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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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)
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
@@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
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.
@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.
@@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.
Dr. Peterson argued this too, and it made sense to me, but people look at you like you're crazy for suggesting a Nationalist Socialist might be....... ......Socialist 😂
@@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.
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.
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.
Thank you to both of you, Dr. Rainer Zitelmann really makes things completely clear, so it in a very understandable way makes sense, in this never ending battle between kapitalisme and socialism. I really hopes it will change somebody’s mind for the better. Once again: A very big THANK YOU.
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
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.
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.
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...
From the Warring States and the Hundred Schools of Thought, ancient China settled on two main ideas, Confucianism ( orderly compliance ) and Taoism ( natural value ). With the base idea of Yin Yang, both Confucian compliance and Taoist naturality are sides to each other... too much of one leads to imbalance with the other. So when one side says " Conform! " a reply can be " But it is not in my nature! ".
I think he is oversimplifying the effects of inequality and defending the rich. We‘ll see if current events in the US and the outcomes will change his perspective.
I agree - he is keeping his argument simple. I see corporate capitalism without political constraint as a major threat to living standards and flourishing
Well you can always look at their socialist policies, like centrally planned economies, rent control, prices control, minimum wage, adherence to the shrinking markets fallacy and the Labour Theory of Value. These are all Socialist Economic Policies. You can also look at their evolution, where they split from the Social Democratic Party, existed as the DAP (German Workers' Party) before becoming the NSDAP. If you've not looked into their economic policies, or even read Mein Kampf, I would humbly suggest you're just parroting that line from someone else - so it must be true. And FYI, there are a number of historical Democracies that did not have universal suffrage - the Greeks, Romans and even the USA at its founding. The term democracy means everything and nothing because it's not a form of government, and it's meaning is so ambiguous it can describe everything from mob rule to an oligarchy.
@@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
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".
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…
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.
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.
yes i agree with the comments i vaguely knew the key points to why hitler wanted to dominate the world but i still like to hear someone talk passionately about a topic and to learn a thing or 2.....not every podcast is fully loaded with knowledge nor am i bothered....thanks for your service old man saves america
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
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!
01:07:27 I really enjoyed the whole podcast, but, with all due respect Dr. Zitelmann, you are wrong about Africa. I spoke with native Ethiopians and Nigerians, educated people, and both have much more financial and overall freedom than us in Europe. They both could casually build houses and sell them without requiring to follow countless boreoarctic procedures, as we do in Europe. I would say that both countries are closer to anarchy than to authoritarianism. Europe "helps" these countries to motivate people to stay there and not to immigrate to Europe, not because of being guilty. In Europe, one could have more "steady" income, than in Africa, and maybe this motivates people to immigrate. Other than that, there are many cases of westerners moving to Africa and taking advantage the lack of regulation to make fortunes.
Companies that succeed also need morals, and it doesn't come automatically. So we also need ethics, basically carried by religion, and a government to implement those ethics. Otherwise, true.
Dr. Zitelmann is right about lack of marketing (or education) on behalf of conservatism. Than the new generation learns the hard way about pitfalls of left ideologies.
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.
Yeah, well, that's public education for you. I grew up in the 90s and as a conservative I thought I should give mein kampf a read so I didn't end up becoming a Nazi. My conclusion? What a load of socialist gobbledegook!
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
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.
The 3rd way doesn't have any ideology as much as a dynamic pragmatism. It uses Nationalist, socialist, fascist, democratic, etc. where ever each would be of most use to the state. The dictator just does what is needed for the betterment of the state.
They have Hitlers speeches translated to English now on RUclips. It's quite interesting...not supporting its message but it's much easier to understand why he was popular when you can actually understand the words...
No, Prussian/ German socialist as described by the national system of economics talked about by Sombart. After the Anschluss Austrian economy merged with the German one. Not the other way around.
Id argue that BMW isnt private. It is a social organisation that controls the means of production (BMWs) It could be argued it is state unto itselfisit has territoty under the control of one goverment, ie a headquarters and board of directors. So socialist.
You need to understand first principles, just like in any other field. You wouldn't do physical science without understanding first principles, so why would you piss about with the economy or society without that understanding?
Some people benefit from capitalism, those same people often compare Naziism to socialism, and though there are some similarities, the reality is no, it was not. However, if you have benefited from capitalism, there is a good reason to make that comparison, for your own personal benefit. A very capitalist thing to do.
I think understanding Trump’s gaslighting Putin as “strong” for negotiations is lacking here. Same of Kim. The complexity of international relations and using that as leverage is classic “Art of the Deal.”
If you don't know the difference between national socialism (nazi) and socialism you're a lost cause. National socialism has aspects of socialism but it's definitely not the same. The first people Hitler was fighting were the socialists, even before the jews. In my (nazi-occupied) Western-European country, the socialists and communists formed the most important resistance groups. Many socialists had to go in hiding, even if they weren't doing any resistance work. Also, the Russians (communists) liberated a great part of Europe just as well. It was only after WWII when the divide in Europe was established and America told us to hate all communists and socialists. If you want to learn more about the socialists against the nazis, read about the history of Willy Brandt. I know more Americans who say that Hitler was a socialist. I blame the American education system and probably the post-war American propaganda agaist the Russians, because nobody in Europe thinks that way. And it's about us. Sorry @DadSavesAmerica, I expected more of you.
Hitler was fighting socialists to start with because they wanted to be THE socialist party of Germany. If you made a modern socialist wish list right now of what they want from government, well the Nazi Party met them for the German people. Don’t also forget at the time Germany was regarded the most educated country in the world. And this mess still happened.
Anyone who's spent even five minutes reading any history since the French Revolution knows that socialists of different flavours fight each other constantly. It is such a well known fact that it's one of the most memorable memes in Monty Python's Life of Brian (Judean People's Front Vs People's Front of Judea, etc). Your problem is that you don't seem aware that Marx's Class Socialism was not the first type of Socialism, nor the only type of Socialism proposed in his lifetime. Socialism was one of the main aspects of French Liberal Thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Murat, Ropespierre, etc) before the French Revolution, and spread across Europe in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars - notably in Trier where Karl Marx was born. Marx added the Class element to his socialism, and he wasn't the first either, but Socialism does not require it as a defining feature because it pre-existed the Communist Manifesto by over 50 years. Furthermore Socialism is only a component of Communism, an intermediate phase before Communism can be achieved. But as communism can never be achieved, Marx was deluded when it came to human nature, so all communists end up being Socialists.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 I have been intrigued by every single on of your comments on this video. And I want to ask some book recommendations, podcast recommendations or any reading/listening.
Socialism doesn't need defending but it's an economic model. Hitler was an authoritarian and an ethno-nationilist. I'm tired of people conflating the two.
@@richardavery4692 Why do you need to follow an economic model? Capitalism isn't an economic model, it's how humans naturally trade with each other free of constraints. Adam Smith wrote a description, not prescription. The only real rule is private property, concept that most animals seem to grasp in nature. It's probably an evolutionary advantageous idea
The name of the ideology is extremely descriptive. It was an alternative to bolshevism and democratic socialism. The germans had just witnessed the collapse of the bavarian soviet (mustache man served as an officer in the bavarian soviet btw). The bolsheviks took over and implemented a red terror and crashed the economy. And the democratic socialists were too weak to implement the socialist state in his view. For mustashe man the j’s were synonymous with capitalism and exploitation.
For Marx the Jews were also behind capitalism. You need to uncouple Socialism and Marxism. Marxism is a Socialist ideology, but not Socialism is Marxism. Socialism existed at least as early as the French Revolution, at least in a theoretical form.
Unfree market is misleading since it gives too much power into the hands of few.... wait that isn'T communism or socialism but totalitarianism then. ;)
The problem is the intellectual class working for them class or themselves ONLY in both way and really never for the people. They need some sense of morality but power always get to them heads and make them fascists upon the lower classes.
He has solid points but completely left out Central Banks, not to mention sanctions that completely wealth, stripped certain nations, maybe América is richer today, but she’s also far more and Prest given the fact that from the end of World War II to today, inflation at a minimum has jumped up by 193% so it’s definitely at the expense of the working class
Central banking is something proposed by Marx in Das Krapital. Don't get me wrong, a lot of conservatives don't understand this and have been playing the role of useful idiots for around a century.
If you're not going to use the term Nazi, and you wish to call the party what it was, the correct name is the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The only part of the name that is accurate is "National". It did indulge in some socialist rhetoric in the beginning, partly to be able to compete with the German Communist Party, and partly because the leadership did have some socialist beliefs. Those beliefs were abandoned long before the party came to power. As far as Hitler's love of Stalin, that is pure romance. Hitler was very clear throughout his career that his greatest political enemy was the bolsheviks. From the 1920s through the 1940s he never gave up an opportunity to rage away at the bolsheviks. It is in Mein Kampf, published in 1925, and in recorded conversations from the early war years. Here's what he said in Mein Kampf: "Never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common blood-stained criminals; that they are the scum of humanity which, favoured by circumstances, overran a great state in a tragic hour, slaughtered out thousands of her leading intelligentsia in wild bloodlust, and now for almost ten years have been carrying on the most cruel and tyrannical regime of all time. Furthermore, do not forget that these rulers belong to a race which combines, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying, and which today more than ever is conscious of a mission to impose its bloody oppression on the whole world. Do not forget that the international Jew who completely dominates Russia today regards Germany not as an ally, but as a state destined to the same fate." Note that he associated bolshevism with Jews, which should tell you all you need to know about what he thought of bolshevism.
Yeah, this is one of those situations where one weaves a story that has to ignore reality to make a political point. And yeah, the whole "Jewish socialism" is a tell.
The socialism wasn’t just rhetoric. They acted upon it and used the state power to enact socialist policies that many would find pleasing today. Every time you hear someone in government say the word “equality” actually gives them away as someone who wants to enact measures that disable the freedoms of people to deal with each without interference. The Nazi Party were heavily involved in the daily lives of Germans as much as the Communists were. The propaganda must have been mind numbing.
Hitler also associated Capitalism with the Jews, as did Marx Hitler also subscribed to the shrinking markets theory and the Labour Theory of Value, both prominent socialist theories and not exclusively Marxist, which is why he implemented: *Minimum wage *Price Controls *Rent Controls *Centrally Planned Economy *Heavy regulations on the Private Sector. He also Nationalised (i.e. socialised) a number of institutions from the Scouts/Guides to the Trade Unions (the DAF), just as Lenin had done. He may not have Nationalised industry, but he did force party members on the boards of uncooperative companies in order to control them in addition to using the DAF. You don't need to own something to control it. That's pretty socialist behaviour for a guy who's only pretending to be a socialist.
@sigurdholbarki8268 Marx was famously a Jew of course. There is a very sloppy and literal reading of Marx that is presented as antisemitic. But only by people that don't understand his theory of history. Or. If they do. They are lying.
Funny how Stalin was deleted from the thumbnail in less than 12 hours. Stalin was a communist, folks! Why don't people in the US understand the difference? Oh, right, because Stalin was an ally and on the good side, yes of course.. A quick research on Zittelman shows: He is a politician, not just a "historian, socialigist an author" (as he was introduced). He himself is already politically biased, to say the least. He is a member of the currently co-governing party FDP in Germany. No, the He-Man never admired Stalin, that's a blatant lie (there is no reliable source to support this claim, there is no secret source from the "inner circle", even though Zittelman keeps repeating this). The He-Man kept repeating the fight against Bolshevism and Communism and "the low humanity of the Soviets". During WWII, only the Axis powers fought against the Russians. The US allied with them. Don't twist the facts. Stalin was closer to Roosevelt thaen to the He-man. In Germany during the time of the Third Reich, there was a party called SPD (= Social Democrats, founded around 1880). The Nazi Party banned the SPD and even put them in concentration camps. (Why would the "socialists" bann other "socialists"?) After the war, the SPD was re-established by the Allies. The SPD still exists and currently governs Germany! (>>>Incidentally, Zittelman's party, the FDP, is also currently governing!). National socialism IS NOT communism IS NOT social democrats, please repeat.
The DAP and the Communist Party both split from the SDP. The DAP became the NSDAP. The inner circle sources you seem to be unaware of are the Table Talk Memoranda, which Leftists don't like because they underline Hitler's Socialism. Nice attempt at a strawman at the end, so let me correct you: Ropespierre's Socialism is a form of Socialism Marxism is another form of Socialism Bolshevism is a development of Marxism Germany's National Socialism is another form of Socialism Fascism is another form of Socialism, similar but different to Germany's National Socialism Communism is a nebulous form of Marxist Socialism They are all Socialism, and they've all been tried, and they're all crap
So you skirted the very edge of saying that Trump is another Hitler. But I laughed outloud when he said Trump was the best president in a hundred years!
Hitler was a socialist because he held socialist beliefs and implemented socialist policies like: *Shrinking Markets Theory *Labour Theory of Value *Price Controls, Rent Controls, Minimum Wage *Centrally Planned Economy *Abolished constitutional property rights *Nationalised all trade unions just like Lenin did (The DAF was the largest Trade Union in history) *Nationalised the Scouts and Guides ffs He wasn't a Marxist, but Marx didn't come up with Socialism - Socialism was a product of the French Revolution and doesn't necessarily have a class component. I would suggest you start reading European History around 1750 and keep reading until at least 1950
The modifier is National Socialist, Dictatorship and Military Totalitarian dominance.., the opposite of actual Socialist health and welfare. But if you are innocent of this information and want to know better, keep going on the first part to demonstrate the requirements of the second, because in other countries "Socialist" is not the local definition of socialim when applied correctly, instead of abusivly.
It's quite possible to have purely voluntaryist societies. It all comes down to the aggregate level of moral development amongst a participating population. If there's a sufficient proportion of a given populace at a positive level of moral development, the kind of systemic level criminality _(i.e. NAP violation) embodied by states isn't feasible. Any extant criminality would be related to individual, statistical outliers, with little-to-no perchance on the social or civic fabric of the society in question. Simply put, only people of sound mind and character can form fully free societies amongst one another. So long as they're successful in excluding criminal elements and fending off organized aggression, such societies can be maintained. Of course, systematically free societies & markets wouldn't be perfect, but they'd sure as hell seem utopian compared to statist societies.
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.
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.
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!! 🙏🔥
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.
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.
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.
Mussolini based his policies on FDRs policies.
Thank you both.
This is awesome!
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)
This IS your best video so far, Dad.
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
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.
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.
This was an excellent discussion. Thank you to you both!
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.
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.
Dr. Peterson argued this too, and it made sense to me, but people look at you like you're crazy for suggesting a Nationalist Socialist might be.......
......Socialist
😂
Does Burger King sell burgers? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
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.
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.
Sounds like the how the EU is now
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
Absolutely enlightening discussion, mind blown, a must listen if you want to understand the state of the world now
Oh man I’m super excited. I’m gonna start this tomorrow at work. I have Hitler’s National Socialism.
Thank you to both of you, Dr. Rainer Zitelmann really makes things completely clear, so it in a very understandable way makes sense, in this never ending battle between kapitalisme and socialism. I really hopes it will change somebody’s mind for the better. Once again: A very big THANK YOU.
This guy's great!
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
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 first heard of Zitelmann from Tom Woods.
You are well informed 👍
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.
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?
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...
From the Warring States and the Hundred Schools of Thought, ancient China settled on two main ideas, Confucianism ( orderly compliance ) and Taoism ( natural value ). With the base idea of Yin Yang, both Confucian compliance and Taoist naturality are sides to each other... too much of one leads to imbalance with the other. So when one side says " Conform! " a reply can be " But it is not in my nature! ".
I think he is oversimplifying the effects of inequality and defending the rich. We‘ll see if current events in the US and the outcomes will change his perspective.
I agree - he is keeping his argument simple. I see corporate capitalism without political constraint as a major threat to living standards and flourishing
Oh yeah, they called themselves socialist so it must be true
just like how Democratic peoples Republic of North Korea is Democratic and a Republic
Well you can always look at their socialist policies, like centrally planned economies, rent control, prices control, minimum wage, adherence to the shrinking markets fallacy and the Labour Theory of Value. These are all Socialist Economic Policies.
You can also look at their evolution, where they split from the Social Democratic Party, existed as the DAP (German Workers' Party) before becoming the NSDAP.
If you've not looked into their economic policies, or even read Mein Kampf, I would humbly suggest you're just parroting that line from someone else - so it must be true.
And FYI, there are a number of historical Democracies that did not have universal suffrage - the Greeks, Romans and even the USA at its founding.
The term democracy means everything and nothing because it's not a form of government, and it's meaning is so ambiguous it can describe everything from mob rule to an oligarchy.
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
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 was an extremely illuminating discussion .
Best episode yet
my favorite time waster arguing with socialist about hitler being a socialist
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 😂
This was super interesting
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
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.
Tikhistory has been saying this.
Tiks video Hitlers Socialism references the Doctors book. This is where Tik got it from.
yes i agree with the comments i vaguely knew the key points to why hitler wanted to dominate the world but i still like to hear someone talk passionately about a topic and to learn a thing or 2.....not every podcast is fully loaded with knowledge nor am i bothered....thanks for your service old man saves america
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.
This was very informative and interesting about new forms of socialism.
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!
PLEASE check out James Lindsey’s work. He has mapped it all out. Please introduce Zeitelmann to him as well if you can
Hitler was the first live streamer
01:07:27 I really enjoyed the whole podcast, but, with all due respect Dr. Zitelmann, you are wrong about Africa. I spoke with native Ethiopians and Nigerians, educated people, and both have much more financial and overall freedom than us in Europe. They both could casually build houses and sell them without requiring to follow countless boreoarctic procedures, as we do in Europe. I would say that both countries are closer to anarchy than to authoritarianism. Europe "helps" these countries to motivate people to stay there and not to immigrate to Europe, not because of being guilty. In Europe, one could have more "steady" income, than in Africa, and maybe this motivates people to immigrate. Other than that, there are many cases of westerners moving to Africa and taking advantage the lack of regulation to make fortunes.
If in doubt… have a read of some of George Bernard Shaw’s quotes from the early 30s…
And George Orwell, total pinko until he visited the USSR and then he wrote Animal Farm and 1984.
Their name didn’t give them away I promise ( “that’s not real socialism “) 😂
But reeeeeeeeeeeeel Socialism has never been tried! 😂
But but nazi were fascism and Donald Trump is fascism 😂
That would be even funnier if you said "Donald Trump is a fascism" 😂
🤣🤣🤣
Good discussion.
Listened to every minute of it.
Companies that succeed also need morals, and it doesn't come automatically. So we also need ethics, basically carried by religion, and a government to implement those ethics. Otherwise, true.
Boom. Totally agree
Dr. Zitelmann is right about lack of marketing (or education) on behalf of conservatism.
Than the new generation learns the hard way about pitfalls of left ideologies.
Partly - the American ‘rugged individualist’ trope is a powerful emotional conservative argument - and it works on me!
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.
Hm didn't hear anything I didn't know.. blows my mind that people don't know this..
Yeah, well, that's public education for you. I grew up in the 90s and as a conservative I thought I should give mein kampf a read so I didn't end up becoming a Nazi. My conclusion? What a load of socialist gobbledegook!
A dictator can enslave the people but he can also give everyone freedom.
Tikhistory has more content like this on youtube.
Not always accurate, like the mumbojumbo about Hitler being inspired by Hegel. He wants to have viewers and money too.
@@wiardinterested in argument that Hitler was not inspired by Hegel or from others that got their ideas from Hegel.
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
Thank you. Somebody is reminding the right Hitler was a socialist!
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.
And water is wet. Any other shocking revelations?
The 3rd way doesn't have any ideology as much as a dynamic pragmatism. It uses Nationalist, socialist, fascist, democratic, etc. where ever each would be of most use to the state. The dictator just does what is needed for the betterment of the state.
TikHistory has a video on this subject titled Hitlers Socialism if I recall. He uses the Dr heres book for alot of it. Highly recommend.
They have Hitlers speeches translated to English now on RUclips.
It's quite interesting...not supporting its message but it's much easier to understand why he was popular when you can actually understand the words...
He was a Prussian or German socialist which was different than a Marxian socialist. Literally saved Germany with it.
Austrian you mean
No, Prussian/ German socialist as described by the national system of economics talked about by Sombart. After the Anschluss Austrian economy merged with the German one. Not the other way around.
Id argue that BMW isnt private. It is a social organisation that controls the means of production (BMWs)
It could be argued it is state unto itselfisit has territoty under the control of one goverment, ie a headquarters and board of directors. So socialist.
Just to add,watch Tik and his videos on Fascism.
@@vandalcreedhaha, me too
I agree, it's public
North Korea emits 2 metric tons of CO2 per citizen (2020) while South Korea emits 11 metric tons per citizen (2020)... 550% more.
Q: What would be a good brand name for a bad quality car built in the Soviet Union?
A: Stall-in
Forget politics, and just do what works.
You need to understand first principles, just like in any other field. You wouldn't do physical science without understanding first principles, so why would you piss about with the economy or society without that understanding?
Some people benefit from capitalism, those same people often compare Naziism to socialism, and though there are some similarities, the reality is no, it was not. However, if you have benefited from capitalism, there is a good reason to make that comparison, for your own personal benefit. A very capitalist thing to do.
Yes but what is this Dr.'s diet and exercise routine?
I think understanding Trump’s gaslighting Putin as “strong” for negotiations is lacking here. Same of Kim. The complexity of international relations and using that as leverage is classic “Art of the Deal.”
[Zitelmann] Every, Single, Time...
Mao was a total national socialist .
Someone sang about freeing your mind first, before trying to change the Constitution.
If you don't know the difference between national socialism (nazi) and socialism you're a lost cause. National socialism has aspects of socialism but it's definitely not the same.
The first people Hitler was fighting were the socialists, even before the jews. In my (nazi-occupied) Western-European country, the socialists and communists formed the most important resistance groups. Many socialists had to go in hiding, even if they weren't doing any resistance work. Also, the Russians (communists) liberated a great part of Europe just as well. It was only after WWII when the divide in Europe was established and America told us to hate all communists and socialists.
If you want to learn more about the socialists against the nazis, read about the history of Willy Brandt.
I know more Americans who say that Hitler was a socialist. I blame the American education system and probably the post-war American propaganda agaist the Russians, because nobody in Europe thinks that way. And it's about us.
Sorry @DadSavesAmerica, I expected more of you.
Read any books lately?
Hitler was fighting socialists to start with because they wanted to be THE socialist party of Germany.
If you made a modern socialist wish list right now of what they want from government, well the Nazi Party met them for the German people.
Don’t also forget at the time Germany was regarded the most educated country in the world. And this mess still happened.
Anyone who's spent even five minutes reading any history since the French Revolution knows that socialists of different flavours fight each other constantly.
It is such a well known fact that it's one of the most memorable memes in Monty Python's Life of Brian (Judean People's Front Vs People's Front of Judea, etc).
Your problem is that you don't seem aware that Marx's Class Socialism was not the first type of Socialism, nor the only type of Socialism proposed in his lifetime.
Socialism was one of the main aspects of French Liberal Thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Murat, Ropespierre, etc) before the French Revolution, and spread across Europe in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars - notably in Trier where Karl Marx was born.
Marx added the Class element to his socialism, and he wasn't the first either, but Socialism does not require it as a defining feature because it pre-existed the Communist Manifesto by over 50 years.
Furthermore Socialism is only a component of Communism, an intermediate phase before Communism can be achieved. But as communism can never be achieved, Marx was deluded when it came to human nature, so all communists end up being Socialists.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 I have been intrigued by every single on of your comments on this video. And I want to ask some book recommendations, podcast recommendations or any reading/listening.
Truth.
Listen to Mussolini and Hitler's AI translated speeches, and you will be surprised
Socialism doesn't need defending but it's an economic model. Hitler was an authoritarian and an ethno-nationilist. I'm tired of people conflating the two.
Socialism ENABLES authoritarianism.
It's not an economic model, it's a system to destroy economies and to re-engineer humans to accept a monarchy. Ordo Ab Chao
How do you implement an economic model without an authoritarian State enforcing it?
@@richardavery4692 Why do you need to follow an economic model? Capitalism isn't an economic model, it's how humans naturally trade with each other free of constraints. Adam Smith wrote a description, not prescription. The only real rule is private property, concept that most animals seem to grasp in nature. It's probably an evolutionary advantageous idea
@@sdrc92126 humans are heavily biased and tribal.
The name of the ideology is extremely descriptive. It was an alternative to bolshevism and democratic socialism. The germans had just witnessed the collapse of the bavarian soviet (mustache man served as an officer in the bavarian soviet btw). The bolsheviks took over and implemented a red terror and crashed the economy. And the democratic socialists were too weak to implement the socialist state in his view. For mustashe man the j’s were synonymous with capitalism and exploitation.
For Marx the Jews were also behind capitalism.
You need to uncouple Socialism and Marxism. Marxism is a Socialist ideology, but not Socialism is Marxism. Socialism existed at least as early as the French Revolution, at least in a theoretical form.
Free market economy is misleading since it is just free for the entrepreneurs.
Unfree market is misleading since it gives too much power into the hands of few.... wait that isn'T communism or socialism but totalitarianism then. ;)
The problem is the intellectual class working for them class or themselves ONLY in both way and really never for the people. They need some sense of morality but power always get to them heads and make them fascists upon the lower classes.
He's criticising Trump, then praises Reagan. Reagan is strong in foreign policy. Trump isn't? Reagan is a free market capitalist. Trump isn't?
In socialism we had nothing and still we lived better happier than now in capitalism LOL
He has solid points but completely left out Central Banks, not to mention sanctions that completely wealth, stripped certain nations, maybe América is richer today, but she’s also far more and Prest given the fact that from the end of World War II to today, inflation at a minimum has jumped up by 193% so it’s definitely at the expense of the working class
Central banking is something proposed by Marx in Das Krapital. Don't get me wrong, a lot of conservatives don't understand this and have been playing the role of useful idiots for around a century.
If you're not going to use the term Nazi, and you wish to call the party what it was, the correct name is the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The only part of the name that is accurate is "National". It did indulge in some socialist rhetoric in the beginning, partly to be able to compete with the German Communist Party, and partly because the leadership did have some socialist beliefs. Those beliefs were abandoned long before the party came to power.
As far as Hitler's love of Stalin, that is pure romance. Hitler was very clear throughout his career that his greatest political enemy was the bolsheviks. From the 1920s through the 1940s he never gave up an opportunity to rage away at the bolsheviks. It is in Mein Kampf, published in 1925, and in recorded conversations from the early war years. Here's what he said in Mein Kampf:
"Never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common blood-stained criminals; that they are the scum of humanity which, favoured by circumstances, overran a great state in a tragic hour, slaughtered out thousands of her leading intelligentsia in wild bloodlust, and now for almost ten years have been carrying on the most cruel and tyrannical regime of all time.
Furthermore, do not forget that these rulers belong to a race which combines, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying, and which today more than ever is conscious of a mission to impose its bloody oppression on the whole world. Do not forget that the international Jew who completely dominates Russia today regards Germany not as an ally, but as a state destined to the same fate."
Note that he associated bolshevism with Jews, which should tell you all you need to know about what he thought of bolshevism.
Yeah, this is one of those situations where one weaves a story that has to ignore reality to make a political point. And yeah, the whole "Jewish socialism" is a tell.
The socialism wasn’t just rhetoric. They acted upon it and used the state power to enact socialist policies that many would find pleasing today.
Every time you hear someone in government say the word “equality” actually gives them away as someone who wants to enact measures that disable the freedoms of people to deal with each without interference.
The Nazi Party were heavily involved in the daily lives of Germans as much as the Communists were. The propaganda must have been mind numbing.
Hitler also associated Capitalism with the Jews, as did Marx
Hitler also subscribed to the shrinking markets theory and the Labour Theory of Value, both prominent socialist theories and not exclusively Marxist, which is why he implemented:
*Minimum wage
*Price Controls
*Rent Controls
*Centrally Planned Economy
*Heavy regulations on the Private Sector.
He also Nationalised (i.e. socialised) a number of institutions from the Scouts/Guides to the Trade Unions (the DAF), just as Lenin had done.
He may not have Nationalised industry, but he did force party members on the boards of uncooperative companies in order to control them in addition to using the DAF.
You don't need to own something to control it.
That's pretty socialist behaviour for a guy who's only pretending to be a socialist.
@sigurdholbarki8268 Marx was famously a Jew of course. There is a very sloppy and literal reading of Marx that is presented as antisemitic. But only by people that don't understand his theory of history. Or. If they do. They are lying.
One advertisement interruption every ten minutes is asking too much of this viewer.
Funny how Stalin was deleted from the thumbnail in less than 12 hours.
Stalin was a communist, folks! Why don't people in the US understand the difference?
Oh, right, because Stalin was an ally and on the good side, yes of course..
A quick research on Zittelman shows: He is a politician, not just a "historian, socialigist an author" (as he was introduced). He himself is already politically biased, to say the least. He is a member of the currently co-governing party FDP in Germany.
No, the He-Man never admired Stalin, that's a blatant lie (there is no reliable source to support this claim, there is no secret source from the "inner circle", even though Zittelman keeps repeating this). The He-Man kept repeating the fight against Bolshevism and Communism and "the low humanity of the Soviets". During WWII, only the Axis powers fought against the Russians. The US allied with them. Don't twist the facts. Stalin was closer to Roosevelt thaen to the He-man.
In Germany during the time of the Third Reich, there was a party called SPD (= Social Democrats, founded around 1880). The Nazi Party banned the SPD and even put them in concentration camps. (Why would the "socialists" bann other "socialists"?) After the war, the SPD was re-established by the Allies. The SPD still exists and currently governs Germany! (>>>Incidentally, Zittelman's party, the FDP, is also currently governing!).
National socialism IS NOT communism IS NOT social democrats, please repeat.
The DAP and the Communist Party both split from the SDP. The DAP became the NSDAP.
The inner circle sources you seem to be unaware of are the Table Talk Memoranda, which Leftists don't like because they underline Hitler's Socialism.
Nice attempt at a strawman at the end, so let me correct you:
Ropespierre's Socialism is a form of Socialism
Marxism is another form of Socialism
Bolshevism is a development of Marxism
Germany's National Socialism is another form of Socialism
Fascism is another form of Socialism, similar but different to Germany's National Socialism
Communism is a nebulous form of Marxist Socialism
They are all Socialism, and they've all been tried, and they're all crap
Hitler was also a zionist
Because he enabled a large jewish population to move to today's Israel through the Haavara agreement?
His grandmother was a charwoman in Vienna. She worked for a well-known family. She had a short affair with one of the sons. Study the rest. 😅
@@antoniescargo1529 conspiracy theory nonsense.
@@antoniescargo1529Marx's granddad was a Rabbi and you should see what he said about the Jews.
Nice one stage thinking you've got there
So you skirted the very edge of saying that Trump is another Hitler. But I laughed outloud when he said Trump was the best president in a hundred years!
"Hitler was a socialist"
is the equivalent to
"a billionaire is a philanthropist and a humanist"
what's next, "slavery was volunteer work" ??
Hitler WAS a socialist.
Hitler was a socialist because he held socialist beliefs and implemented socialist policies like:
*Shrinking Markets Theory
*Labour Theory of Value
*Price Controls, Rent Controls, Minimum Wage
*Centrally Planned Economy
*Abolished constitutional property rights
*Nationalised all trade unions just like Lenin did (The DAF was the largest Trade Union in history)
*Nationalised the Scouts and Guides ffs
He wasn't a Marxist, but Marx didn't come up with Socialism - Socialism was a product of the French Revolution and doesn't necessarily have a class component.
I would suggest you start reading European History around 1750 and keep reading until at least 1950
The modifier is National Socialist, Dictatorship and Military Totalitarian dominance.., the opposite of actual Socialist health and welfare.
But if you are innocent of this information and want to know better, keep going on the first part to demonstrate the requirements of the second, because in other countries "Socialist" is not the local definition of socialim when applied correctly, instead of abusivly.
Opposites in your head, maybe, but not opposites in practice.
26:00 minutes into this video and nothing about A H
It's quite possible to have purely voluntaryist societies. It all comes down to the aggregate level of moral development amongst a participating population. If there's a sufficient proportion of a given populace at a positive level of moral development, the kind of systemic level criminality _(i.e. NAP violation) embodied by states isn't feasible. Any extant criminality would be related to individual, statistical outliers, with little-to-no perchance on the social or civic fabric of the society in question.
Simply put, only people of sound mind and character can form fully free societies amongst one another. So long as they're successful in excluding criminal elements and fending off organized aggression, such societies can be maintained. Of course, systematically free societies & markets wouldn't be perfect, but they'd sure as hell seem utopian compared to statist societies.
See metatrons critique of this argument. Not this schmuk.
Ok who is Ron Craig? 56:17