism.
WEhy not mention all the huamn rights worker reneter womens gay rights etc? Seemsn to me all the issues with cloised factories cound be fixed by not allowing companies to be all over pacpitalisitic and see cheap labour but force them to stay and employ peoepl at decent wage levels of the excitivies and shareholders have very painful and quite fatal accidents of imprisionment. the issue is not the eue tryignt o protecvt peoepl its those who want to use filk as cheap labour
Thats not socialism! Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership. If the government runs things on behalf of people thats not socialism!
@@albal156 Communism is a movement of the working class on its way to state power. Socialism is the first stage of a Communist revolution that will replace the world capitalist system of production and trade.
@@albal156 What liberals an left want for socialsim or just liberla and left etc is not the government controls all production and doens not allow anyone to make money in business. It meens everyoens needs are met ie univerdal heralth care, educaion, fire, medical, rescue services water supplies etc. anyone wantignt o run nightclubs, make businecuits surf boards etc can go ahead and if somone makes good products and services that benefit peoepl and can make lots of money from many sales then good on them, as long as its not by cuttign safety corners, exploitign workers, pollutiing or sellign dangerous goods. ie be nice do good then hopefully do well and get well off but nobody is too bad off and all; have a good basic stand of living theat they casn improve with effort
Stalin had horrific policies. He convinced poor Ukrainians that the relatively well to do farmers, the productive farmers had stolen wealth from the poor. "Look, the farmers have a tractor and 6 cows. They are too wealthy, they must givecthat wealth back!" The kulack farmers were killed and their farms seized. These farms were turned over to cooperative non-farmers. Who had no clue how to run a farm. Production fell like a stone. There was no grain, no bread, no meat. Millions starved. Stalin was so cruel, he sent troops to collect ALL the grain from the farmers. He left nothing to re-plant with, nothing to eat. One farm wife went through the field after soldiers left and picked up individual grains of wheat, gathering a few handfuls... enogh for a tiny loaf of bread. She was working to kerp her kids from starving. Her "Theft" was discovered and she was sent to the gulag. Thats socialism at work.
Correct! Stalin was an evil man and he did all that because most who supported him politically were urban-dwellers and he had little support in rural areas! When the inevitable famine arrived as a result of the latest 5-year plan, food became very scarce in cities and towns where his supporters were, and most importantly he had to feed the army as they could threaten his removal.
Depopulation of the undesirable/lesser peoples. The Kulacs were just a means to an end. That's what our American communists are doing to us right now. I don't believe the end will look the same, so that remains yo be seen, not even to its authors. That's why socialism never works... unexpected human behavior. Plus it's a crappy business model.
Stalin faced a communist opposition organized around Trotsky. He lead a counter revolution that murdered most of the old Bolsheviks who had joined the Party before the revolution. .
The "Ukraine" was also the home to many "Germans from Russia" which was my family. These farmers with ethnic ("Swiss, German, Alsatian," ) low German speakers. They were very good farmers and many who managed to flee before the executions and Gulags ended up in Saskatchewan Canada as well as Pennsylvania and the Dakotas. They were promised land and no military service under Catherine the Great who was German herself. These brutal and divisive acts under Stalin were not only based on class/wealth, but also based on race. Looking at Canada right now really scares me, all this talk of race, hating religion, giving the government crazy amounts of power…. Its almost like we’ve done this before.
Viewer from Germany here. I'm a long time follower of Dr. Zitlemann and read most of his books. Great to see him on your podcast and congrats for recognizing his important work on history and the economy.
A lot of people love the Germans in LA .It was the German's who were brought over for the NASA program .Their kids started surfing and developed the modern surfing industry ,designs and composites we use today .
Hitler was not socialist at all, it is extrem right propaganda and lies. Hitler was funded by Henry Ford and American industrial & bankers who were surely not socialist friends. This has nothing to with being german or not. If you think Hitler is part of german culture that tells a lot about what you are.
@@effexonI've heard of him through TIK History, here on YT. My WW2 vet Grandfather used to comment that the Nazis were considered left-wing in the 1930s, even by Marxists. "Orwell was right that history would be changed," are words of his that echo in my memory. When a modern leftist claims Fascism and NatSoc were pro-capitalist, it's fun to watch them twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain away the abjectly anti-capitalist economic policies these ideologies had. 😂
Yeah we know Democrat states love Nazis. Amazing that you say Germans brought over to work on the nasa program but in reality it was Nazi higher ups that were brought here. Glad we are ok with war criminals and their children just because one of them like surfing 😂😂@@lalaboards
What it really want to say is, that the fascism influence in the social activity, what is really true is that the fascism tried to copy the form of socialist (marxist) propaganda, which in that years were so much effective but anyways they aren't from right-wing or left-wing, they are part of a third position.
The Jews were the Jews, the left of Germany at the time. Very very progressive. This is just more B's white washing of what the Nazis did. @@keithyakouboff8755
@@tombrunila2695 no. Marx hated Germany, which can clearly be seen in his book ”the German ideology”. Therefore his socialism is not at all like German socialism/national socialism.
@@darthcalanil5333 Yeah I for one being a Swede grew up fully on the "Fascism was capitalists last effort defence against the working man's demands" narrative. Never heard a word about Hitler or Mussolini having socialist policies or even genuinely being inclined that way ideologically at any point.
Some libertarians want to do away with county health departments. Do you want that? There are various government functions which have never (to my knowlege) been successfully done by purely private sector means.
Doing away with governments would result in us being ruled by bankers, CEOs, large landlords and their private police forces and armies. What is the advantage of that?
@@bdnevins Healthcare used to be much much cheaper in the US, to the point that physicians lobbied government to restrict competition cause they wanted to be paid more, they lobbied government to cartelize who could and could not become a doctor through state-certified medical licenses, a monopoly of who can become a doctor was decreed by law in the name of "protecting" physicians. I'd link it but youtube would hide my comment, search "How government regulations made healthcare so expensive mises" and you'll find an excellent article you can criticize and scrutinize yourself.
They forget to mention that Trump is more like Churchill. Both were hated by their respective parties, both changed parties later in life, both were wealthy individuals, both were eccentric, both were very patriotic and loved the people, both were great spokespeople who spoke to the people's heart, both were vulgar in speech and mannerisms, and both were strong leaders during times of darkness and crisis.
Both were also master insulters. When a woman told Churchill “You, sir, are drunk.” he responded “And you, madam, are ugly. And tomorrow I shall be sober and you shall still be ugly.”
And both were/are luciferian. Churchill was no hero. He pushed the war onto Germans and murdered hundreds of thousands of Europeans. Read the work of Albert Pike from late 1800s. The 3 WWs were planned by he and his luciferian friends as a means to destroy Christian Europe and Christianity as a whole. WWIII is to be between Israel and Muslims.
RIDICULOUS ! this clown did'n t even mention the miraculous economic growth of nazi germany, going in a few years from a Venezuela type situation to the richest , most powerful country in Europe. Every economist should study Hitler instead of Marx !
F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom", Ludwig Von Mises "Omnipotent Government" (both published in 1944 if my old brain is correct). And on the cultural side - the works of Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddinhn - which show as well as being economically socialist, the National Socialists (Nazis) were also radical culturally - socially.
Which is why the Nazis turned Germany back into the militaristic top down government state, like it was during the second Reich, the Kaiserreich, yes? Calling it the third Reich should be a clear indicator that they see themselves as continuing a lineage.
@@Arnaere Wow, with argument like that, how can I disagree? Do tell, who is better at explaining prices in the free market. Or why socialism fail, because it ruin the market and prevents people from trading legally.
Just like the current Democrat party in the US. This is why it’s so important we educate our children on the dangers of this ideology and the disease of chronic victimhood!
my favorite thing in college was getting people to agree with hitler quotes on socialism without telling them the source of the quote. This was pre-web and pre-search engines
@@Si_Mondo "One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian." I never tell them
@@Nick-gj6je I'm sure it was. He became disillusioned with the whole movement. He was terrified that the Bolsheviks would overrun Germany. I've always maintained that the reason he had such a hatred for the Js later on was because he blamed them for creating international Bolshevism. If you look at his early life, many benevolent and important characters that he had a close relationship with were Js. One of his early mentors in the Bavarian Republic was a J. (I have to use J or youtube will delete the comment)
@@musashidanmcgrath You're right in the first but some thing that he would hate lately the Js is because many of the leaders of these communist parties and revolutions were js
Excellent guest. All his descriptions of fascism fit with the research I've done in recent years, and confirms that 99.9999% of people don't know what fascism is. This guest got me to finally subscribe to your channel.
I've seen quite a lot of circular logic with the definition of fascism. They'll say, for a recent example, "Trump is a fascist." And when you ask what fascism means, they'll say "Trump."
Yeah Hitler socialist 😂 He was funded by Henry Ford and so many USA industrial & bankers. Your research proved totally ineffective. By the way fascism started when local industrials hiring veterans from WWI to go beat strikers and communist. Those groups were named fasci. Yeah i've read 500 page book about fascism contrary to 99% peoples here.
@@LizRealGirlBeautyYou're speaking to some particularly dumb leftists then. 😂 Well read ones will at least say that a businessman running the country is like a marriage between the state and big business (a very loose way of defining Fascism). For the well read ones, I ask them to point to any economic policy of his that mirrors than of Syndicalism (the branch of Marxist theory which Mussolini and Gentile got most of their ideas from). That normally shuts them up 😁
When i was a kid in communist Czechoslovakia, our house was "rundown grey" and there was a weird stump on the house next to my window. Now the house is restored to how it really should look like. It is white with a cherub statue next to the window!
Mussolini was the most honest politician of his day. He wrote a Treatise on Fascism and it was in his mind a natural progression from Communisms. State run companies... no, but private companies that do the state's bidding. USA is too close to this. A marriage of convivence has become a corrupted Bureaucracy. The EV mandate is the dumbest. Hybrid is the best tech we have right now. It solves several problems at once while greatly recusing CO2 output if that is your biggest concern. But that option has been mandated out too.
Consider the government is actively trying to control, for example, the crypto and AI industries, it's full on state controlled command economy incoming.
this is not new, what was the New Deal? We've been toying with such things since the 1930s. Is it an accident that Mussolini had so many fans in the US prior to his invasion of Ethiopia?
This guy is the most intelligent person I’ve ever heard! The way he speaks about the nuances of autocratic regimes, socialism and mixed economies is incredibly clear and concise! Too many great points here to reiterate!!!
25:18 My great great grandfather was a father of confederation here in Canada and he advocated for this on PEI/Canada. That people be able to own their own land and that it will make them invest more into developing it. Unfortunately the government wanted to collect land taxes and many disagree with me that you can own land here but its a perspective issue. If you pay off your house right.... you should be set for life but you don't you will forever pay land taxes. So I ask people if you can never pay off the debt how can you own something? If the government forces you to pay for something indefinity you don't really own it, you are renting it. It is a service. I really wish his ideas were taken more seriously at the time.
I agree. We have the same issue here in the US. After two missed property tax payments the government can take your home and land. When I point this out to people they appear to be horrified as if they never considered this! At least in the past having a mortgage “fixed” your housing costs vs. rent payments that increase frequently. Property taxes take away this security and can make home ownership more expensive than renting. Given the fact that younger generations now have no kids or just 1-2 kids, there won’t be children able to help save the family home (their inheritance) from the tax man. The only strategy for many retirees is selling their home at a profit & moving to a foreign country like Costa Rica so that they can retire.
American here from CA. I ask home “owners” all the time do you ever own your home. They answer yes. Then I say stop paying your property taxes. It’s like oh dang you’re right.
The level of gaslighting on the part of those who claim Hitler was not a socialist is truly astounding, though perhaps understandable because to admit the truth is to admit that Hitler was a "fellow traveler". "Oh...but National Socialism isn't >real< socialism." Again, that is nothing more than a dodge of the truth. There was absolutely no room for conservative or libertarian thought in the National Socialist movement, and those ideologies are correctly placed on the Right side of the ideological spectrum. Perhaps national socialism was slightly to the right of communism, but that still places it firmly on the Left side of the ideological spectrum.
It's the same with COVID-19 vaccinated people, they prefer to die over admitting that they made a mistake and followed blindly their leaders and the herd. The same with socialist after the war they prefer to blame the conservative right. They simply can't see themselves in the eyes and now they do it again.
Hitler threw Marxists in jail. Hitler did not privatize industry. When Hitler took power, he privatized governmental services. He did not take any property away from any of the large industrialists. He supported a private banking system and turn previously nationalized Deutsche Bank back to private control. So tell me again how was Hitler a socialist? Just because some Nazi with a German accent gets on RUclips and talks a lot of s*** don't go believing him. I noticed a lot of people that think like this also are very swayed by RUclips experts with Russian accents . . .
there are a couple of clips of Maggie saying this in about 6 words! She only got kicked out because of champagne socialist Arthur Scargill, and her own party turning on her More recently, Alex Phillips explains how the EU trashed Africa and turned it over to the Chinese
I am a gunsmith. One thing I learned long ago and early on with guns is that there is no perfect gun, no perfect caliber. They all have their pros and cons. There is always give and take in gun designs. Economics and the balance between getting government out of the way of the economy vs. getting government more involved in the economy seems to work the same way. The difference is with a gun you are talking about an inanimate object that you can see with your eyes and hold with your hands vs what is essentially a philosophy about what government's role in economics should be. Government it's self is an abstract concept. Economics are abstract concepts. Trying to merge abstract concepts together for a common purpose makes it even more complex but in the end the same rule applies: no such thing as the perfect concept, there is give and take no matter which way you go. I have often considered myself to be a libertarian in the past and I guess I am still a libertarian to some extent more or less. With my libertarian leanings I tend to believe that the absence of government or limitations upon government involvement are the better ways to go. But the more I learn and the more I think about libertarianism I see its flaws. It seems to me more and more that libertarianism only works in a system where there are universally shared social, economic, cultural and political values and in a society where self-discipline shared concepts of what self-discipline should be exist. Libertarianism's flaws become increasingly apparent (to me, at least) when and where a lack of self-discipline exists and where values systems become more diverse and even contradictory within a society. As George Washington once stated, the government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force, and like fire, it can be a fearful master and a dangerous servant. The people at the top of government do as they please. They have the power. They have the economic system in the palm of their hands. They make the rules and uphold them as they see fit and who can stand against them when they control the military and law enforcement? We like to think that in a Constitutional Republic or a democracy that the people have the power over government, but it doesn't seem to me that this is the case. We have the illusion of control, but again, the government is forced, not reason or eloquence. To my understanding, Hitler could be somewhat reasoned with, not so much with Stalin. Hitler would listen to criticism from time to time, with Stalin criticism could get you and your entire family killed or put in the gulag. But either way, you are dealing with dictators who had almost godlike powers in their respective countries at the heights of their power and that meant they could do as they pretty well pleased. To my understanding, it seems to me that Hitler didn't really understand or even care about economic principles. He hated Communism and Capitalism with equal fervor. He regarded capitalism as decadence that made people materialistic and weak, and communism was a Bolshevik conspiracy in Hitler's eyes. I can't help but think that Hitler had to have at least heard somewhat of Austrian economics given his origins, but to my understanding, he probably didn't give socialism much thought until he happened to become acquainted with Joseph Goebbels in his rise to power. Goebbels and the Nazi party needed Hitler to be their charismatic leader and Hitler needed Goebbels as part of his propaganda machine and the followers that the National Socialist movement provided to grow in power. The marriage between Hitler and National Socialism seems to have been a mutually beneficial political marriage, but I don't know that Hitler got too excited by the minutiae of any specific economic school of thought.
@chari---zard when you ideologize and condemn schools of thought you are cutting yourself from a branch of intelligence, one it seems you could sorely use
@@chari---zard understanding there are other kinds of socialism that aren't rooted in Marxism doesn't make someone a Nazi apologist, it makes them educated.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 Not really. German Nazi apologists do criticize the way the Nazi era is taught in school (Nazis very, very bad), by comparing it to the Nazi school system. "If you make me feel bad about Nazis in a public school, the public school is as bad as the Nazis." That argument OF COURSE minimizes how bad the Nazis actually have been, and it slanders the public school system.
It is more important what modern socialists don't want you to know about socialism! Read "The Socialist Phenomenon" by Igor Shafarevich. You can find in online as a PDF. And by the way, the Nordic countries are not and have never been socialist!
There are reasons you aren't taught this by teachers who have a MAJOR soft spot for socialism.... The same thing as why you aren't taught anything about personal finances or how to raise money for starting a business. This is done intentionally by the old Trillion dollar wealth families of America (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Dupont's, Dow, Fords) They wanted workers, not creators/builders. Now the weird question is what does that mean for all of us when they get Optimus like humanoid robots....? I think this is why they are flooding the country to rob the middle class faster.
Except this is a dishonest take, comparing socialist countries like Denmark or Norway to Nazi Germany is a straight lie. Don't think this is "educational". It's more like right wing propaganda, which is actually akin to Hitler.
Yes, thank you, thank you for pointing out that hitler was a socialist. Thank you, good sir, for stating the obvious that most people refuse to hear. Good job!
@@SEKreiverOttoman and earlier Arab caliphates empires eg multiethnic monarchy with most power centralized with the state dominated by one ethnic group, though very often local elites do get co-opted into the project. As for the Interesting question though you’ve posed - probably has been answered more eloquently but colonialism is set apart by less of the above, globalized/industrializing setting, social attitudes towards land vs overseas expansion, and racial component. Are the Romans colonizing the rest of Latium in 5th century bc?
It was complex. There were many Princely states that had considerable autonomy… The Indian Civil Service was tiny, never more than 1200 people responsible for 300 million…(nowadays there are probably 1200 civil servants in one suburb of London). The British Indian Army was far more Indian than British.
Definitely not if you see how most Indians live and behave. The 3rd world needed to be quelled and wrangled by superior people for its own good. The transplanting has occurred in Britain and Ireland though, vast numbers of Indians plague us and demand we pay attention to their cultural holidays etc
Trumps’s success is because he has been able to tap into the emotions. Capitalists need to do this. Tell the people what socialism steals from them! The best thing of all is that it’s TRUE!! I’m a self educated Austrian Economist, and know the truth. We have to think of how to simplify our message for the masses, so they can understand without reading dozens of books and listening to 100s of lectures. I believe the message should start in schools, and be constantly reinforced, because socialism is so alluring to non- thinking people due to its simple, emotional lies.
I rather Take Trump's success is the growing pragmatism and the rationalization of Americans in Opposition of Kamala Harris growinf raficalization to far left liberals From what I see. It is Kamala Harris instead Who tapped the emotion spectrum
I totally agree with you. There needs to be some form of educational basis that explains the brilliance of the free market and that why economic freedom is the most fundamental of all our rights. The socialists go for the emotional play of how tough life it is for some. Where as the those that follow and live by free markets can simply say well look at the evidence of what has actually occurred when people get to deal with other.
@@arielquelme "What can be, unburdened by the past" is an advertising slogan and utopian "I am a god" magical thinking. I can't think of any working invention in human history that was "unburdened" by the past. That said, an "appeal to emotion" is an effective way to make an argument, humans are not what I would call a purely "logical" species. All politicians seem to know this.
That will only work on SOME of them. The root of the problem is most of them FEEL afraid of making choices in their lives where they may fail. They don't admit it to themselves, sometimes, but it's there. Those people would prefer guaranteed equal misery than the chance they fail while others succeed.
Knew Nazism and Fascism were on the left all along because it doesn't make sense for them to be on the right if you look at what each side stands for. Right is for small governments and to the extreme would be no government which is anarchy. Left is for big government, so government controls everything in the end (socialism, communism, fascism, nazism).
You are confusing the USA political parties with left-right wing ideologies. The USA doesn't have a true left-wing party, only moderate right and extreme right. Right-wing politics can exist in both versions - with a big or a small government. Check out the political compass to undetstand how you are confusing the vertical axis with the horizintal axis.
*Here is a direct quote from A.H. himself:* “'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main 'social equity'. 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.”
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a Weltanschauung. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." _My Struggle_
"The party takes over the function of what has been society-that is what I wanted them to understand. The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no licence, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism-not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper. It does not alter external conditions; no, it establishes the relation of the individual to the State, the national community. It does this with the help of one party, or perhaps I should say of one order.” - Adolf Hitler. adolf said he wanted to take socialism from the socialists, to sabotage it with propaganda and by claiming his political system as socialism.
My father was a Theologian, & Historian. He and Dr. Zitellman would’ve talked for hours! There is always more to learn about history & getting the truth not just the propaganda story told by those in power. ❤
I mean, I'll wait to listen to the whole thing, but he has stated his thesis, and this is not some new revelation to anyone who has read about this subject. I could have given the first five minutes of his talk.
@@iluvyunie the whole thing seems kinda meandering and lacking a genuine humanity; 20:30 I checked out after this comment about Africa, which in my opinion is simply intellectually dishonest ie - saying that they were provided development aide yet failed to “capitalize” is just an absurdly disingenuous over-simplification that completely OMITS the well-documented [open-secret] of 1st worlders systematically undermining and subverting places to exploit resources period. end of story. all the rest of the annoying blahblahblah is just smug nonsense when people arrogantly refuse to have conversations based on the objective geopolitical monopoly game that has been had specifically throughout the last few decades… whatever… who cares
They were polar opposites.. you can see in your own societies what the Marxism has done. Stalin wasnt even a Russian. you should read about the atrocities of bolsheviks
@@colliric horseshoe theory? Its that the same as the right left duopoly we have? Germans knew who they were fighting unlike most westerners..polar opposites
Was that Hitler was a people's man, while Stalin wasn't elected by the people, and he was not patriotic to the Russians or any people actually. He only exploited Russian identity. That's the difference.
He was a national socialist…socialism to benefit the Volk, the German nation and identity. All the benefits were to be for the Nation…not individuals. The nation was more important than any person or the sentimental feeling towards any person.
Actually he was a Racist Socialist, RAZI. He did not accept all peoples as a Nation, he selected on Race / Genetic Background (Note: Race does not exist, it's a construct). If he was Nationalistic he would accept German born Jews into his system or have Slavic Germans similar to Germanic Tribes. He empowered a specific background, Germanic rather than a location Nation. He also looked at Jews are a "race" as opposed to Marx who looked at them as a "Religion" IE: You can have Jewish geology but if you do not follow Judaism then you are not a Jew.
well duh, nazi litterally stands for national socialist workers party. which makes it all that much more hilarious when young liberals call anyone conservative a nazi.
They’re using nazi as a replacement for racist, as if racism is only a right wing trait. It’s kinda like stripping MLK down to only his I have a dream speech.
@@AlexanderKaytazov-vy6sfYou know what it means. It's not uncommon for communist countries to call themselves democratic to try to fool/pacify their people, another example would be East Germany, whose name was German Democratic Republic. However, nazi party's previous name was the German Worker's Party, which was retained in its full name with the words National and Socialist added. Their policies also reflected their name
I spent the second half of my enlistment (06/'59-06/'62) as the Public Information Office photographer for the 8th Trans. Bn., Lt. Helicopters, stationed in Oberschleissheim just about 5 miles from both Munich and Dachau. As such I was able to interview many survivors of Socialism, both National [NAZI] and International [USSR]. While the original occupants of the DP (Displaced Persons) Camps were no longer living in them, they were filled with escapees from the Eastern Zone. Their stories were eerily similar to the ones I heard from the previous occupants. People today either just don't understand. Or worse, care. Of course, those in league with them will lie, cheat and steal their way into power while putting a Smiley Face on their true intentions so they may gain a controlling hand on the levers of power in order to “Shape A Better World”, etc., in their vision of what is “Better” just as long as they and their ilk are the one’s in control (eventually with an iron fist). Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the same coin sharing the same tactics. One leans more towards nationalism (NAZIISM) and the other Internationalism (COMMUNISM) - with the Mother Country - Germany/Russia/China - always held as of primary importance.
Perfectly put. I often refer people to Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to help them with hard facts. They still refuse and tell me I'm wrong. You can give them the letters from Mussolini to FDR and Hitler, and they will still insist that it's all lies and that nazism is 'right wing extremism" no matter how closely associated with the democrats and other socialist groups you show them to actually have been. Even with "socialism" in the name, they try to bend the graph (that famous horseshoe graph) to bring the ends of the political spectrum together in a loop in order to justify their thinking. It's genuinely scary because you know that kind of fanaticism is going to lead to really bad places.
The general idea of Mussolini's fascism was to create a social welfare state that had the benefits of socialism but without the revolutionary features of Marxism. He rejected class warfare and preserved traditional social structures like private property and the family (both of which were denounced by Marx). Hitler's nazism was somewhat different from Mussolini in that Mussolini rejected racism and insisted that anyone who belonged to the State was a first class citizen. Hitler's philosophy was based on promoting the German race against what he imagined to be a bleak Malthusian future. But like Mussolini, he promised to create social welfare without overturning and disrupting society in the way that the Soviet Revolution had done.
I think what you are saying makes sense but a lot of people will struggle with it because of what they use to define left versus right. I find what often makes sense to people is to ask them to view these ideologies along a spectrum of individualist versus collectivist. It then becomes very easy to see that there was a battle between left collectivist and right collectivist ideologies. The principles around which they were organized were different, but they were collectivist ideologies.
I read Speer's autobiography recently and one page stook out where he said that his parents were big lefists but they didn't like Hitler because they thought he was too far left. His views were complex but it seems they have been deliberately obfuscated.
I always laugh when I see people only finding out that Nazis were called National Socialists for the first time, thinking they've discovered some giant historical cover-up. The name of the National Socialist German Workers Party is common knowledge. Maybe look into what really happened during Hitler's rise to power instead of listening to crackpots like Dr. Rainer Zitelmann. Perhaps you could start with Hitler's murdering of prominent socialists within the Party on the "Night of the Long Knives." Or maybe his outlawing of the Communist Party after the Reichstag fire. Or the fact that he had to keep imprisoning or killing members of the Democratic Socialist Party in the Reichstag to finally get the numbers he needed to pass the Enabling Act, after which he imprisoned all communists and socialists by decree. They were among the first to go into the camps, and none of them made it out. He sided with big business and abolished Unions, crushing any resistance from the socialist working class. His focus was on ethnic purity and National pride. Hitler was not a socialist; he was a far-right authoritarian fascist. 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 Niemöller, 1946.
Why did Germany allow for private investment and why didn't the government nationalise Its Industry instead of working directly with companies? It can't be socialist, ownership by the means of production is the whole thing with socialism
@denniskarlsson7121 ownership or control? Fascism is a variation of Socialism. It is Socialism combined with nationalism. Mussolini was a big time Socialists before he birthed Fascism. In Fascism the government may not directly own the industries but control what they do. The economy is centrally planned, resources are allocated centrally as are production goals, profits are limited. Industrialist that do not play ball are replaced. In exchange for collaborating and being de facto part of the government machine, business is guaranteed and so are profits. If I recall, banks also had to be German owned
@@PappyGunn Right, but what has that got to do with socialism? Socialism is still when socialism controls/owns the means of production, there cannot be a capital holder class. It's antithetical to socialist theory. There existed privately owned firms in Italy and Germany. Or what is socialism to you? Edit: I just had to look it up really quickly as well, both Germany and Italy even privatised state owned industry at the start of their fascist rule. HOW can that be even argued to be socialism?
@ Centrally planned economy, resources allocated by government, profit limited by law, Control of means of production does not mean outright ownership. Oh and that the party and the platform being named as Socialist.
After WW1 Hitler became an important member of Kurt Eisner's revolutionary Socialist Bavarian Republic which brought down the Bavarian monarchy. After the assassination of Eisner he joint the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Party (yeah, "Soviet" as in Socialist/Communist). He subsequently joined the Socialist DAP (Deutsche Arbeiter Party/German Workers Party). That party was later renamed to NSDAP (National Sozialist Deutsche Arbeiterpartei / National Socialist German Workers Party = Nazis). He told the Germans: "I bring you a Socialism for the Germans; a National Socialism". I'm pretty sure Hitler was a Socialist, even leaning to Communism. Mussolini was an activist Communist in his younger years. Later - when he was chief-editor of the Socialist daily newspaper - he was very critical of the Communist Party based on its policies, not the ideology. Influenced by Giovanni Gentile he joined the Fascists supporting that ideology based in the French revolutionary movement of Syndicalism (Literally "trade-unionism") aimed at controlling industry through militant trade-unions. His Fascist ideology was aimed to benefit all Italian nationals, independent of race. Oswald Mosley from the UK was a member of the British Socialist Labour party, until being expelled for being too radical. He subsequently became the leader of the British Fascists. Jacques Doriot of France was a Communist before he became the leader of the French Fascist party. It's pretty unlikely that such dedicated far-left sympathisers like Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley, and Doriot will become the absolute leaders of a far-right ideology. It only makes sense when National Socialism and Fascism are considered far-left ideologies.
It should be pointed out that, though it's true Moseley was a Labour MP before starting the BUF, it's also true that he had been a paid in member (but not a parliamentary member) of both the Liberal and the Tory (Conservative) parties prior to joining Labour. Moseley was a bit of political grifter, more than an ideologue.
@@Si_Mondo Mosley was a baronet ... nobility. It was kind of traditional for nobility to join the Conservatives. He didn't feel at home with that party so left and joined the Liberal party just to move on to labour.
Nazism was "National Socialism" as opposed to "Interntaional Socialism" aka Communism. International is double speak meaning group other than native of the land gets to take over the power. There is very good reason why Communists LOVED the world "International" and it does NOT mean diversity, equity, inclusion. Neither today's Woke DEI means what it says.
In the 80ies it was Ethiopia (when the country had 25 million inhabitants and was rules by Soviet-style socialists and couldn't feed itself. Today the country has more than 100 million inhabitants)
My grandparents were stating "African children were starving" , now the tables have turned China (in the 90s) and many African nations (recently) have adopted freemarket capitalism with 0-5% taxation which has allowed more saving potential when PPP is considered.
01:08:00 without having read your book, Poland's growth could also be attributed to the huge financial support from the US as the last frontier between NATO and Russia. We should put nation within their global context and not judge them individually. "No country is an island".
It's not a coincidence. This is a strategic manipulation tactic to try and forget it. I think people underestimate the evil intentions and tactics of the left
From the many books I have read over the decades, only a few like those from Dr Thomas Sowell talked about WHY this happened. He noted in the 1970s that the "left" was taking over Academia was slowly pushing out everyone that did not hold their ideology and were already making changes to what was and was not being taught and that it was increasing in the 1980s while also spreading in the scope of the nations they were effecting to the point almost all Western countries was being changed. This makes sense as I was taught about Stalin and Mao in the early 1980s but my nephews were only taught about Mao and my youngest Nieces were not taught about either.
He nailed it in the end. Socialist talk with the emotions and conservatives by the head. I came to the same conclusion years ago. So we conservatives / capitalists need to develop the skill of story telling but not based on fantasies and utopias but based on what there is to win.
@@gThomasHaggyou're making a massive category error and your logic is way off. Firstly, conservative is a relative term dependent on the culture and time they exist. These days Classical Liberals are often thought of as conservatives, but in 17th and 18th century Britain they were not. Capitalism and Conservatism describe different, but sometimes overlapping, things. A Conservative can be Capitalist, but not all Capitalists are Conservatives (and vice versa). The same goes for Nationalists, who can be very different beasts depending on whether they are religious or secular - for one it's merely a tool of governance, for the other it runs the risk of replacing religion. Furthermore, in Scotland the Nationalist Party used to be split between Capitalists (often called Tartan Tories) and Socialists, although now the party is exclusively socialist.
@@gThomasHagg It depends on where you live. In the New World conservatism is more individualistic, while in Europe conservatism is more royal central planning. Mises called himself a liberal, in America Ocasio-Cortez also calls herself a liberal. But their ideas are opposites.
any time a state, tells a company what to do, what to make, what to not make etc. through coercion or however incentives even. that is socialism. if they do it on a national basis, tampering with free market dynamics, that is national socialism, if they do it on a global or international basis, then that is international socialism, or global communism.
@@DanRyan-v5y ikr and see the uk for classic soviet style surpluses now, they have an excess of luxury eSUV which have no second hand market, because of a combination of incentives on both supply and demand side,
@@woobiefuntime yes, but it seems to me, for example, the small companies being told or ordered or mandated or regulated to do things or not do things, meanwhile you have big banks running amock, completely free from socialism, expect when they get bailed out. Whilst raining socialism on everybody else. Everybody can see the system is totally corrupt.
Hitler was a socialist 100 % I come from the Netherlands my grandfather and grandmother always tell me what the war was like and how people have forgotten that hitler had a left-wing national socialist party
I think what people don't realize is that socialism is really the economic system by which much wealth is centralized in the hands of a few. Capitalism only works when there's the free flow of money and ideas. Capitalism by definition requires the investment of capital in new ideas. You are not capitalizing on your money unless you do this. This means money naturally has to flow from those who have it to those who do not. It's only through the growth of wealth of those who do not have wealth that those who do have wealth are able to capitalize.
@@kimobrien. Yes, this is why 'capitalists' have always been the biggest proponents of socialism. Since the 'capitalists' control the government, socialist control means 'capitalist' control.
@@kimobrien. Versus the economy being controlled by the centralized few in socialism. Exactly why successful economies are some hybrid of both capitalism and socialism. No perfect answer.
The small number of people controlling the economic system under socialism claim they are doing the working for the benefits of all the people. However, it’s impossible to keep them accountable to that promise, and anyone who dare to challenge the top becomes the “enemy of the people”.
Both fascisme and nazism were interwar ideologies trying to contain communism with social policies. Roosevelts "New deal" had many elements taken from the social polices of fascisme. Both in Denmark and Sweden you saw social democrats adopt polices with a corporative state from fascisme. It's the interwar and there was a fear of communisme.
You may be overlooking the fact that all those groups split from Social Democratic Parties and that Fascists actually split from the French Communist Party (where the fascists were called Syndicalists). Marxist Communists held that the Proletariat would inevitably rise up against the Bourgeoisie, but by the end of the 19th Century this was looking increasingly unlikely, which posed a problem with a number of solutions. The Bolsheviks decided they would rise up in violent revolution on the Proletariat's behalf. The Syndicalists, after WWI, abandoned the International Class based Socialism of Marx in favour of National Socialism. In Germany this took the form of Ethno Socialism mixed with 19th German Nationalism and weird occult shit that was rife among the chattering classes. In the less homogenous Italy, their National Socialism had less of an emphasis on ethnicity and more of an emphasis on the State. The Communists weren't a massive threat in Europe, they succeeded in taking Russia and China by force because both countries were practically feudal kingdoms so they could take over relatively few cities and tyranise the largely rural population.
Fascism was implemented first in the soviet union by lenin. He called it "new economic policy", and fascists just copied it. So there was no difference. The difference is that the soviet union was a violent imperialist project, that invaded all neighbor nations, so the europeans came with their own imperialist fascist projects, to be the rulers of global socialism instead of being ruled from Moscow. That's' why the USSR was "international socialism", or "communists", and the others were "national socialisms". It was a clash of power between the same ideologies with capital in different nations. But modern socialism is controlled by London, so it wants to rewrite the history, in orwellian fashion, to build his own imperialist socialism, this time disguised as wokism, feminism, climate changeism...
Dr. Rainer Zitelmann is a brilliant mind that needs more exposure. Thanks for having him on your show and having a long enough conversation for him to get some of his main points accross.
It's happening today in Europe where the EU applies an array of ubiquitous standards and regulations which result in farmers having no other solution than either committing suicide, having to sell their land, or selling themselves as exploited employees. to large investment groups. And meanwhile the EU commissioners and crooked parliamentarians are opening the borders of the union to foreign products which are produced with zero standards and regulations with the addition of favorable, even nihil customs advantages. And when we check these foreign products are also produced by the same investment funds. The WEF slogan is “You'll own nothing, ...and you will be happy...rather, you will be forced to be happy. For years I have called this EU Regime "Crony Capitalism" where all decisions are made to liquidate all competition for the sole benefit of big capital and multinationals. That's not Capitalism but Crony Capitalism where all the laws, standards and regulations are made to destroy, eliminate and appropriate the private properties, businesses and lands of small people for the benefit of shareholders of large investment groups. What a difference between Communism and the EU...none in the end since by force or trickery we are dispossessed to become nothing more than serfs on our own lands. Vladimir Bukovsky, dissident of the Soviet Union, was right. The lockdowns during Circus-19 were in reality nothing else, forced cessation of all activity for small independents and authorization of activity for large multinationals, disguised under the fallacious reasons of a pseudo-pandemic. And meanwhile the mass of lobotomized people applaud their own enslavement.
@DadSavesAmerica Lol. That's why you never trust your education to the system. I don't know if you can still find his work online (it's mostly been scrubbed after his death) but he's got a bunch of books on the subject, Jim Marrs. Thanks for this podcast, I will re enjoy while at work, hopefully someone else learns something too.
Ah yes, but the retort from the other side when this is pointed out is usually something along the lines of: “Oh but often names are used that don’t actually mean what they say. For example the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not democratic or a republic.”
@@DadSavesAmerica Come on, mate. You, of all people, should know that the education establishment is well aware of this misguided view of history. Unlike you, they are more responsible and teach people the truth about Nazism instead of entertaining crackpots like Zitelmann.
That was one of the most coherent interviews. And, Dad, you always impress me by allowing your guest to be front stage. What a joy it must be to sit across from you.
I found this pretty interesting with some good insightful takes but he massively lost me at “Putin is a weak, loser with atomic weapons”. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was basically being chopped up and sold off at a discount price. There was a complete and total social and economic collapse being managed by big international finance. It was Putin who rose up through the ranks took control and restored stability and order in Russia. I genuinely believe there are no political leaders alive today and very few even in history who could have achieved this! To completely write Putin off as a “weak loser” like the guest did here. Demonstrates to me a total lack of basic historic, economic and political knowledge and understanding. Very weak take.
Most peoples arguments opposed to calling Nazis "Socialist" point to North Korea or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." It's an idiotic assertion and argument.
Not so fast. The Nazi’s implemented every single thing that would be on anyones who called themselves a socialist wish list. You have to remember that at the time of the rise of the Nazi’s that Germany was THE most educated country in the world. And yet many of them let it fall into the mess it did by actually supporting Nazi policies because it benefited them. Which is why conservatives (used to be a liberal value) value individual freedom so much. Far less chance of falling into an induced mass psychosis that Germany did.
Because they think Democracy and Universal Suffrage are the same things. Democracy just means "people rule", and historically the Demos didn't include everyone
The left will never admit it of course,but all forms of tyranny are socialist and anti individualistic. The reason that FDR was so cozy with Stalin was that while he found the nationalist version of socialism repugnant, as a new deal democrat he really believed that communism was the future. The new deal was a disaster only averted by war profits. FDR also had a tyrannical streak of his own. He was the only US president who ignored Washington's example of Cincinnatus and sought more than two terms. So disturbing was this to even his own party that both parties immediately made two terms federal law so no future president would seize power and refuse to relinquish it as FDR did. It was shameful.
My college thesis in 1975 was about the lack of difference between National Socialism and Global Socialism outside of geographic ambitions. I received a high grade according to our teacher because I explained it fully and factually !
@@tszirmay There is zero resemblance between German's old National Socialism and global socialism. National Socialism was just a word. It was actually fascism, which is the exact opposite of socialism. Hitler hated socialists. He put them in prison camps. The whole point of socialism is that it empowers the working class. Fascism empowers the ownership class. Socialism is democratic (workers own the factories and vote on policy.) In fascism workers have no power.
@@portalarizona I am glad you think so! My 50 years of ongoing study and endless verification from multiple sources indicate otherwise but you are entitled to your opinion . The first major move Adolf made was the creation of the German Labour Union (DAF) in 1933 replacing ALL the Independent unions, with the complicit acceptance of the industrialists , having barracked, clothed and fed the millions of idle workless Germans after the crash. For this kind gesture, the cartels gave him the funding to usurp the power from the soft Weimar Republic. Perhaps the workers "owned" the factories in the Soviet Union, China or Cuba but the Party made all de decisions and they were the workers were subject entirely to the whims of the Party with sombre finality , to say the least. This German professor is correct as well as William Shirer ,who witnessed the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and wrote a faultless book on the subject. Socialism/Communism and Fascism/Nazism were the two "distinct" sides of the same coin but only in the colour of their uniform and the authoritarianism that all dictatorships provide.
Yeah, but I would differ slightly in that the building block of society, the base unit, is the family. Like an atom, if you break it down to it's constituent parts, it won't end well
In my opinion In the US the number one thing we have to do asap if we want to fix things is reform our education systems. It has gotten so bad and it literally touches every part of society. If you want to change the country in the future and we don't start fixing education today it will fail every time. Its easy all we have to do is convince school to actually educate people. There is absolutely no excuse for kids today to come out of school not ever being taught about these ideologies and their history. So many kids don't even know about Hitler and that's the one we assume everyone knows. Education has literally become ideological brainwashing. Every single American should be able to pass the test that legal migrants have to take to get in and I guarantee 90% would fail it. They should know about the Chinese cultural revolution, the gulag in Russia, and every single communist regime of the past. They of should also learn the history of success by other nations and why they were more successful. They should all know the constitution, bill of rights, the founding; abolition movements, economics etc etc. Every single one of these subjects was touched on when I was in school but I STILL had to teach myself. The majority of everything I know today was learned on my own and I graduated high school In 05 so it's been terrible for awhile.
This guy lost the plot when he implies that Russia is backwards cause they don’t make iPhones. Imagine comparing the most advanced hypersonic weapons in the planet to cheap consumer products.
Excellent conversation! The one thing I do wish they touched on was how Germany was so held down, and used, after WWI. The debt was unbearable. Children were prostitutes, especially in Berlin, which became the famous city of sin. One reason Jews were hated was because they owned not only the banks, but the Cabarets where sex and drugs were plentiful. When the Brown Shirts began growing, they focused on these establishments, and conservative Germans supported this because their poor were being abused by these businesses that drew in international clients. It really was not about religion. History will repeat if we do not understand it.
@danielpye7738 Man's inhumanity to man crosses all ages and borders. Just 2 years ago, countrymen denied healthcare and even locked up neighbors for not complying to experimental drugs. We are not so different.
The term 'caputalism' is Marxist. Capitalism is just the idea of private property, and how it can be traded to profit each other. It is impossible NOT to have, or to rely on capitalism. Capitalism establishes what the value of something is to people, which should be reflected in its price. Even your ideas are capital, they are a thing with value for others.
There're two sepret types of socialism. The first is economically the other is oppressive justice system, which is an unjustifiable system that violates the majority of ones' self human rights traditions and norms and values and religion. Countries who have adopted socialism end up adopting both systems of socialism and oppression because it's extremely difficult to hold onto a socialism order without having oppression
I used think nazis were right wing . Then I was thinking about and started looking into it. Hitler never had a bank account never owned a house . He was a failed artist and author. He was even a homeless person once . There's no way he was right wing. His party ran the largest workers union in Europe..the nazis government owned power water and gas utilities. The nazis flag is socialist red . The party was called national socialist workers party. If you listen to one of Hitlers speeches translation to English, you will hear him comrade .
If many people read Hitler book, you will know that he was a socialist to the core. Germany for germans only and no individual wealth except the state.
He is a fellowman, comrade only to those who really shared serving, like school, military and so on. Genosse (tavarish) is the term, Volksgenosse is what he always used; »Volksgenossen und -genossinnen«.
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong" -Thomas Sowell
Capitalism will exist where the authority in a community recognises and defends the people's ability to own private property. Owning private property, and having a state governed by laws that protect your ability to do what you will with private property means people will be able to profit from trading in that private property. Even the ideas in your head are your private property. This is why Orwell uses the cypher 2+ 2 = 5 to illustrate the depths of control and the jealousy totalitarianism feels towards the private sector. It's not "left right" it's "public private". Corporations are publically listed companies that are owned by share holders. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to the share holders to seek profit for those share holders. So publically listed companies are public bodies owned by a government within the state government.
@@danielpye7738 Socialism is the opiate for the masses that Marx talked about. He was a theologian/philosopher (not an economist) who wrote the CM on commission for a millenarian religious group (really). The masses can't learn its true purpose.
I would say "influence" rather than origin. The origin lies with the rise of Enlightenment Liberalism, specifically the Liberalism of Rousseau which differs wildly from that of Locke or Hobbes. But you can't deny its influence, especially when you see how many members of the intelligentsia were into spiritualism and far more weird ideas than that
@@mainStream-user I don’t get the opposition. Socialism is supposed to lift everyone by government taking from the productive and giving to the less productive. The same way charities do. The difference is socialism takes from the productive involuntarily, while charity is voluntary. Of course the other lies are socialism actually lifts anyone, which it doesn’t (except the ruling class) and capitalism doesn’t lift anyone (which it does, having raised the standard of living of the entire human race).
Hitler's definition of Socialism: "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, or 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."
Sounds like a French revolutionary from the late 18th century, just replace the word socialist with nationalist. Liberté, égalité, fraternité they said.
I always refer to Germany during WWII as it’s official name on its constitution and coinage- “Deutschland Reich”, as that is the ONLY correct answer. Whenever someone begins screaming about the NEON YAHTZEES (who are surprisingly Hispanic), and YAHTZEE GERMANY I cringe inside.
Alberta in Canada's governing party has just passed Resolution 12 (2024), which defines carbon dioxide as a foundational nutrient essential for all life on earth, and removes its designation as a pollutant
What is rarely discussed is why large regions of north Africa from Morocco and Mali to Egypt to Eritrea and Sudan and in the middle east from Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Lebanon suffer under a super wealthy elite, while the vast majority of these populations live in abject poverty. These countries are not ordered through socialism or capitalism for the masses but under a theocratic dictatorship, where corruption is rife. One billion people is no small number.
Theres also more to the fact that Africa is poor. Look up why Africa is poor on YT and you will get explanations that its to do with Africas geography and corruption by dictators stealing all of the aid money given to them than any result of whatever system any country has adopted though a stable country with the rule of law is important (but how is this stability gained?) Theres also colonialism too as well as how the IMF and World Bank and the Investor State Dispute Settlement system is predatory on poorer countries trying to get out lots of debt.
I am certainly going to draw flak for this. I grew up just a few miles from Donald Trump. Raising his voice yelling hostilely at the top of his lungs is a cultural issue. Those of us in parts of New Jersey and New York among the working class are custom to yelling over the sound of machinery and chaos in the city that never sleeps and is rarely quiet. So he’s accustomed to yelling over the crowd. I’ve lived in California for 30 years and I still tend to let my voice rise in the state where that is frowned upon.
Don't the old definitions still work-- 1. Economics is the study of how best to meet infinite need with finite resources. Need is infinite. Resources are finite. The world has created two economic options. 2. Marxism (The foundation of communism and socialism) says you meet that need by giving to each person according to what he needs. It sounds reasonable and virtuous but it means incentivizing need. You will get more if you need more. Need is infinite so it exhausts your resources. And who decides what need is and whose is greatest? It is not easu to measure need objectively: the system is susceptible to corruption and oppression. That has always been its outcome In the real world. Human suffering and genocide. 3. Capitalism says you meet that need by giving to each according to what he produces. Production is incentivized so everybody wants to produce more. Production is easier to measure and not as susceptible to corruption. Everyone works more and harder and innovates ways to boost resources. You end up with surplus production that can raise the less fortunate and bring them out of poverty. That has been its outcome in the real world, lifting millions and millions of people out of poverty. 2
That is not really the definitions. Part of the problem is that Marxists made the original definitions and they invented the word capitalism. And their definition is Marxism: A fair system where everybody get what they deserve Capitalism: A unfair system where the owner steal the surplus from the workers. What I would say the true definitions is rather Socialism (including Marxism): When government control the trade between two other parties Capitalism: When government do not control the trade between two other parties,,, also known as free market, but the Marxist changed that because it sounded to posetive.
Marx was inventing a new spiritual socialist religion. Mankind, the Collective, being and becoming God. But only when the disbelievers are weeded out and ended. Private property was blamed for alienating Man from himself and from Mankind.
When abundance is rife, growth is continued, perhaps an element of Marxian socialism is best because people start to demand it (e.g. UK housing policy during the Post War period was entirely done via the government because people did not trust companies to build houses that were not shitty slums where you caught disease and where poverty was rife.) Equally when things become stagnant its best to let people be free to create new markets
I bought a copy of Samuelson's book from the early 1960's. It might have even been late 1950's. The footnotes are SO intelligent compared to the garbage in standard college level econ books these days. Don't get me wrong - Samuelson interpreted Böhm-Bawerk 180° backwards, but atleast his name was in Samuelson's book. I feel like Alfred Marshall was the original Paul Samuelson. I'm sure he meant well, but he forced economic reasoning into mathematical exercises. And in my humble opinion, that was more important to him than truth and realism. 80 years later, the dichotomy was between the followers of Keynes vs Friedman. And they ALL repeated the methodological sloppiness of Marshall. I love the Supply & Demand curves, though. I don't want to come off as his biggest critic. That *was* Marshall, wasn't it? Oh well. I guess the demand for mathematical economics will always be around. Rightly or wrongly.
I'd add that free markets are not what define capitalism. Capitalism is the only system in which people can buy, own and sell capital without having to come into direct possession or management of that capital. It remains the case in China today, that one cannot buy, own or sell capital without coming directly into its management, so China is not capitalist in any way, shape or form.
The best way to define Capitalism is against it's opposite: The Private Ownership of the Means of Production (i.e. the Private Capital). The opposite would be Public (i.e. State) Ownership (or Control) of the Means of Production. This is the historic definition of Socialism and was before Marx started using the term.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 socialism is against private property. "means of production" gives an impression of factories etc, but it is not. You just cannot own anything.
What is i tersdting to note is it was the capitalust government of 1970-74 The Conservatives under the Leadership of Edward Heath (Conservatives are similar to the US Republicans), it was in 1974 When the Labour party won power from the Conservatives who asked the IMF for the loan in 1975. Its worth piinting out that in Feb 1974 Harold Wilson beat the Conservatives but only by having a coalition government, Wilson then called another General election less than 8 months later that same year in October 1974 and won a majority of just 3 seats (3 MP's). Then, with that unrestricted power of now not having to meet half way on everything they now had a 100% labour government, this is when they asked the IMF for the loan, and it didnt change anything when labour got it. It fell to the new labour leader and Prime Minister James Callaghan who lost a vote of no confidence within his own party and was forced into a general election this is when the Conservative took over with Margeret Thatcher (the iron lady). She stayed in the prime minister role until 1990 (11yrs). That is when the UK started to come out of the effect of the 1970s, then In 1997 it was back to a labour government for 13 yrs until 2010 where labour destroyed our immigration, economy, education, gealthcare and many other things and lead us into two unlawful wars. Then the conservatives under Cameron returned and stayed in power under many leaders until July 2024 when the Hitleresque leader and socialist Kier Starmer took office for Labour.
You do know that during the 1970s there was a massive oil shock right? Even worse than the Ukraine crisis? There were big problems in the UK economy then but the reason we were so screwed was because of that oil crisis. That and the fact the unions were just too powerful.
@@johnkrstyen Perhaps you're right. Maybe he hasn't seen my comments, although channel owners do receive a notification every time someone comments on their videos. Just to clarify, that's not why I'm calling him an idiot. He's an idiot because of his blatant revisionist history and refusal to acknowledge well-documented facts and historical events that completely dismantle his entire stance on fascism.
I recently had a conversation with a person who is quite the proud Kiwi. But he was upset a Jacinda Ardern had gone and she was one of the main reasons he was proud. So I asked him with his national pride and heavy leaning towards socialism then what party should he vote for. He said Labour…
The national party (social darwinism) is the other choice here, I prefer labour they're not socialist but social democrats who even refused to pass a capital gains tax.
If you like what you see and want to stay up to date with Dad Saves America, please subscribe here on RUclips or over on Substack, where you can find weekly articles and the audio version of the podcast, with more to come in the near future!
www.dadsavesamerica.com
Softball interview.
nope hitler was buisness freindly and pro corporation
Fascism was first implemented in the Soviet Union, under the name of "New Economic Policy", on the 1920's. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Peron just copied it, and the longest surviving fascism is the peronist party.
The bad guys are those who initiated the destruction of Germany from London and New York before WWI. Chief H was just a reaction of self-preservation to this destruction. No one thinks it controversial that Germany is a united country today. In 1939, the British made a world war out of it. In 1914, they made a world war out of German market share on the so-called free market. Even if Germans play by British-American rules, they are demonized. This is the real basis for accusing American to be a racist country.
when where and why did you pick it up?
After WW2, my Hungarian grandparents were put into a Soviet run gulag for three years. My grandmother died and my grandfather was broken physically and psychologically. They endured back breaking labour and communist indoctrination for three years telling them they were the worst people in society. Their crimes were that they were farmers.
Hungarians in the Wehrmacht committed the most terrible war crimes during World War II, perhaps your ancestors were one of these criminals
NEO NAZI TRASH
Contempt for the farmers sounds like today’s UK. Communists badgering normal, decent people with propaganda that they’re the worst people in society sounds like how woke people say about straight, white, males.
EU nowadays: Farmers are the enemy of the climate!
Calm down comrade Ursula!
Land-owning farmers. Anyone who own anything is inherently greedy and needs to have their belongings taken and given to people who agree with us. Or something like that
“It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Nobel-Prize-winning novelist, historian and critic of Communist totalitarianism
sholzentitzyn was a liar and ofc the west would give him. a price for lying about their enemy ideology. maybe research solzhenitchyn. the greatest huan slaughter is still going on and it is capitalism. just within a year 330'000 palestinians slaughtered inside a concentration camp called gaza.
but Solzhenitsyn 's books were all censored , he clearly tells you who the perpetrators are : the "chosen" people , the so called "eternal victims " : they declared war on Germany , after their multiple attempts at a soviet revolution failed
The Weimar republic was jewish bankers punishing the Germans for rejecting communism
do we count how many slaves died from 1500 up to abolition in the hands of capitalist europeans? or how many africans died for lack of food and basic health care due to neo-colonialist monetary policies imposed by IMF and the world bank?
solshenitzin was a liar. how come his is the only testimony and all of you only rely on his testimony? thats not very scientific. lol. capitalism right now is killing all around the world. look at ukraine, look at gaza, look at congo, look at sudan. btw. you can't differentiate between capitalism and colonialism. tell me again that communism (first tried in 1917) killed more people than colonialism. lol. white dudes
It’s not that they are ignorant but more they have been brainwashed to hate the man who was responsible for deleting the devil Bolsheviks….
Ask yourself: why do we only hear about Adolf Hitler and not Mao, Stalin, Leopold II, Hideki Tojo, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mengistu Haile Mariam, or Idi Amin?
Have you ever seen documentaries about them running on a loop on the History Channel? Why not? Is this deliberate? If so, what’s the purpose? Who decides the programming?
Hm, good question and let`s wonder together, but you need to get the books and ducumentaries that swapped germany in recent years. Guido Knopp has them all from A.H. favourite dog, his fav. cameralady, and secretary and so on....what is evident why AFD is at some doubble digit percent, and some random YT coming around like many neocon tv personalities did and claim that AH was a socialist, while at the same time he tried to get rid of them all....
I saw a documentary about Idi Amin's issues with trapped gas
This video literally explains AH and his socialist policies. @@mrjozo-pr6ih
Corporate national socialism is what we are experiencing at this very time
There’s project mockingbird - I’m not sure how far the reach is, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if the narrative manipulation goes beyond news and Hollywood.
Good Lord...really??? People didn't know Hitler was a socialist??? Seriously, we really need to discard the worthless Department of Education.
National socialism is the ONLY remedy for globalism! Let that sink in! America SUPPORTED the communists in WW2! Germany was fighting AGAINST communism and Marxism!
No of course not. Hitler's actual policies and views never get discussed. The only thing of Hitler that ever gets spoken about is that he was anti-Semitic. Otherwise, nobody knows anything of Hitler, his government, his policies for Germany.
yes! in order to educate people get rid of their education! genius! 😂😂😂
how do you think education worked before the D.O.E? We’ve only gotten stupider as a country since it’s implementation.
They also falsely proclaim that fascism & Nazism on the right. Both of them are collectivism & clearly leftist ideologies
It goes deeper than that within the EU, when countries join the EU, the centralized Brussels government tells farmers what they grow, they tell dairy farmers that you can no longer have cows and you must grow crops we tell you to grow just look at Finland and Ireland for the evidence of that, you coal miners are now unemployed look at the UK and Germany for that, you gas workers are now unemployed, you oil workers are now unemployed, you nuclear workers are now unemployed, you car workers are unemployed, you ship builder's are unemployed, you steel workers are now unemployedyou fisherman are now unemployed. And all the towns and cities that had those industries become ghost towns, and the inhabitants rely completely on government handouts, countries within the EU no longer have sovriegnty and will obey the dictates, rules and regulations of the EU council which no citizen within the EU gets to vote on. You will have a single currency a single flag, and now a single military. Not bad for an organization that started off as a trading block. Slow rolling continental socialism.
WEhy not mention all the huamn rights worker reneter womens gay rights etc? Seemsn to me all the issues with cloised factories cound be fixed by not allowing companies to be all over pacpitalisitic and see cheap labour but force them to stay and employ peoepl at decent wage levels of the excitivies and shareholders have very painful and quite fatal accidents of imprisionment. the issue is not the eue tryignt o protecvt peoepl its those who want to use filk as cheap labour
Thats not socialism!
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
If the government runs things on behalf of people thats not socialism!
@@albal156 Communism is a movement of the working class on its way to state power. Socialism is the first stage of a Communist revolution that will replace the world capitalist system of production and trade.
Europe needs a single military, and the people voted for a single currency on most countries. Why are you so against the people?
@@albal156 What liberals an left want for socialsim or just liberla and left etc is not the government controls all production and doens not allow anyone to make money in business.
It meens everyoens needs are met ie univerdal heralth care, educaion, fire, medical, rescue services water supplies etc.
anyone wantignt o run nightclubs, make businecuits surf boards etc can go ahead and if somone makes good products and services that benefit peoepl and can make lots of money from many sales then good on them, as long as its not by cuttign safety corners, exploitign workers, pollutiing or sellign dangerous goods.
ie be nice do good then hopefully do well and get well off
but nobody is too bad off and all; have a good basic stand of living theat they casn improve with effort
Stalin had horrific policies. He convinced poor Ukrainians that the relatively well to do farmers, the productive farmers had stolen wealth from the poor. "Look, the farmers have a tractor and 6 cows. They are too wealthy, they must givecthat wealth back!" The kulack farmers were killed and their farms seized. These farms were turned over to cooperative non-farmers. Who had no clue how to run a farm. Production fell like a stone. There was no grain, no bread, no meat. Millions starved. Stalin was so cruel, he sent troops to collect ALL the grain from the farmers. He left nothing to re-plant with, nothing to eat. One farm wife went through the field after soldiers left and picked up individual grains of wheat, gathering a few handfuls... enogh for a tiny loaf of bread. She was working to kerp her kids from starving. Her "Theft" was discovered and she was sent to the gulag. Thats socialism at work.
Correct! Stalin was an evil man and he did all that because most who supported him politically were urban-dwellers and he had little support in rural areas! When the inevitable famine arrived as a result of the latest 5-year plan, food became very scarce in cities and towns where his supporters were, and most importantly he had to feed the army as they could threaten his removal.
Depopulation of the undesirable/lesser peoples. The Kulacs were just a means to an end. That's what our American communists are doing to us right now. I don't believe the end will look the same, so that remains yo be seen, not even to its authors. That's why socialism never works... unexpected human behavior. Plus it's a crappy business model.
and even the children of farmers were murdered
Stalin faced a communist opposition organized around Trotsky. He lead a counter revolution that murdered most of the old Bolsheviks who had joined the Party before the revolution. .
The "Ukraine" was also the home to many "Germans from Russia" which was my family. These farmers with ethnic ("Swiss, German, Alsatian," ) low German speakers. They were very good farmers and many who managed to flee before the executions and Gulags ended up in Saskatchewan Canada as well as Pennsylvania and the Dakotas. They were promised land and no military service under Catherine the Great who was German herself. These brutal and divisive acts under Stalin were not only based on class/wealth, but also based on race. Looking at Canada right now really scares me, all this talk of race, hating religion, giving the government crazy amounts of power…. Its almost like we’ve done this before.
Viewer from Germany here. I'm a long time follower of Dr. Zitlemann and read most of his books. Great to see him on your podcast and congrats for recognizing his important work on history and the economy.
A lot of people love the Germans in LA .It was the German's who were brought over for the NASA program .Their kids started surfing and developed the modern surfing industry ,designs and composites we use today .
never seen him before, very sharp person with objective look to see history.
Hitler was not socialist at all, it is extrem right propaganda and lies. Hitler was funded by Henry Ford and American industrial & bankers who were surely not socialist friends. This has nothing to with being german or not. If you think Hitler is part of german culture that tells a lot about what you are.
@@effexonI've heard of him through TIK History, here on YT.
My WW2 vet Grandfather used to comment that the Nazis were considered left-wing in the 1930s, even by Marxists.
"Orwell was right that history would be changed," are words of his that echo in my memory.
When a modern leftist claims Fascism and NatSoc were pro-capitalist, it's fun to watch them twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain away the abjectly anti-capitalist economic policies these ideologies had. 😂
Yeah we know Democrat states love Nazis. Amazing that you say Germans brought over to work on the nasa program but in reality it was Nazi higher ups that were brought here. Glad we are ok with war criminals and their children just because one of them like surfing 😂😂@@lalaboards
A quote from the father of Fascism, Giovanni Gentile- “ Fascism is a form of Socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form”
Jonah Goldberg links progressivism, socialism and communism to the same ideological heritage.
What it really want to say is, that the fascism influence in the social activity, what is really true is that the fascism tried to copy the form of socialist (marxist) propaganda, which in that years were so much effective but anyways they aren't from right-wing or left-wing, they are part of a third position.
The Jews were the Jews, the left of Germany at the time. Very very progressive. This is just more B's white washing of what the Nazis did. @@keithyakouboff8755
@@keithyakouboff8755 (((Goldberg)))....est
@@keithyakouboff8755((( Goldberg ))) you dont say
When he talks about "traditionalist communism" he means Marxism. Marxism is one form of Socialism.
Communism is a Utopia. Socialism is the engineering of the human species to normalize it.
The word "communism" was used by Richard Wagner as well, who lived under the same time as Marx
Socialism, communism and Marxism are the same thing, the only difference is in the spelling.
@@tombrunila2695 Throw monarchy in there also. Kim Jong Il is the king of North Korea, change my mind
@@tombrunila2695 no. Marx hated Germany, which can clearly be seen in his book ”the German ideology”. Therefore his socialism is not at all like German socialism/national socialism.
im from germany the sad part is on one hand we learned all of this in school but due to propaganda mostly from documentarys we " forget" this.
Very interesting point
RUclips Chanel Sean Hross Giureh-G.I.U.R.E.H:" The Swiss Beast. The Home of the Devil " bringt Licht in Ihr Dunkel !!!
NICHTS IST WIE ES SCHEINT !!!
And er learn it more focused on how "Nationalism" is bad, and often minimalising the "socialism" part
@@darthcalanil5333 Yeah I for one being a Swede grew up fully on the "Fascism was capitalists last effort defence against the working man's demands" narrative. Never heard a word about Hitler or Mussolini having socialist policies or even genuinely being inclined that way ideologically at any point.
@@gThomasHagg Probably because they weren't socialists. Especially Hitler, who killed socialists.
I'm a libertarian, but I'm not deluded enough to think that libertarianism leads to a utopia, I just like freedom.
Some libertarians want to do away with county health departments. Do you want that? There are various government functions which have never (to my knowlege) been successfully done by purely private sector means.
If you like freedom you should not vote democrats. It is not logic rational.
I like your position on that!
Doing away with governments would result in us being ruled by bankers, CEOs, large landlords and their private police forces and armies. What is the advantage of that?
@@bdnevins Healthcare used to be much much cheaper in the US, to the point that physicians lobbied government to restrict competition cause they wanted to be paid more, they lobbied government to cartelize who could and could not become a doctor through state-certified medical licenses, a monopoly of who can become a doctor was decreed by law in the name of "protecting" physicians. I'd link it but youtube would hide my comment, search "How government regulations made healthcare so expensive mises" and you'll find an excellent article you can criticize and scrutinize yourself.
They forget to mention that Trump is more like Churchill. Both were hated by their respective parties, both changed parties later in life, both were wealthy individuals, both were eccentric, both were very patriotic and loved the people, both were great spokespeople who spoke to the people's heart, both were vulgar in speech and mannerisms, and both were strong leaders during times of darkness and crisis.
Yeah, he got Trump’s psychological profile completely wrong. He may be bombastic. He’s no where near Machiavellian.
@@Ninjamama22If Trump was a machiavellian he wouldve completely obliterarwd the democrats the moment he was elected in 2020
Churchill was broke and in debt. Those that bailed him out of debt wore little hats and his repayment was war.
Both were also master insulters. When a woman told Churchill “You, sir, are drunk.” he responded “And you, madam, are ugly. And tomorrow I shall be sober and you shall still be ugly.”
And both were/are luciferian. Churchill was no hero. He pushed the war onto Germans and murdered hundreds of thousands of Europeans. Read the work of Albert Pike from late 1800s. The 3 WWs were planned by he and his luciferian friends as a means to destroy Christian Europe and Christianity as a whole. WWIII is to be between Israel and Muslims.
This is a conversation that I have been looking for for years
Look for Europa the last battle it tells the absolute truth and has all the receipts to back it up.
Have you heard of tik history?
Go check him out.
RIDICULOUS ! this clown did'n t even mention the miraculous economic growth of nazi germany, going in a few years from a Venezuela type situation to the richest , most powerful country in Europe. Every economist should study Hitler instead of Marx !
@@toadstompingoodguy4619 i have not long finished watching that . Great watch and eye opener. The greatest story never told is worth a watch also.
Same!!!
F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom", Ludwig Von Mises "Omnipotent Government" (both published in 1944 if my old brain is correct). And on the cultural side - the works of Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddinhn - which show as well as being economically socialist, the National Socialists (Nazis) were also radical culturally - socially.
Which is why the Nazis turned Germany back into the militaristic top down government state, like it was during the second Reich, the Kaiserreich, yes?
Calling it the third Reich should be a clear indicator that they see themselves as continuing a lineage.
I found Mises book "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" also very good.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 Mises is trash
@@Arnaere Wow, with argument like that, how can I disagree? Do tell, who is better at explaining prices in the free market.
Or why socialism fail, because it ruin the market and prevents people from trading legally.
Just like the current Democrat party in the US. This is why it’s so important we educate our children on the dangers of this ideology and the disease of chronic victimhood!
my favorite time waster arguing with socialist about hitler being a socialist
my favorite thing in college was getting people to agree with hitler quotes on socialism without telling them the source of the quote. This was pre-web and pre-search engines
@@sdrc92126Please tell me you at least have Polaroids of their faces just after you inform them that they agree with the Austrian Painter 🙏
@@Si_Mondo "One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian."
I never tell them
@@sdrc92126 I always do! Their faces are pictures! 😂
Yes! I was taught in elementary school that Stalin was on one end the spectrum, Hitler on the other.
He wasn't just a Socialist, in the early days, in 1919,he was an elected soldier's representative in the Bavarian Communist Republic.
He hated the Communists and that’s probably when he developed those feelings
@@Nick-gj6je I'm sure it was. He became disillusioned with the whole movement. He was terrified that the Bolsheviks would overrun Germany. I've always maintained that the reason he had such a hatred for the Js later on was because he blamed them for creating international Bolshevism.
If you look at his early life, many benevolent and important characters that he had a close relationship with were Js.
One of his early mentors in the Bavarian Republic was a J. (I have to use J or youtube will delete the comment)
@@musashidanmcgrath You're right in the first but some thing that he would hate lately the Js is because many of the leaders of these communist parties and revolutions were js
@@musashidanmcgrath To my knowledge he blamed J Moneylenders for loosing his fathers inheritance.
He was a right wing racist that’s why they killed Thrace unionists and anyone on the left.
Excellent guest. All his descriptions of fascism fit with the research I've done in recent years, and confirms that 99.9999% of people don't know what fascism is. This guest got me to finally subscribe to your channel.
tikhistory has excellent videos on fascism
@@sdrc92126 At this point I think I've got an accurate definition pretty well resolved, but if I get time I'll check the channel out
I've seen quite a lot of circular logic with the definition of fascism.
They'll say, for a recent example, "Trump is a fascist."
And when you ask what fascism means, they'll say "Trump."
Yeah Hitler socialist 😂 He was funded by Henry Ford and so many USA industrial & bankers. Your research proved totally ineffective. By the way fascism started when local industrials hiring veterans from WWI to go beat strikers and communist. Those groups were named fasci. Yeah i've read 500 page book about fascism contrary to 99% peoples here.
@@LizRealGirlBeautyYou're speaking to some particularly dumb leftists then. 😂
Well read ones will at least say that a businessman running the country is like a marriage between the state and big business (a very loose way of defining Fascism).
For the well read ones, I ask them to point to any economic policy of his that mirrors than of Syndicalism (the branch of Marxist theory which Mussolini and Gentile got most of their ideas from).
That normally shuts them up 😁
When i was a kid in communist Czechoslovakia, our house was "rundown grey" and there was a weird stump on the house next to my window. Now the house is restored to how it really should look like. It is white with a cherub statue next to the window!
That rundown grey is a really depressing color. I am glad the house was restored to it's beautiful origin.
long live the Tsjechs, and the Slowaks!
Free from communism
Mussolini was the most honest politician of his day. He wrote a Treatise on Fascism and it was in his mind a natural progression from Communisms. State run companies... no, but private companies that do the state's bidding. USA is too close to this. A marriage of convivence has become a corrupted Bureaucracy. The EV mandate is the dumbest. Hybrid is the best tech we have right now. It solves several problems at once while greatly recusing CO2 output if that is your biggest concern. But that option has been mandated out too.
Neville Chamberlain was the honest one...and knew war was planned by the British deep State or the Rhodes - Milner
roundtable..
Mussolini also once quipped that 'Fascism' should actually be called 'Corporatism', because of the way it works (described above).
Which is the result of the efforts of the democrat party with the too frequent cooperation of the Republican Party.
Consider the government is actively trying to control, for example, the crypto and AI industries, it's full on state controlled command economy incoming.
this is not new, what was the New Deal? We've been toying with such things since the 1930s. Is it an accident that Mussolini had so many fans in the US prior to his invasion of Ethiopia?
This guy is the most intelligent person I’ve ever heard! The way he speaks about the nuances of autocratic regimes, socialism and mixed economies is incredibly clear and concise! Too many great points here to reiterate!!!
You need to listen to more people. No offense to this man.
25:18 My great great grandfather was a father of confederation here in Canada and he advocated for this on PEI/Canada. That people be able to own their own land and that it will make them invest more into developing it. Unfortunately the government wanted to collect land taxes and many disagree with me that you can own land here but its a perspective issue.
If you pay off your house right.... you should be set for life but you don't you will forever pay land taxes. So I ask people if you can never pay off the debt how can you own something?
If the government forces you to pay for something indefinity you don't really own it, you are renting it. It is a service. I really wish his ideas were taken more seriously at the time.
I agree. We have the same issue here in the US. After two missed property tax payments the government can take your home and land.
When I point this out to people they appear to be horrified as if they never considered this! At least in the past having a mortgage “fixed” your housing costs vs. rent payments that increase frequently. Property taxes take away this security and can make home ownership more expensive than renting.
Given the fact that younger generations now have no kids or just 1-2 kids, there won’t be children able to help save the family home (their inheritance) from the tax man.
The only strategy for many retirees is selling their home at a profit & moving to a foreign country like Costa Rica so that they can retire.
People need to act and vote these government tax grabs out. The government can’t improve a dam thing in society.
That’s a great point. Never thought about it that way. Thank you.
American here from CA. I ask home “owners” all the time do you ever own your home. They answer yes. Then I say stop paying your property taxes. It’s like oh dang you’re right.
You are merely renting the like bottom half of society.
Whats the problem? Don't like renting?
The level of gaslighting on the part of those who claim Hitler was not a socialist is truly astounding, though perhaps understandable because to admit the truth is to admit that Hitler was a "fellow traveler". "Oh...but National Socialism isn't >real< socialism." Again, that is nothing more than a dodge of the truth. There was absolutely no room for conservative or libertarian thought in the National Socialist movement, and those ideologies are correctly placed on the Right side of the ideological spectrum. Perhaps national socialism was slightly to the right of communism, but that still places it firmly on the Left side of the ideological spectrum.
" no room for conservative thought" except for the rampant racism
It's the same with COVID-19 vaccinated people, they prefer to die over admitting that they made a mistake and followed blindly their leaders and the herd. The same with socialist after the war they prefer to blame the conservative right. They simply can't see themselves in the eyes and now they do it again.
Hitler's mass support came from the pauperized small businessman and the educated professional.
Hitler threw Marxists in jail. Hitler did not privatize industry. When Hitler took power, he privatized governmental services. He did not take any property away from any of the large industrialists. He supported a private banking system and turn previously nationalized Deutsche Bank back to private control. So tell me again how was Hitler a socialist? Just because some Nazi with a German accent gets on RUclips and talks a lot of s*** don't go believing him. I noticed a lot of people that think like this also are very swayed by RUclips experts with Russian accents . . .
And killing bad races instead of killing bad classes, but there was a lot of crossover on that.
This was one of the best discussions you've had. Please have Dr. Zitelmann on again soon.
there are a couple of clips of Maggie saying this in about 6 words! She only got kicked out because of champagne socialist Arthur Scargill, and her own party turning on her More recently, Alex Phillips explains how the EU trashed Africa and turned it over to the Chinese
I am a gunsmith. One thing I learned long ago and early on with guns is that there is no perfect gun, no perfect caliber. They all have their pros and cons. There is always give and take in gun designs.
Economics and the balance between getting government out of the way of the economy vs. getting government more involved in the economy seems to work the same way.
The difference is with a gun you are talking about an inanimate object that you can see with your eyes and hold with your hands vs what is essentially a philosophy about what government's role in economics should be.
Government it's self is an abstract concept. Economics are abstract concepts. Trying to merge abstract concepts together for a common purpose makes it even more complex but in the end the same rule applies: no such thing as the perfect concept, there is give and take no matter which way you go.
I have often considered myself to be a libertarian in the past and I guess I am still a libertarian to some extent more or less.
With my libertarian leanings I tend to believe that the absence of government or limitations upon government involvement are the better ways to go.
But the more I learn and the more I think about libertarianism I see its flaws.
It seems to me more and more that libertarianism only works in a system where there are universally shared social, economic, cultural and political values and in a society where self-discipline shared concepts of what self-discipline should be exist.
Libertarianism's flaws become increasingly apparent (to me, at least) when and where a lack of self-discipline exists and where values systems become more diverse and even contradictory within a society.
As George Washington once stated, the government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force, and like fire, it can be a fearful master and a dangerous servant.
The people at the top of government do as they please. They have the power. They have the economic system in the palm of their hands. They make the rules and uphold them as they see fit and who can stand against them when they control the military and law enforcement?
We like to think that in a Constitutional Republic or a democracy that the people have the power over government, but it doesn't seem to me that this is the case. We have the illusion of control, but again, the government is forced, not reason or eloquence.
To my understanding, Hitler could be somewhat reasoned with, not so much with Stalin. Hitler would listen to criticism from time to time, with Stalin criticism could get you and your entire family killed or put in the gulag. But either way, you are dealing with dictators who had almost godlike powers in their respective countries at the heights of their power and that meant they could do as they pretty well pleased.
To my understanding, it seems to me that Hitler didn't really understand or even care about economic principles. He hated Communism and Capitalism with equal fervor. He regarded capitalism as decadence that made people materialistic and weak, and communism was a Bolshevik conspiracy in Hitler's eyes.
I can't help but think that Hitler had to have at least heard somewhat of Austrian economics given his origins, but to my understanding, he probably didn't give socialism much thought until he happened to become acquainted with Joseph Goebbels in his rise to power.
Goebbels and the Nazi party needed Hitler to be their charismatic leader and Hitler needed Goebbels as part of his propaganda machine and the followers that the National Socialist movement provided to grow in power.
The marriage between Hitler and National Socialism seems to have been a mutually beneficial political marriage, but I don't know that Hitler got too excited by the minutiae of any specific economic school of thought.
This guy further supports the argument for closing government schools. We aren't taught any of this in fact quite the opposite.
This is bs and you're taking sucky sucks from a Nazi apologist
@chari---zard when you ideologize and condemn schools of thought you are cutting yourself from a branch of intelligence, one it seems you could sorely use
@@chari---zard he's literally slagging the National Socialists off and all you're doing is engaging in logical fallacy (i.e. ad hominem)
@@chari---zard understanding there are other kinds of socialism that aren't rooted in Marxism doesn't make someone a Nazi apologist, it makes them educated.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 Not really. German Nazi apologists do criticize the way the Nazi era is taught in school (Nazis very, very bad), by comparing it to the Nazi school system. "If you make me feel bad about Nazis in a public school, the public school is as bad as the Nazis."
That argument OF COURSE minimizes how bad the Nazis actually have been, and it slanders the public school system.
It is more important what modern socialists don't want you to know about socialism! Read "The Socialist Phenomenon" by Igor Shafarevich. You can find in online as a PDF.
And by the way, the Nordic countries are not and have never been socialist!
Denmark are getting eerily close under the leadership of the Abominable Mette Frederiksen. Greetings from a dane living in denmark
labeling countries as one or another label is ridiculous.
I'll take "Things I never learned in school but wish I did" for $1,000, Alex. This interview is amazing. Thank you to you both!! 🙏🔥
here is a link to the joint nazi david star coin they had in '33. img.ma-shops.de/monetarium/pic/5338_img_9723.jpg
Try _Science, Politics and Gnosticism_ by Eric Voegelin for things I really wish I had known in high school. It's a very short and easy read.
There are reasons you aren't taught this by teachers who have a MAJOR soft spot for socialism....
The same thing as why you aren't taught anything about personal finances or how to raise money for starting a business. This is done intentionally by the old Trillion dollar wealth families of America (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Dupont's, Dow, Fords) They wanted workers, not creators/builders.
Now the weird question is what does that mean for all of us when they get Optimus like humanoid robots....? I think this is why they are flooding the country to rob the middle class faster.
Except this is a dishonest take, comparing socialist countries like Denmark or Norway to Nazi Germany is a straight lie. Don't think this is "educational". It's more like right wing propaganda, which is actually akin to Hitler.
Socialism is fine as long as its voluntary. When it's not, its just slavery.
Yes, thank you, thank you for pointing out that hitler was a socialist. Thank you, good sir, for stating the obvious that most people refuse to hear. Good job!
Bruh please read more about socialism
@@The1DarthVader I would, but I don't want to be corrupted.
I would have to question whether Britain colonised India. Britain certainly controlled India, but did Britain transplant its culture? I think not.
It "imperialized" India. Muslims always argue with me regarding the Spanish and Ottoman caliphates. Somehow, neither were "colonialist".
@@SEKreiverOttoman and earlier Arab caliphates empires eg multiethnic monarchy with most power centralized with the state dominated by one ethnic group, though very often local elites do get co-opted into the project. As for the Interesting question though you’ve posed - probably has been answered more eloquently but colonialism is set apart by less of the above, globalized/industrializing setting, social attitudes towards land vs overseas expansion, and racial component. Are the Romans colonizing the rest of Latium in 5th century bc?
It was complex.
There were many Princely states that had considerable autonomy…
The Indian Civil Service was tiny, never more than 1200 people responsible for 300 million…(nowadays there are probably 1200 civil servants in one suburb of London).
The British Indian Army was far more Indian than British.
Definitely not if you see how most Indians live and behave.
The 3rd world needed to be quelled and wrangled by superior people for its own good.
The transplanting has occurred in Britain and Ireland though, vast numbers of Indians plague us and demand we pay attention to their cultural holidays etc
I think that might depend on the size of the enclave.
Trumps’s success is because he has been able to tap into the emotions. Capitalists need to do this. Tell the people what socialism steals from them! The best thing of all is that it’s TRUE!! I’m a self educated Austrian Economist, and know the truth. We have to think of how to simplify our message for the masses, so they can understand without reading dozens of books and listening to 100s of lectures. I believe the message should start in schools, and be constantly reinforced, because socialism is so alluring to non- thinking people due to its simple, emotional lies.
Do you have any papers or lectures that you did that I could look at?
I rather Take Trump's success is the growing pragmatism and the rationalization of Americans in Opposition of Kamala Harris growinf raficalization to far left liberals
From what I see. It is Kamala Harris instead Who tapped the emotion spectrum
I totally agree with you. There needs to be some form of educational basis that explains the brilliance of the free market and that why economic freedom is the most fundamental of all our rights.
The socialists go for the emotional play of how tough life it is for some. Where as the those that follow and live by free markets can simply say well look at the evidence of what has actually occurred when people get to deal with other.
@@arielquelme "What can be, unburdened by the past" is an advertising slogan and utopian "I am a god" magical thinking. I can't think of any working invention in human history that was "unburdened" by the past. That said, an "appeal to emotion" is an effective way to make an argument, humans are not what I would call a purely "logical" species. All politicians seem to know this.
That will only work on SOME of them.
The root of the problem is most of them FEEL afraid of making choices in their lives where they may fail. They don't admit it to themselves, sometimes, but it's there.
Those people would prefer guaranteed equal misery than the chance they fail while others succeed.
Knew Nazism and Fascism were on the left all along because it doesn't make sense for them to be on the right if you look at what each side stands for. Right is for small governments and to the extreme would be no government which is anarchy. Left is for big government, so government controls everything in the end (socialism, communism, fascism, nazism).
it really is that simple, but midwits will argue until they are blue in the face
You are confusing the USA political parties with left-right wing ideologies. The USA doesn't have a true left-wing party, only moderate right and extreme right. Right-wing politics can exist in both versions - with a big or a small government. Check out the political compass to undetstand how you are confusing the vertical axis with the horizintal axis.
@@domsob92 Delusional take lol
@@IssacNetero19 So I guess it does not comply to your echo chamber.
@@domsob92 Could literally throw that accusation right back at you.
*Here is a direct quote from A.H. himself:*
“'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main 'social equity'. 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.”
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a Weltanschauung. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." _My Struggle_
"The party takes over the function of what has been society-that is what I wanted them to understand. The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no licence, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism-not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper. It does not alter external conditions; no, it establishes the relation of the individual to the State, the national community. It does this with the help of one party, or perhaps I should say of one order.” - Adolf Hitler. adolf said he wanted to take socialism from the socialists, to sabotage it with propaganda and by claiming his political system as socialism.
My father was a Theologian, & Historian. He and Dr. Zitellman would’ve talked for hours!
There is always more to learn about history & getting the truth not just the propaganda story told by those in power.
❤
Try having this conversation with a socialist.
😂
I mean, I'll wait to listen to the whole thing, but he has stated his thesis, and this is not some new revelation to anyone who has read about this subject. I could have given the first five minutes of his talk.
Try this conversation with a right winger
@@donjuanmckenzie4897what do you even mean
@@iluvyunie the whole thing seems kinda meandering and lacking a genuine humanity;
20:30 I checked out after this comment about Africa, which in my opinion is simply intellectually dishonest
ie - saying that they were provided development aide yet failed to “capitalize” is just an absurdly disingenuous over-simplification that completely OMITS the well-documented [open-secret] of 1st worlders systematically undermining and subverting places to exploit resources
period. end of story.
all the rest of the annoying blahblahblah is just smug nonsense when people arrogantly refuse to have conversations based on the objective geopolitical monopoly game that has been had specifically throughout the last few decades…
whatever… who cares
Thomas Sowell " The Quest for Cosmic Justice " and " Intellectuals and Society " are both a college course in scholarship.
Absolutely! The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was the boundry between the two countries.
They were polar opposites.. you can see in your own societies what the Marxism has done. Stalin wasnt even a Russian. you should read about the atrocities of bolsheviks
@@donjuan2509they were an example of horseshoe theory in action. Also literally allied until Hitler attacked Russia!
@@colliric horseshoe theory? Its that the same as the right left duopoly we have? Germans knew who they were fighting unlike most westerners..polar opposites
Was that Hitler was a people's man, while Stalin wasn't elected by the people, and he was not patriotic to the Russians or any people actually. He only exploited Russian identity. That's the difference.
@@SchmulKrieger Stalin was Georgian, not even a Russian
He was a national socialist…socialism to benefit the Volk, the German nation and identity.
All the benefits were to be for the Nation…not individuals. The nation was more important than any person or the sentimental feeling towards any person.
Actually he was a Racist Socialist, RAZI. He did not accept all peoples as a Nation, he selected on Race / Genetic Background (Note: Race does not exist, it's a construct). If he was Nationalistic he would accept German born Jews into his system or have Slavic Germans similar to Germanic Tribes. He empowered a specific background, Germanic rather than a location Nation. He also looked at Jews are a "race" as opposed to Marx who looked at them as a "Religion" IE: You can have Jewish geology but if you do not follow Judaism then you are not a Jew.
yup. definitely first a nationalist and a socialist second.
@@wowozerYou're really special.
@@lymphomasurvive thx. we all are. even you. xD
@@wowozer But especially you.
well duh, nazi litterally stands for national socialist workers party. which makes it all that much more hilarious when young liberals call anyone conservative a nazi.
They’re using nazi as a replacement for racist, as if racism is only a right wing trait. It’s kinda like stripping MLK down to only his I have a dream speech.
Usually I'm the one that is commenting this
of course the far left WOKE CULT -are ALL about deception - they LIE and play games to distort language and reality #SHAMEFUL
And what does DPRK stand for?
@@AlexanderKaytazov-vy6sfYou know what it means. It's not uncommon for communist countries to call themselves democratic to try to fool/pacify their people, another example would be East Germany, whose name was German Democratic Republic. However, nazi party's previous name was the German Worker's Party, which was retained in its full name with the words National and Socialist added. Their policies also reflected their name
I spent the second half of my enlistment (06/'59-06/'62) as the Public Information Office photographer for the 8th Trans. Bn., Lt. Helicopters, stationed in Oberschleissheim just about 5 miles from both Munich and Dachau. As such I was able to interview many survivors of Socialism, both National [NAZI] and International [USSR]. While the original occupants of the DP (Displaced Persons) Camps were no longer living in them, they were filled with escapees from the Eastern Zone. Their stories were eerily similar to the ones I heard from the previous occupants. People today either just don't understand. Or worse, care.
Of course, those in league with them will lie, cheat and steal their way into power while putting a Smiley Face on their true intentions so they may gain a controlling hand on the levers of power in order to “Shape A Better World”, etc., in their vision of what is “Better” just as long as they and their ilk are the one’s in control (eventually with an iron fist). Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the same coin sharing the same tactics. One leans more towards nationalism (NAZIISM) and the other Internationalism (COMMUNISM) - with the Mother Country - Germany/Russia/China - always held as of primary importance.
Perfectly put. I often refer people to Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to help them with hard facts. They still refuse and tell me I'm wrong. You can give them the letters from Mussolini to FDR and Hitler, and they will still insist that it's all lies and that nazism is 'right wing extremism" no matter how closely associated with the democrats and other socialist groups you show them to actually have been. Even with "socialism" in the name, they try to bend the graph (that famous horseshoe graph) to bring the ends of the political spectrum together in a loop in order to justify their thinking. It's genuinely scary because you know that kind of fanaticism is going to lead to really bad places.
The general idea of Mussolini's fascism was to create a social welfare state that had the benefits of socialism but without the revolutionary features of Marxism. He rejected class warfare and preserved traditional social structures like private property and the family (both of which were denounced by Marx).
Hitler's nazism was somewhat different from Mussolini in that Mussolini rejected racism and insisted that anyone who belonged to the State was a first class citizen. Hitler's philosophy was based on promoting the German race against what he imagined to be a bleak Malthusian future. But like Mussolini, he promised to create social welfare without overturning and disrupting society in the way that the Soviet Revolution had done.
Hence why Fascism and Nazism is referred to as "The Third Position."
Fascism does not engage in a fight between left and right, but between different leftists ideologies.
Fascism is a counter revolutionary movement of thugs organized to defeat the Socialist Revolution.
Fascism is the vomit expelled by a dying capitalism. .
BINGO!
I think what you are saying makes sense but a lot of people will struggle with it because of what they use to define left versus right. I find what often makes sense to people is to ask them to view these ideologies along a spectrum of individualist versus collectivist. It then becomes very easy to see that there was a battle between left collectivist and right collectivist ideologies. The principles around which they were organized were different, but they were collectivist ideologies.
Fascism hates communism because they are fighting over the same political ground
I read Speer's autobiography recently and one page stook out where he said that his parents were big lefists but they didn't like Hitler because they thought he was too far left.
His views were complex but it seems they have been deliberately obfuscated.
trust me, bro.
The liberals are not gunna like this one lol
*The Left stopped being Liberal decades ago.*
They're already reeeing in the comments
Conservatives are liberals in slow motion.
As John Rambo said
“Fuck em”
I always laugh when I see people only finding out that Nazis were called National Socialists for the first time, thinking they've discovered some giant historical cover-up. The name of the National Socialist German Workers Party is common knowledge. Maybe look into what really happened during Hitler's rise to power instead of listening to crackpots like Dr. Rainer Zitelmann. Perhaps you could start with Hitler's murdering of prominent socialists within the Party on the "Night of the Long Knives." Or maybe his outlawing of the Communist Party after the Reichstag fire. Or the fact that he had to keep imprisoning or killing members of the Democratic Socialist Party in the Reichstag to finally get the numbers he needed to pass the Enabling Act, after which he imprisoned all communists and socialists by decree. They were among the first to go into the camps, and none of them made it out. He sided with big business and abolished Unions, crushing any resistance from the socialist working class. His focus was on ethnic purity and National pride. Hitler was not a socialist; he was a far-right authoritarian fascist.
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 Niemöller, 1946.
When I told liberal friends that Hitler was a socialist they find thousands of excuses!!
Same. They go "it wasn't real Socialism"
Why did Germany allow for private investment and why didn't the government nationalise Its Industry instead of working directly with companies?
It can't be socialist, ownership by the means of production is the whole thing with socialism
@denniskarlsson7121 ownership or control? Fascism is a variation of Socialism. It is Socialism combined with nationalism. Mussolini was a big time Socialists before he birthed Fascism. In Fascism the government may not directly own the industries but control what they do. The economy is centrally planned, resources are allocated centrally as are production goals, profits are limited. Industrialist that do not play ball are replaced. In exchange for collaborating and being de facto part of the government machine, business is guaranteed and so are profits. If I recall, banks also had to be German owned
@@PappyGunn Right, but what has that got to do with socialism? Socialism is still when socialism controls/owns the means of production, there cannot be a capital holder class. It's antithetical to socialist theory. There existed privately owned firms in Italy and Germany.
Or what is socialism to you?
Edit: I just had to look it up really quickly as well, both Germany and Italy even privatised state owned industry at the start of their fascist rule. HOW can that be even argued to be socialism?
@ Centrally planned economy, resources allocated by government, profit limited by law, Control of means of production does not mean outright ownership. Oh and that the party and the platform being named as Socialist.
I read Zitelmann's book. Zitelmann is completely correct. And his book is SUPERB.
After WW1 Hitler became an important member of Kurt Eisner's revolutionary Socialist Bavarian Republic which brought down the Bavarian monarchy. After the assassination of Eisner he joint the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Party (yeah, "Soviet" as in Socialist/Communist). He subsequently joined the Socialist DAP (Deutsche Arbeiter Party/German Workers Party). That party was later renamed to NSDAP (National Sozialist Deutsche Arbeiterpartei / National Socialist German Workers Party = Nazis). He told the Germans: "I bring you a Socialism for the Germans; a National Socialism". I'm pretty sure Hitler was a Socialist, even leaning to Communism.
Mussolini was an activist Communist in his younger years. Later - when he was chief-editor of the Socialist daily newspaper - he was very critical of the Communist Party based on its policies, not the ideology. Influenced by Giovanni Gentile he joined the Fascists supporting that ideology based in the French revolutionary movement of Syndicalism (Literally "trade-unionism") aimed at controlling industry through militant trade-unions. His Fascist ideology was aimed to benefit all Italian nationals, independent of race.
Oswald Mosley from the UK was a member of the British Socialist Labour party, until being expelled for being too radical. He subsequently became the leader of the British Fascists. Jacques Doriot of France was a Communist before he became the leader of the French Fascist party.
It's pretty unlikely that such dedicated far-left sympathisers like Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley, and Doriot will become the absolute leaders of a far-right ideology. It only makes sense when National Socialism and Fascism are considered far-left ideologies.
It should be pointed out that, though it's true Moseley was a Labour MP before starting the BUF, it's also true that he had been a paid in member (but not a parliamentary member) of both the Liberal and the Tory (Conservative) parties prior to joining Labour.
Moseley was a bit of political grifter, more than an ideologue.
@@Si_Mondo Mosley was a baronet ... nobility. It was kind of traditional for nobility to join the Conservatives. He didn't feel at home with that party so left and joined the Liberal party just to move on to labour.
Nazism was "National Socialism" as opposed to "Interntaional Socialism" aka Communism.
International is double speak meaning group other than native of the land gets to take over the power.
There is very good reason why Communists LOVED the world "International" and it does NOT mean diversity, equity, inclusion.
Neither today's Woke DEI means what it says.
You nailed it my brother. That was good. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The German Communists (KPD) collaborated with the Nazis, likewise the socialist General Confederation of Labor (CGIL) collaborated with Mussolini.
Anyone else growing up in the late 60's, early 70's remember your parents admonishing, "Eat your dinner! Chinese kids are STARVING.." 😒
At home they were black children...
My Mom used that on me and my brothers once and we told her that they are communists, of course they are starving. I had a wonderful loving mother.
Was Africans in my day.
In the 80ies it was Ethiopia (when the country had 25 million inhabitants and was rules by Soviet-style socialists and couldn't feed itself. Today the country has more than 100 million inhabitants)
My grandparents were stating "African children were starving" , now the tables have turned China (in the 90s) and many African nations (recently) have adopted freemarket capitalism with 0-5% taxation which has allowed more saving potential when PPP is considered.
This has been an amazingly interesting watch so far. Looks like I found a new channel to listen to while working.
01:08:00 without having read your book, Poland's growth could also be attributed to the huge financial support from the US as the last frontier between NATO and Russia. We should put nation within their global context and not judge them individually. "No country is an island".
Support only goes so far. If basics are not right, support evaporates like a drop of water on a hot stone.
@18:00 It's so refreshing to have someone who 1) acknowledges the obvious reality that systems are mixed, and 2) doesn't believe any utopian vision.
I mean....the word Nazi means National Socialist....hows nobody remembered this?
Because they've been taught by lefties
It's just new to you. I learned it like...... a year ago.
@@jeffkay1977 Somehow the left hasn't heard yet.
@@jeffkay1977 lol. It was one of most memorable lines from _The Big Lebowski_
It's not a coincidence. This is a strategic manipulation tactic to try and forget it. I think people underestimate the evil intentions and tactics of the left
From the many books I have read over the decades, only a few like those from Dr Thomas Sowell talked about WHY this happened. He noted in the 1970s that the "left" was taking over Academia was slowly pushing out everyone that did not hold their ideology and were already making changes to what was and was not being taught and that it was increasing in the 1980s while also spreading in the scope of the nations they were effecting to the point almost all Western countries was being changed.
This makes sense as I was taught about Stalin and Mao in the early 1980s but my nephews were only taught about Mao and my youngest Nieces were not taught about either.
He nailed it in the end. Socialist talk with the emotions and conservatives by the head. I came to the same conclusion years ago. So we conservatives / capitalists need to develop the skill of story telling but not based on fantasies and utopias but based on what there is to win.
Conservatives are not capitalists, nor are nationalists. Not consistently, which means they are not.
What else are they then? You could argure that fascism is a progressive ideology.
yes, conservatives go to church on Sundays , cause they use their heads there
@@gThomasHaggyou're making a massive category error and your logic is way off.
Firstly, conservative is a relative term dependent on the culture and time they exist. These days Classical Liberals are often thought of as conservatives, but in 17th and 18th century Britain they were not.
Capitalism and Conservatism describe different, but sometimes overlapping, things. A Conservative can be Capitalist, but not all Capitalists are Conservatives (and vice versa).
The same goes for Nationalists, who can be very different beasts depending on whether they are religious or secular - for one it's merely a tool of governance, for the other it runs the risk of replacing religion.
Furthermore, in Scotland the Nationalist Party used to be split between Capitalists (often called Tartan Tories) and Socialists, although now the party is exclusively socialist.
@@gThomasHagg It depends on where you live. In the New World conservatism is more individualistic, while in Europe conservatism is more royal central planning.
Mises called himself a liberal, in America Ocasio-Cortez also calls herself a liberal. But their ideas are opposites.
any time a state, tells a company what to do, what to make, what to not make etc. through coercion or however incentives even.
that is socialism.
if they do it on a national basis, tampering with free market dynamics, that is national socialism,
if they do it on a global or international basis, then that is international socialism, or global communism.
See net zero, EVs, renewables etc etc. no one asked for any of it
Occasionally we have to do that.
@@DanRyan-v5y ikr and see the uk for classic soviet style surpluses now, they have an excess of luxury eSUV which have no second hand market, because of a combination of incentives on both supply and demand side,
@@woobiefuntime yes, but it seems to me, for example, the small companies being told or ordered or mandated or regulated to do things or not do things, meanwhile you have big banks running amock, completely free from socialism, expect when they get bailed out. Whilst raining socialism on everybody else. Everybody can see the system is totally corrupt.
@@tensevo exactly
Sounds like how the EU is now
You can't talk about that here
Hitler was a socialist 100 % I come from the Netherlands
my grandfather and grandmother always tell me what the war was like and how people have forgotten that hitler had a left-wing national socialist party
I think what people don't realize is that socialism is really the economic system by which much wealth is centralized in the hands of a few. Capitalism only works when there's the free flow of money and ideas. Capitalism by definition requires the investment of capital in new ideas. You are not capitalizing on your money unless you do this. This means money naturally has to flow from those who have it to those who do not. It's only through the growth of wealth of those who do not have wealth that those who do have wealth are able to capitalize.
💯
@@sdrc92126 Small capitalist production combines into larger firms who then control the whole economy.
@@kimobrien. Yes, this is why 'capitalists' have always been the biggest proponents of socialism. Since the 'capitalists' control the government, socialist control means 'capitalist' control.
@@kimobrien. Versus the economy being controlled by the centralized few in socialism. Exactly why successful economies are some hybrid of both capitalism and socialism. No perfect answer.
The small number of people controlling the economic system under socialism claim they are doing the working for the benefits of all the people. However, it’s impossible to keep them accountable to that promise, and anyone who dare to challenge the top becomes the “enemy of the people”.
Both fascisme and nazism were interwar ideologies trying to contain communism with social policies. Roosevelts "New deal" had many elements taken from the social polices of fascisme. Both in Denmark and Sweden you saw social democrats adopt polices with a corporative state from fascisme. It's the interwar and there was a fear of communisme.
You may be overlooking the fact that all those groups split from Social Democratic Parties and that Fascists actually split from the French Communist Party (where the fascists were called Syndicalists).
Marxist Communists held that the Proletariat would inevitably rise up against the Bourgeoisie, but by the end of the 19th Century this was looking increasingly unlikely, which posed a problem with a number of solutions.
The Bolsheviks decided they would rise up in violent revolution on the Proletariat's behalf.
The Syndicalists, after WWI, abandoned the International Class based Socialism of Marx in favour of National Socialism.
In Germany this took the form of Ethno Socialism mixed with 19th German Nationalism and weird occult shit that was rife among the chattering classes.
In the less homogenous Italy, their National Socialism had less of an emphasis on ethnicity and more of an emphasis on the State.
The Communists weren't a massive threat in Europe, they succeeded in taking Russia and China by force because both countries were practically feudal kingdoms so they could take over relatively few cities and tyranise the largely rural population.
Fascism was implemented first in the soviet union by lenin. He called it "new economic policy", and fascists just copied it. So there was no difference.
The difference is that the soviet union was a violent imperialist project, that invaded all neighbor nations, so the europeans came with their own imperialist fascist projects, to be the rulers of global socialism instead of being ruled from Moscow.
That's' why the USSR was "international socialism", or "communists", and the others were "national socialisms". It was a clash of power between the same ideologies with capital in different nations.
But modern socialism is controlled by London, so it wants to rewrite the history, in orwellian fashion, to build his own imperialist socialism, this time disguised as wokism, feminism, climate changeism...
@@sigurdholbarki8268 Nonsense.
@@Cirwlos Even more nonsense.
@@brett22bt Just google "new economic policy", and marxists themselves will explain it to you.
Dr. Rainer Zitelmann is a brilliant mind that needs more exposure. Thanks for having him on your show and having a long enough conversation for him to get some of his main points accross.
@@KevinFitzMauriceEverett ZERO intellectual integrity. A propagandist of the worst garbage sort. D E M O C R A C Y.
If you liked this, try TIK History in depth explanations of the origins, ideology and policies of Fascism and Nazism.
@@gThomasHagg Thanks. It looks good.
It's happening today in Europe where the EU applies an array of ubiquitous standards and regulations which result in farmers having no other solution than either committing suicide, having to sell their land, or selling themselves as exploited employees. to large investment groups.
And meanwhile the EU commissioners and crooked parliamentarians are opening the borders of the union to foreign products which are produced with zero standards and regulations with the addition of favorable, even nihil customs advantages.
And when we check these foreign products are also produced by the same investment funds.
The WEF slogan is “You'll own nothing, ...and you will be happy...rather, you will be forced to be happy.
For years I have called this EU Regime "Crony Capitalism" where all decisions are made to liquidate all competition for the sole benefit of big capital and multinationals.
That's not Capitalism but Crony Capitalism where all the laws, standards and regulations are made to destroy, eliminate and appropriate the private properties, businesses and lands of small people for the benefit of shareholders of large investment groups.
What a difference between Communism and the EU...none in the end since by force or trickery we are dispossessed to become nothing more than serfs on our own lands.
Vladimir Bukovsky, dissident of the Soviet Union, was right.
The lockdowns during Circus-19 were in reality nothing else, forced cessation of all activity for small independents and authorization of activity for large multinationals, disguised under the fallacious reasons of a pseudo-pandemic.
And meanwhile the mass of lobotomized people applaud their own enslavement.
So who didnt know Na zi was short for national socialist? Wtf.
The entire education establishment.
@DadSavesAmerica Lol.
That's why you never trust your education to the system.
I don't know if you can still find his work online (it's mostly been scrubbed after his death) but he's got a bunch of books on the subject, Jim Marrs.
Thanks for this podcast, I will re enjoy while at work, hopefully someone else learns something too.
The fact that people do not know this is insane.
Ah yes, but the retort from the other side when this is pointed out is usually something along the lines of: “Oh but often names are used that don’t actually mean what they say. For example the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not democratic or a republic.”
@@DadSavesAmerica Come on, mate. You, of all people, should know that the education establishment is well aware of this misguided view of history. Unlike you, they are more responsible and teach people the truth about Nazism instead of entertaining crackpots like Zitelmann.
That was one of the most coherent interviews. And, Dad, you always impress me by allowing your guest to be front stage. What a joy it must be to sit across from you.
I found this pretty interesting with some good insightful takes but he massively lost me at “Putin is a weak, loser with atomic weapons”.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was basically being chopped up and sold off at a discount price. There was a complete and total social and economic collapse being managed by big international finance.
It was Putin who rose up through the ranks took control and restored stability and order in Russia.
I genuinely believe there are no political leaders alive today and very few even in history who could have achieved this!
To completely write Putin off as a “weak loser” like the guest did here. Demonstrates to me a total lack of basic historic, economic and political knowledge and understanding. Very weak take.
Socialism and communism stifle creatively and ingenuity. The society stops moving forward and stagnate.
This was an excellent discussion. Thank you to you both!
Most peoples arguments opposed to calling Nazis "Socialist" point to North Korea or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
It's an idiotic assertion and argument.
hitler was buisness freindly and pro corporation
Not so fast.
The Nazi’s implemented every single thing that would be on anyones who called themselves a socialist wish list.
You have to remember that at the time of the rise of the Nazi’s that Germany was THE most educated country in the world. And yet many of them let it fall into the mess it did by actually supporting Nazi policies because it benefited them.
Which is why conservatives (used to be a liberal value) value individual freedom so much. Far less chance of falling into an induced mass psychosis that Germany did.
Because they think Democracy and Universal Suffrage are the same things.
Democracy just means "people rule", and historically the Demos didn't include everyone
that because calling the Nazis Socialists is idiotic. you have to respond to them on their level.
ruclips.net/video/mLHG4IfYE1w/видео.htmlsi=ERSUCe55VWbRTIMa
Mao was a total national socialist .
So is xi
@@sdrc92126 Only difference is that XI makes a way better orange chicken .
@@lalaboards 🐻🟧🐔
@ 🐈⬛😹😹
He was a communist.
The left will never admit it of course,but all forms of tyranny are socialist and anti individualistic.
The reason that FDR was so cozy with Stalin was that while he found the nationalist version of socialism repugnant, as a new deal democrat he really believed that communism was the future.
The new deal was a disaster only averted by war profits.
FDR also had a tyrannical streak of his own. He was the only US president who ignored Washington's example of Cincinnatus and sought more than two terms.
So disturbing was this to even his own party that both parties immediately made two terms federal law so no future president would seize power and refuse to relinquish it as FDR did. It was shameful.
My college thesis in 1975 was about the lack of difference between National Socialism and Global Socialism outside of geographic ambitions. I received a high grade according to our teacher because I explained it fully and factually !
Global socialism is pro-labor and antiwar. That's the exact opposite of Hitler's National Socialism, which was socialist in name only.
Can we see what you wrote
@@brady3474 Its 110 pages long essay, never published
@@tszirmay There is zero resemblance between German's old National Socialism and global socialism. National Socialism was just a word. It was actually fascism, which is the exact opposite of socialism. Hitler hated socialists. He put them in prison camps. The whole point of socialism is that it empowers the working class. Fascism empowers the ownership class. Socialism is democratic (workers own the factories and vote on policy.) In fascism workers have no power.
@@portalarizona I am glad you think so! My 50 years of ongoing study and endless verification from multiple sources indicate otherwise but you are entitled to your opinion . The first major move Adolf made was the creation of the German Labour Union (DAF) in 1933 replacing ALL the Independent unions, with the complicit acceptance of the industrialists , having barracked, clothed and fed the millions of idle workless Germans after the crash. For this kind gesture, the cartels gave him the funding to usurp the power from the soft Weimar Republic. Perhaps the workers "owned" the factories in the Soviet Union, China or Cuba but the Party made all de decisions and they were the workers were subject entirely to the whims of the Party with sombre finality , to say the least. This German professor is correct as well as William Shirer ,who witnessed the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and wrote a faultless book on the subject. Socialism/Communism and Fascism/Nazism were the two "distinct" sides of the same coin but only in the colour of their uniform and the authoritarianism that all dictatorships provide.
isn't what Margaret Thatcher said 'There are no societies but individuals'.
Yeah, but I would differ slightly in that the building block of society, the base unit, is the family.
Like an atom, if you break it down to it's constituent parts, it won't end well
@@sigurdholbarki8268 Ancient Rome was based on those three principles... Family, God, and Nation. Mussolini even adapted this dictum in the 1930s.
In my opinion In the US the number one thing we have to do asap if we want to fix things is reform our education systems. It has gotten so bad and it literally touches every part of society. If you want to change the country in the future and we don't start fixing education today it will fail every time. Its easy all we have to do is convince school to actually educate people. There is absolutely no excuse for kids today to come out of school not ever being taught about these ideologies and their history. So many kids don't even know about Hitler and that's the one we assume everyone knows. Education has literally become ideological brainwashing. Every single American should be able to pass the test that legal migrants have to take to get in and I guarantee 90% would fail it. They should know about the Chinese cultural revolution, the gulag in Russia, and every single communist regime of the past. They of should also learn the history of success by other nations and why they were more successful. They should all know the constitution, bill of rights, the founding; abolition movements, economics etc etc. Every single one of these subjects was touched on when I was in school but I STILL had to teach myself. The majority of everything I know today was learned on my own and I graduated high school In 05 so it's been terrible for awhile.
Yep, der Feurher hated Capitalism. Just like all those rich Universitiy professors.
This guy lost the plot when he implies that Russia is backwards cause they don’t make iPhones. Imagine comparing the most advanced hypersonic weapons in the planet to cheap consumer products.
All free market capitalists seem to care about is cheap consumer products.
Excellent conversation! The one thing I do wish they touched on was how Germany was so held down, and used, after WWI. The debt was unbearable. Children were prostitutes, especially in Berlin, which became the famous city of sin. One reason Jews were hated was because they owned not only the banks, but the Cabarets where sex and drugs were plentiful. When the Brown Shirts began growing, they focused on these establishments, and conservative Germans supported this because their poor were being abused by these businesses that drew in international clients. It really was not about religion. History will repeat if we do not understand it.
That may well be true. But to say the vengeance sought by the Nazi Party on Jews was extreme is an understatement.
@danielpye7738 Man's inhumanity to man crosses all ages and borders. Just 2 years ago, countrymen denied healthcare and even locked up neighbors for not complying to experimental drugs. We are not so different.
As I've said before; Yakov the bagel baker did fuck all wrong.
Onlyfans ring a bell?
National socialist vs international socialist this people never defined them for a reason.
The term 'caputalism' is Marxist. Capitalism is just the idea of private property, and how it can be traded to profit each other.
It is impossible NOT to have, or to rely on capitalism.
Capitalism establishes what the value of something is to people, which should be reflected in its price.
Even your ideas are capital, they are a thing with value for others.
Thank you both.
This is awesome!
There're two sepret types of socialism. The first is economically the other is oppressive justice system, which is an unjustifiable system that violates the majority of ones' self human rights traditions and norms and values and religion. Countries who have adopted socialism end up adopting both systems of socialism and oppression because it's extremely difficult to hold onto a socialism order without having oppression
I used think nazis were right wing . Then I was thinking about and started looking into it. Hitler never had a bank account never owned a house . He was a failed artist and author. He was even a homeless person once . There's no way he was right wing. His party ran the largest workers union in Europe..the nazis government owned power water and gas utilities. The nazis flag is socialist red . The party was called national socialist workers party. If you listen to one of Hitlers speeches translation to English, you will hear him comrade .
If many people read Hitler book, you will know that he was a socialist to the core. Germany for germans only and no individual wealth except the state.
Hitler was a millionaire who lived in luxury
He is a fellowman, comrade only to those who really shared serving, like school, military and so on. Genosse (tavarish) is the term, Volksgenosse is what he always used; »Volksgenossen und -genossinnen«.
@@glebperch7585 So do all the socialist leaders? What is your point?
I used to think he was left wing until I read his book an speeches.
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong"
-Thomas Sowell
Capitalism will exist where the authority in a community recognises and defends the people's ability to own private property.
Owning private property, and having a state governed by laws that protect your ability to do what you will with private property means people will be able to profit from trading in that private property.
Even the ideas in your head are your private property.
This is why Orwell uses the cypher 2+ 2 = 5 to illustrate the depths of control and the jealousy totalitarianism feels towards the private sector.
It's not "left right" it's "public private".
Corporations are publically listed companies that are owned by share holders.
Corporations have a fiduciary duty to the share holders to seek profit for those share holders.
So publically listed companies are public bodies owned by a government within the state government.
Spot on
Most animals recognize property (think bird nests). It's enshrined in the 10 commandments..
You might also be interested to look into the occultism origins of the N party and their H leader.
That is a big rabbit hole: 🤐
That would describe a lot of socialist “thinking” today. A cult level of pseudo virtue signalling to various agendas.
@@danielpye7738 Socialism is the opiate for the masses that Marx talked about. He was a theologian/philosopher (not an economist) who wrote the CM on commission for a millenarian religious group (really). The masses can't learn its true purpose.
@@danielpye7738 _Secret Practices of the Sufi Freemasons_ was written by the guy who founded the dap before h added the ns
I would say "influence" rather than origin. The origin lies with the rise of Enlightenment Liberalism, specifically the Liberalism of Rousseau which differs wildly from that of Locke or Hobbes.
But you can't deny its influence, especially when you see how many members of the intelligentsia were into spiritualism and far more weird ideas than that
My thing is capitalism is voluntary. Socialism is forced.
Exactly!
capitalism is NOT voluntary... what are you talking about....
@@Andre-qo5ek a person works as hard as he wants to or doesn’t work if he doesn’t want to.
Capitalism has never been voluntary. Being ignorant, mostly is.
@@mainStream-user I don’t get the opposition. Socialism is supposed to lift everyone by government taking from the productive and giving to the less productive. The same way charities do. The difference is socialism takes from the productive involuntarily, while charity is voluntary. Of course the other lies are socialism actually lifts anyone, which it doesn’t (except the ruling class) and capitalism doesn’t lift anyone (which it does, having raised the standard of living of the entire human race).
This same argument can be applied to modern capitalism
This IS your best video so far, Dad.
Hitler's definition of Socialism:
"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, or 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."
Is this from Mein Kampf
He must have changed his mind since he was going to institute a planned economy.
Sounds like a French revolutionary from the late 18th century, just replace the word socialist with nationalist. Liberté, égalité, fraternité they said.
I always refer to Germany during WWII as it’s official name on its constitution and coinage- “Deutschland Reich”, as that is the ONLY correct answer.
Whenever someone begins screaming about the NEON YAHTZEES (who are surprisingly Hispanic), and YAHTZEE GERMANY I cringe inside.
Reich is the unstated (secret, hidden, true, real) goal of socialism.)
Great podcast, loved the content and the depth of the conversation. Wish there was more but now I'm interested in picking up this book.
min 59.CO2 is not a pollutant,,,the guest is wrong about that.
Alberta in Canada's governing party has just passed Resolution 12 (2024), which defines carbon dioxide as a foundational nutrient essential for all life on earth, and removes its designation as a pollutant
What is rarely discussed is why large regions of north Africa from Morocco and Mali to Egypt to Eritrea and Sudan and in the middle east from Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Lebanon suffer under a super wealthy elite, while the vast majority of these populations live in abject poverty. These countries are not ordered through socialism or capitalism for the masses but under a theocratic dictatorship, where corruption is rife. One billion people is no small number.
IQ matters. Inbreeding reduces IQ.
i thought you were describing the US, lol
societies whitout a big middle class can never develop into a modern democratic society
Theres also more to the fact that Africa is poor.
Look up why Africa is poor on YT and you will get explanations that its to do with Africas geography and corruption by dictators stealing all of the aid money given to them than any result of whatever system any country has adopted though a stable country with the rule of law is important (but how is this stability gained?)
Theres also colonialism too as well as how the IMF and World Bank and the Investor State Dispute Settlement system is predatory on poorer countries trying to get out lots of debt.
Oh man I’m super excited. I’m gonna start this tomorrow at work. I have Hitler’s National Socialism.
I am certainly going to draw flak for this. I grew up just a few miles from Donald Trump. Raising his voice yelling hostilely at the top of his lungs is a cultural issue. Those of us in parts of New Jersey and New York among the working class are custom to yelling over the sound of machinery and chaos in the city that never sleeps and is rarely quiet. So he’s accustomed to yelling over the crowd. I’ve lived in California for 30 years and I still tend to let my voice rise in the state where that is frowned upon.
Don't the old definitions still work--
1. Economics is the study of how best to meet infinite need with finite resources. Need is infinite. Resources are finite.
The world has created two economic options.
2. Marxism (The foundation of communism and socialism) says you meet that need by giving to each person according to what he needs. It sounds reasonable and virtuous but it means incentivizing need. You will get more if you need more. Need is infinite so it exhausts your resources. And who decides what need is and whose is greatest? It is not easu to measure need objectively: the system is susceptible to corruption and oppression. That has always been its outcome In the real world. Human suffering and genocide.
3. Capitalism says you meet that need by giving to each according to what he produces.
Production is incentivized so everybody wants to produce more. Production is easier to measure and not as susceptible to corruption. Everyone works more and harder and innovates ways to boost resources. You end up with surplus production that can raise the less fortunate and bring them out of poverty.
That has been its outcome in the real world, lifting millions and millions of people out of poverty.
2
That is not really the definitions.
Part of the problem is that Marxists made the original definitions and they invented the word capitalism.
And their definition is
Marxism: A fair system where everybody get what they deserve
Capitalism: A unfair system where the owner steal the surplus from the workers.
What I would say the true definitions is rather
Socialism (including Marxism): When government control the trade between two other parties
Capitalism: When government do not control the trade between two other parties,,, also known as free market, but the Marxist changed that because it sounded to posetive.
Marxism isn’t an economic theory.
It’s fiction, a fantasy.
As millions have found out unfortunately.for them.
Marx was inventing a new spiritual socialist religion. Mankind, the Collective, being and becoming God. But only when the disbelievers are weeded out and ended.
Private property was blamed for alienating Man from himself and from Mankind.
When abundance is rife, growth is continued, perhaps an element of Marxian socialism is best because people start to demand it (e.g. UK housing policy during the Post War period was entirely done via the government because people did not trust companies to build houses that were not shitty slums where you caught disease and where poverty was rife.)
Equally when things become stagnant its best to let people be free to create new markets
I bought a copy of Samuelson's book from the early 1960's. It might have even been late 1950's. The footnotes are SO intelligent compared to the garbage in standard college level econ books these days.
Don't get me wrong - Samuelson interpreted Böhm-Bawerk 180° backwards, but atleast his name was in Samuelson's book.
I feel like Alfred Marshall was the original Paul Samuelson. I'm sure he meant well, but he forced economic reasoning into mathematical exercises. And in my humble opinion, that was more important to him than truth and realism. 80 years later, the dichotomy was between the followers of Keynes vs Friedman. And they ALL repeated the methodological sloppiness of Marshall. I love the Supply & Demand curves, though. I don't want to come off as his biggest critic. That *was* Marshall, wasn't it?
Oh well. I guess the demand for mathematical economics will always be around. Rightly or wrongly.
You’re my kinda guy.
@DadSavesAmerica
Ha ha ha! Thanks. This channel always gives me a good excuse to vent about stuff I never had a chance to say 15 years ago. 😄
Samuelson was a keynesian, and keynesianism is nazism.
I'd add that free markets are not what define capitalism. Capitalism is the only system in which people can buy, own and sell capital without having to come into direct possession or management of that capital. It remains the case in China today, that one cannot buy, own or sell capital without coming directly into its management, so China is not capitalist in any way, shape or form.
People haven't read _The Communist Manifesto._ Just look up the 10 planks of.
The best way to define Capitalism is against it's opposite:
The Private Ownership of the Means of Production (i.e. the Private Capital).
The opposite would be Public (i.e. State) Ownership (or Control) of the Means of Production.
This is the historic definition of Socialism and was before Marx started using the term.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 socialism is against private property. "means of production" gives an impression of factories etc, but it is not. You just cannot own anything.
@@aaakin they make a distinction between personal property and private property. But its arbitrary and never explained where the line is drawn.
What is i tersdting to note is it was the capitalust government of 1970-74 The Conservatives under the Leadership of Edward Heath (Conservatives are similar to the US Republicans), it was in 1974 When the Labour party won power from the Conservatives who asked the IMF for the loan in 1975.
Its worth piinting out that in Feb 1974 Harold Wilson beat the Conservatives but only by having a coalition government, Wilson then called another General election less than 8 months later that same year in October 1974 and won a majority of just 3 seats (3 MP's).
Then, with that unrestricted power of now not having to meet half way on everything they now had a 100% labour government, this is when they asked the IMF for the loan, and it didnt change anything when labour got it. It fell to the new labour leader and Prime Minister James Callaghan who lost a vote of no confidence within his own party and was forced into a general election this is when the Conservative took over with Margeret Thatcher (the iron lady). She stayed in the prime minister role until 1990 (11yrs). That is when the UK started to come out of the effect of the 1970s, then In 1997 it was back to a labour government for 13 yrs until 2010 where labour destroyed our immigration, economy, education, gealthcare and many other things and lead us into two unlawful wars.
Then the conservatives under Cameron returned and stayed in power under many leaders until July 2024 when the Hitleresque leader and socialist Kier Starmer took office for Labour.
You do know that during the 1970s there was a massive oil shock right? Even worse than the Ukraine crisis?
There were big problems in the UK economy then but the reason we were so screwed was because of that oil crisis.
That and the fact the unions were just too powerful.
I first heard of Zitelmann from Tom Woods.
You are well informed 👍
Tikhistory has been saying this.
Tiks video Hitlers Socialism references the Doctors book. This is where Tik got it from.
Tikhistory is an idiot. I've challenged him many times in the comments, but he doesn't have the guts to reply.
@brett22bt alright what is he an idiot about? Witb thousands of comments you sure he has even seen one of yours?
@@johnkrstyen Perhaps you're right. Maybe he hasn't seen my comments, although channel owners do receive a notification every time someone comments on their videos.
Just to clarify, that's not why I'm calling him an idiot. He's an idiot because of his blatant revisionist history and refusal to acknowledge well-documented facts and historical events that completely dismantle his entire stance on fascism.
@brett22bt curious to elaborate on his historical revisionism and his flaws on fascism?
I recently had a conversation with a person who is quite the proud Kiwi. But he was upset a Jacinda Ardern had gone and she was one of the main reasons he was proud. So I asked him with his national pride and heavy leaning towards socialism then what party should he vote for.
He said Labour…
It was the same with the National Socialists of Scotland, oh sorry, Scottish National Party. Oops 😂
Lol
The national party (social darwinism) is the other choice here, I prefer labour they're not socialist but social democrats who even refused to pass a capital gains tax.