Hitler's VAMPIRE ECONOMY | TIK Q&A 17
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Marxist-Socialist Günter Reimann was hiding in Germany in the 1930s. He decided to write and publish a book about the Third Reich's economy in 1939. You can get this book (a primary source document) online as a free PDF, or purchase it on Amazon etc. In this video I discuss the document and see where it goes right and wrong, and explain the nature of Hitler's 'Vampire Economy'.
SOURCES AND NOTES will be in the PINNED COMMENT. Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribes...
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
FALL BLAU 1942 - Examining the Disaster of German’s second summer offensive • FALL BLAU 1942 - Exami...
My video titled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
My video titled "Concepts of History: What is History? No seriously, what is it?" • [Out of Date, see desc...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
*Notes, Quotes and Sources/Bibliography*
“Krupp’s firm [armaments] profited more from the armament boom than any other industrial enterprise in Germany. Yet even Herr Krupp is grumbling because he is no longer the absolute master he used to be.” - Günter Reimann Vampire Economy P126
“The position of the manager or “factory leader” is contradictory in theory and in practice. On one hand, he has more authority than before within his factory; he can rule his business by issuing orders which must be obeyed by all his “followers.” On the other hand, he himself is only an infinitesimal part of a gigantic State and military machine. Party and military authorities will interfere with his management, while at the same time making him responsible for difficulties in fulfilling his production program and for dealing with labor troubles, should they arise. He may even be declared unfit for “leadership” if he is not on good terms with Party authorities.” - Günter Reimann Vampire Economy P118
The industrialists were part of the State. Class had been ‘abolished’, and replaced by “factory leaders” and “followers”. Reimann misunderstands this because he doesn’t understand Nazi ideology.
However, The Vampire Economy is a very important primary source document and I recommend you all pick it up (especially because you can get it online for free, PDF).
Also, another quote for you -
“For Mussolini there was no contradiction between Socialism and what would become Fascism. Its was the Socialists who had, for him, betrayed Socialism, not he. In fact, he continued to think himself as a Socialist to the end of his life.” - Farrell, Mussolini A New Life.
“Fascism’s big idea was the corporate state - the so-called Third War between Capitalism and Communism - which would abolish the class war. Both Capitalism and Communism meant class war. In the class war, Capitalism, via the free market, gave the bosses the upper hand, and Communism, via the state, the masses. Fascism, via the corporate state, would incorporate both bosses and masses inside the state and so abolish class war.” - Farrell, Mussolini A New Life.
I absolutely will be following this up in the future because it is necessary to understand how the war was fought, and how the Holocaust happened. The “war socialism” of National Socialist Germany (starting from 1933) has been ignored for long enough. It’s time for historians and history-buffs to take the National Socialist ideology and economy more seriously (see Zitelmann above for more detail on the historiography).
For those who want me to “stick to military history” don’t waste your breath. This is my channel and I’m the one who decides what type of history I will be publishing or not.
For those who think I don’t know what I’m talking about so it’ll be good to hear your alternative theories on how the Free Market economy resulted in the policy of Lebensraum (hint: it doesn’t).
And for those of you who think Socialism isn’t state-control of the economy, or somehow misinterpret that to mean that any State at all is socialist (which is NOT what I’m saying), you have a choice: unsubscribe and live in ignorance, or wake up before you sleepwalk into a dystopian nightmare. Non-private (non-Capitalism) means it’s public. Public means State (as discussed in the video). A group is a public. Any group in charge of the means of production is socialism. Therefore socialism is State-control of the economy.
*Sources*
The books I highly recommend for this topic (in order I recommend you read them) -
Günter Reimann’s “The Vampire Economy”
Tooze’s “Wages of Destruction” (great on the National Socialist economy)
Zitelmann’s “Hitler: The Politics of Seduction” (very good for National Socialist ideology, economy and society, and historiography surrounding it. THIS BOOK IS AMAZING.)
Sources used for the video -
Aly, G. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: How the Nazis Bought the German People.” Verso, 2016. (Original German 2005).
Barkai, A. “Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy.” Yale University Press, 1990.
Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany." Universitat de Barcelona, PDF.
Birchall, I. “The Spectre of Babeuf.” Haymarket Books, 2016.
Brown, A. "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?" Kindle, 2015.
Engels, F “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Written, 1880. Progress Publishers, 1970.
Evans, R. “The Coming of the Third Reich.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2004.
Dilorenzo, T. “The Problem with Socialism.” Regnery Publishing, Kindle 2016.
Farrell, N. "Mussolini: A New Life." Endeavour Press Ltd, Kinde 2015.
Feder, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003.
Feder, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015.
Friedman, M. “Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition.” university of Chicago, Kindle 2002. (originally published in 1962)
Grand, A. "Italian Fascism: It's Origins and & Development." University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
Geyer, M. & Fitzpatrick, S. "Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared." Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2009.
Hazlitt, H. “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics.” Three Rivers Press, 1979. (originally published 1946)
Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). (English translation)
Hobsbawm, E. "The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991." Abacus, 1995.
Hoppe, H. “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.” Kindle.
Hitler. A. “Mein Kampf.” Jaico Books, 2017.
Hitler, A. "Zweites Buch (Secret Book): Adolf Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017.
Kershaw, I. “Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis.” Penguin Books, 2001.
Kershaw, I. “Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison.” Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2003.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume I Book One: The Process of Production of Capital.” PDF of 1887 English edition, 2015.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” PDF of 1894, English edition, 2010.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” PDF, English edition, 2010. (Originally written 1894)
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” Penguin Classics, Kindle edition. (Originally written 1894)
Moorhouse, R. "The Devil's Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941." Random House Group, Ebook (Google Play) 2014.
Mosley, O. "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered." Black House Publishing, Kindle 2019.
Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.
Mussolini, B. “The Doctrine of Fascism.” Kindle, Originally published in 1932.
Newman, M. “Socialism: A Very Short Introduction.” Kindle.
Luxemburg, R. “The Accumulation of Capital.” Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1951. (Originally written in 1913.)
Luxemburg, R. “The National Question” 1910.
Reimann, G. “The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism.” Kindle, Mises Institute, 2007. Originally written in 1939.
Siedentop, L. “Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.” Penguin Books, Kindle.
Smith, A. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Kindle.
Sowell, T. “Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition.” Kindle.
Sowell, T. “The Housing Boom and Bust.” Kindle.
Temin, P. “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s.” From The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 573-593 (21 pages). Jstor.
Tooze, A. “Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of The Nazi Economy.” Penguin Books, 2007.
Zitelmann, R. “Hitler: The Politics of Seduction.” London House, 1999.
The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, Papers and Discussions of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting (Apr., 1911), pp. 347-354
John Maynard Keynes, "National Self-Sufficiency," The Yale Review, Vol. 22, no. 4 (June 1933), pp. 755-769.
(Accessed 04/10/2018)
de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichstagsbrandverordnung
home.wlu.edu/~patchw/His_214/_handouts/Weimar%20constitution.htm
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution
www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php
www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm
For my full list of WW2 and related books, please see the link - docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for watching, and supporting, and the abuse… bye for now.
@Kiyo - haha thanks, but it's not actually about destroying them, it's about felling the idea that National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy didn't have states that controlled their economy (or that Socialism isn't state-control of MOP, or that it HAS to be about the workers - Marxism). You cannot explain World War 2 or the Holocaust, or even the Hitler Youth, if it was a free market economy.
@Kiyo Shinguji Like with vampires, the light tends to do the destruction for you.
Keep shining.
thank you for this video and to haters who will sure come and try to attack you- "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" quote from George Santayana
How can you make this video without ever having heard of state capitalism? Instead of saying that a guy who has likely studied this specific subject far longer than you is wrong to fit your narrative how about you actually look into the minutia of what you're saying? Also "The second a state takes control of industry it is no longer capitalism" well again it is state capitalism, but even so almost every country on the planet has universal healthcare. Does this mean because the healthcare industry might be completely under control of the state that it is no longer capitalism in said state? NO. Germany was not ever during WW2 under a complete state controlled economy or even close and you know it. I can't trust what you say anymore. Having someone explain something they seem to not understand as if I don't understand it is fucking obnoxious.
@Frantick - "state capitalism" is not a thing. You cannot have state non-state, which is what state capitalism is. It is an oxymoron.
If you have "state capitalism", you don't have a free economy. You actually have socialism.
God, I knew Hitler was evil, but a vampire too?! It just gets worse!
I guess you could say... he _sucked_
@@TheImperatorKnight Buuuh Boooh!! get him of the stage!! :D
Then who was Buffy and who was Blade in this analogy? :)
@@horatio8213 - Buffy is USA + UK and Blade is USSR
that guy was a real jerk
The socialist on my social media feeds won't watch, but, I'm sharing this, anyway. You are a valuable asset on TH-cam.
Thats because saying Nazi germany was socialist is just wrong, see three arrows' vid: th-cam.com/video/hUFvG4RpwJI/w-d-xo.html
@@PrivateDoge It depends on what variation you still consider the same ideology, as National Socialist Germany practiced a lesser form of corporatism - which derives from syndicalism and syndicalism derives from socialism.
@@pilenai No but the main point is that it doesnt matter. The Nazi economy is not something we can truly compare to our current beliefs because it was solely focuse on war, so they took action for this goal. Sometimes this meant doing something 'socialist' or sometimes doing something 'capitalist'. But the governemtn didn't care about the economic ideology, they just wanted to further their goals.
@@pilenai what variation ? It’s still socialism.
@@enema6222 Yes, it's a variation of socialism
The fact that I’m learning this on TH-cam is really frightening. This should have been taught to every single high school student since 1945!
Apparently, some did get taught this. But I didn't, and I think the majority didn't either. This is why I now say there's a difference between 'school' and 'education'
Please. It is taught to every high school student, just 95% can't be bothered to pay attention. I was indoctrinated with this same communism and nazism are the same when I was in school in the 70's and 80's. But I can think for myself and see who the beneficiaries are. Nazism benefited the capitalist Krupps, BMW and IG Farben share owners, many of whom got citizenship in the states. Communism benefited the people of the Soviet Union at least enough that they fought and died like hell for it.
BTW, you know who benefited the most from German capital during WWII? Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush and grandfather of George W Bush... historynewsnetwork.org/article/8354
@@sageemma they didnt fight for communism lol, they fought because they were being invaded and threatened with genocide. Big difference. I doubt they even thought much about the communist ideology whilst the extermination of their entire ethnicity was being threatened. You have a VERY romantic view of communism and the soviet union lol. I wonder where you fall on the political spectrum...
Except for unfortunately Tik adds way too much opinion and treats it as fact. You will catch him doing it subtly. He will explain something as an opinion and use words like could or maybe. Then 10 minutes later he will recall it saying something like "remember earlier where we learned that ______?" And from there treat that opinion as a fact. He also uses his interpretations of what writers really meant in their books as facts as well. I really enjoy his videos and love how he dissects his topics in great length but it's very important to remember that these videos are roughly 50% fact and 50% opinion. The one thing that does irk me is sometimes he gets far too rigid on certain topics and defends Hitler's military decisions far too often. He is in no way a fan of a Hitler, he just gives him a bit more respect when it comes to his role as Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht.
Wow. The way that the German citizens worked around the price fixing is interesting. Great info as always!
There's plenty more examples in the book if you're interested. As I say, you can find it online for free
Price fixing under Roosevelt’s new deal was worse or as strict. All gold had to be surrendered except for wedding rings. It’s rediclouse to single out the German economy because everyone was doing the same.
I read an article and spoke to some Russians who experienced the Ruble collapse in the 90s. They had similar stories. It became a barter economy and there was a lot of hoarding and price gouging going on so the govt. attempted price controls.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs
The use of gold as a world means of exchange is an interesting study. In the movie Goldfinger, James Bond was sent to investigate illegal gold smuggling that Goldfinger was doing to take advantage of gold price arbitrage. The various countries strictly controlled the amount of gold in public hands because they needed to know the exact amt. of gold in existence in order to determine its global value to use for trade payments. I thought it was interesting to see this explanation in the film. At the time, 1963, the US was on the gold standard.
fazole Gold is an effective medium of exchange because it is a rare metal and an irresponsible central bank can not inflate it by printing excessive amounts. The difference between money and currency is that money has intrinsic value (eg gold coin). In the case of the Great Depression it was caused by removing currency from circulation. Gold also bypasses Government and the controls of banks which upset rulers. We might need crypto currencies as well as gold to get around the banking cartels. The proper way to issue currency is to measure population growth and economic productivity growth from for instance new railways or output from better blast furnaces and print extra currency in proportion and then inject it as part of Government spending. Unfortunately now central banks print currency rather than treasury but issue it to private banks at ultralight low interest. This ensures everyone is generally in debt since savers are not required under this system. Banks borrow and on lend not from depositors but from the reserve.
This system is what Hitler didn’t like. In part because usuary on a massive scale but also the allied powers used it to control trade.
In fact he was right. Central banks have a far worse history than treasuries at over printing money.
Note, traditionally Russian Rubel under Tsar was 100% backed by Gold. This made the Tsar immune to manipulation by foreign banks and currency speculators.
The best explanation I have EVER heard about the differences between National Socialism, Fascism, Marxism and Socialism. This video should be required viewing for every Poli Sci major!!!
Wow thank you, sir :)
Why would a video made by a hobbyist dilettante be required to be viewed in postgraduate curriculums ?
@@lukebruce5234 If you have to ask the question...
@@lukebruce5234 because it does not have the Marxist bias of a University professor behind it. At least, it tends to go that way in north America, not sure about Europe.
Because he's brilliant. Saucer of milk, sir?@@lukebruce5234
One of your best videos. Bang on description of the Nazi economy and the different types of socialism.
Thank you Alan! More to come on this 🙂
If you’re in Australian or British person in the 1950s you would remember price controls on things like bread and milk. It wasn’t unusual.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs It certainly was needed to mitigate the Great Depression.
Dan Morgan The point is that the German economy under National Socialism wasn’t unusual in theme of regulation and price fixing of goods and Labour. The regulation of Labour and prices under Roosevelt’s new deal was actually harsher in many ways. The Great Depression was caused by the US Federal Reserve removing nearly 40% of recirculating money in 4 years over some inept theory it would toughen up weak banks. If Hitler had of done that he’d be pariahtised. The US Fed had been created only in 1913 (in action latter) after hundreds of years of being unconstitutional. Till then US treasury created money and injected by spendIng. It was debt free. If you criticize US economic planning in the same way you will see little difference between the interventionism of the NS Germany and elsewhere.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Your dates/claims are incorrect, also the claim of a "debt free" circulation is an oxymoron.
can you do a full video series on the nazi economy and one on the soviet economy because theres a lot of misinformation surrounding both
That's the plan. I've been working on this when I get spare time since my original NS was S videos (and the horrible backlash I got). I'm determined to correct the distortions now, or at least get us heading in the correct direction.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thank you, your videos on this so far have been very insightful
Want to really have fun? Write a paper on Italy's Fascist economy. (Yes, I did that) Fortunitely years ago.
While making the video, kindly don't forget the financial assistance (in the form of soft loan, investment) that Hitler got from France, UK and USA. Without that, Hitler wasn't able to build his war machinery. And while don't forget how Chamberlain and Daladier forced Czechoslovakia to submit its highly fortified border and its very good arms factories to Hitler without firing a bullet.
@Lynex I think the _”out of thin air”_ argument is... generally used in the defense of a very specific theory of money.
Class was a concept from before Marx. Marx worked with it but didn't invent it.
Good point.
So was socialism.
@@TheSlyngel Marx's main contribution to socialism as a body of work was to apply the scientific method to the concepts. It's why (with the possible exception of the US) prior forms of socialism have fallen out of favor. You still get gasps of Utopian socialism in the US. So called "Hippy communes" and other intentional communities are built on some pretty Utopian concepts and have pretty much failed as a result.
@@danmorgan3685 Yeah that's true. Not realy sure wheter he succeded though.
@@TheSlyngel I think he succeeded. His scientific approach has been adopted even by the lowest, mouth breathing capitalists. Business runs in a much more orderly manner and the capitalist class has largely adopted conflict theory and economic class.
Don't be confused by the field called "economics". That's just the study of capitalism and nothing to do with its application. Those guys are a bunch of airheads. They generate papers, eat lunch and are not expected to produce much of anything of use. They mostly dress up old neo-fascists like the Austrian school with the thinnest veneer of credibility.
Thank you for very clear definitions of these groups. So often they get tangled up in the way people talk about them making it hard to separate one from the other. Another excellent video.
Hey TIK, I seen just a few scarce videos on your channel and I been just looking for this next level of content and coverage. Insane with the comprehensive depth. You have a fan for life. Thank you so much. It's great to realize some of these myths we all used to accept or not understand get told the way it was.
This period of history for me is so important to understand and try to comprehend. It's a time period where things really were at a 🤝 ND blowing level comparted to now. Humanity is so important and how easily it was tossed around then just astounds me.
"The army! The Gestapo! The SS! .... Actually... i'm not going to get into that."
Lol, nice. I think you dodged a bullet there.
I started rofling
@Russian Disinformation "It is not REAL socialism"
I so very much like that you clarify the underlying concepts (e.g., capitalism) precisely ... often I'm in a conversation with a friend who's ranting against something they've named "capitalism" and yet, properly defined, they're actually focusing on something quite different. I'm clear that clearly defined concepts are the foundation of clear thought, yet clarity is too rare. Even so, as concept go, "capitalism" seems exceptionally nebulous in most people's minds. Love it or hate it, a prerequisite is to be clear what one is talking about. So, you're helping with that too, thank you! And then, as someone who was raised German and whose great-uncle was, to her dismay, a devoted National Socialist during the war, I extra appreciate the insights you're providing me as to that time-frame in Germany.
I think this is why they're trying to get rid of definitions in the US - definitions, math, and education make it possible to refute the government's lies. And, in their religion, thought and definition divide us from their God: 2 + 2 = whatever their God says. As a friend of mine used to sing in parody back in the 1970s, "Everything is everything, in its own way." Yeah, it's been going on for that long.
Don't judge your uncle too harshly - most people, despite their denials, would have done the same. People are herd animals.
My capitalist business plan: support content creator with 5 bucks a month on quora, ask a question and get 30 minutes of entertainment/knowledge catered to you personally once a month. Great deal? I think so!
Thank you for answering my question in the video from earlier this week!
No worries sir! Sorry it took so long to get around to answering
@@TheImperatorKnight It was well worth the wait!
Thanks so much for this vid! Without this I might have fallen into reiman’s trap/own mistakes. As I’m not well versed at all in economics, I was too focussed on trying to figure out and smooth the economics and nearly fell into the trap of not looking up Rieman’s politics and history, I almost trusted him completely.
No jokes, no lies, all truth, I thank you for preventing me from forgetting the main, most important part of research: never trust your source completely; look them up and cross reference as much as possible.
Once again, thank you TIK. It’s much appreciated
I love your series on economics. Very enlightening and helped me develop an argument about command economies in peacetime and wartime. Cliffsnotes, in international total war, your economic capability to survive the demands of the temporary and escalating command economy, is directly related to some calculation representing the relative “freeness” and relative size of your peacetime economy
Everytime I see you talking about capitalism/sociialism etc. I am realy afraid to go down the comment section. Even with my biohazard chemical suit on. I am suprised you still dare to go down there :O
Anyways keep up the good work, you are my favorite youtuber! :D
My mentality now is - those who aren't willing to listen or continue to deny the reality of Fascism and National Socialism aren't worth worrying about. So I'm going to carry on with the Nazi economy and Holocaust even if the comment section of every video turns into a bloodbath. So far (first hour or so), this one hasn't, but I'm expecting the Marxists and National Socialists to start brigading soon when word gets out.
You two are very brave humans. Politics can be quite inflammable. Have a nice day.
@Comrade Kabo okay "comrade" kabo lmao
@Comrade Kabo yeah im sure of course he is just because he doesn't agree with your ideological bullshit "comrade"
German communist in hiding: Writes a book about the Nazi economy but is a communist while doing so
TIK more than 80 years later: Now this looks likle a job for me, so everybody just follow me...
We need a little controversy
........'cause it feels so empty without me.....
@@TheImperatorKnight +1,000 internets for knowing the correct lyric!
Great analysis! I never thought capitalism was confusing- it’s is more confusing when economists try to justify state socialism and fascism as something other than what these economic policies really are.
The problem is that people unconsciously scream at the idea of nobody being in control.
They do not realise that being in control of everything means being placed at such a distance that you cannot have the information that people trading between themselves base their decisions on.
And any determinate system cannot function with garbage info as inputs.
The whole enterprise of government control of everything is a fallacy.
Thank you for the clarification. More people should watch your video.
Love these kind of talks, thanks a lot for this.
TY for all your hard work and content contributions.
I disagree with you on the definition of capitalism and most dictionaries do as well. Capitalism is defined first and foremost by private ownership, not necessarily private control. For instance, in many capitalist nations, those who own the companies (the shareholders) are not in control of the companies (the managers are).
If your logic were true, all nations during WW2 were socialist, even the US since the US companies didn’t produce what they wanted, they produced what the US government required of them. That is obviously ridiculous; the difference between the nations wasn’t who controlled the factories, it was who owned them.
In a socialist nation, ownership is in the hands of the government, the Soviet Union’s factories produced tanks. In capitalist nations, ownership was private, i.e General Motors, Rolls Royce, Krupp, IG Farben, etc produced various war materials FOR the government.
Perhaps in the nazi utopia private ownership would be abolished, then it would become a socialist nation, but in the Germany of the 1930’s private firms ultimately owned the means of production allowing them to profit off of them, thus making nazi Germany a capitalist economy.
Edit:
To expand a bit more on the difference between the war economies of the USA, USSR and Nazi Germany, in the USSR (a country we can all agree was socialist) you had the government's own design bureau designing pieces of equipment (such as the T-34) and then those govt designed tanks went on to be produced in the government-owned factories and there was no profit being made by a private owner.
In the US (a country we can all agree was capitalist), private companies employed their own designers to come up with weapons that while not directly designed by the government, were made to government specifications; these were then produced in the privately owned factories and SOLD to the government for profit.
Germany's war economy, in my opinion, if far closer to the US model than the Soviet model, this is especially apparent when looking at tank production where Henschel and Porche employed private designers to come up with tank designs that then competed for the government contract. The tanks ultimately chosen were then produced in the privately owned factories and SOLD to the government for profit.
To put in HOI terms, germany went to war economy in the early 30 while the US stayed on civilian economy until 1940-ish. :)))))
Yup. I tried to explain this to him and he seemed to indicate that I was a dumb Marxist using my own Marxist definitions when ironically he's using his own to fit his political narrative.
That's a good point about the USA. US economy in WWII had price controls, state awards of military contracts, state direction of production, rationing.... It wasn't a socialist economy though. Most people would call it a "war economy".
Yes but if u own a company but u literally have someone else decide everything for u and u don’t even get the profits. Also there is a difference between a response war time economy versus a permanent state control over the private sector. It’s kind like what Hitler said when he stated he doesn’t need to absorb the companies they are completely at the mercy of the state. Because in the United States, companies for better or for worse have protection rights even against the government while in Nazi Germany there wasn’t. The Nazis removed the amendment to German Republic constitution that protected private property. If the United States removed the second amendment then it would become a socialist nation. Because having private property is not the same as being protected to have private property. That’s why anarchy capitalism is impossible. Because if there is no state to protect ur property rights then u might as well not have those rights. Rules are only as good as the ability to enforce them.
@@kingorange7739 But you see, the government didn't control everything. The companies were largely free to come up with their own designs and produce however they saw fit. They could profit from the sale of weapons but weren't allowed to "cash in" due to the mefo bills system (basically a sort of war bonds).
While it is true that there is a difference between govt intervention in wartime and in peacetime, that was my whole point. Germany mobilised its war economy far earlier than the US, but when it did, it was essentially the same system, or at rhe very least far far closer to the US system than the socialist command economy of the USSR.
You can't just say that because the government had a lot of power to enforce how privately own companies could profit from the sale of weapons to the government, that means that it's the same thing as a system where privately owned factories don't exist and everything is government owned. I mean, you can, but then you might as well discard the notion of words having a meaning.
@@Paultarco Thats why to me, the Nazi economy wasn't completely socialist but it's not capitalism either. It's more of a hybrid of the two. Yes one could argue that the Nazis were just doing a wartime economy before everyone else. However to me it doesn't explain the price fixes at a point where breaking those policies could see one sent to a concentration camp. Plus using that argument. Germany began trying to build back up it''s military even before the Nazis took power. That was one reason Weimar Republic got along well with the Soviets. It was because they were testing German designed weapons and in particular tanks in the Soviet Union in exchange for a share of the technology.
Very insightful analysis...thank you.
You're very welcome!
Your best poli/econ post TIK. Interesting that the first link I found with that book was the Austrian School Mises Institute. I've always said that the Nazi economy would have eventually collapsed on its own from clumsy State management (Venezuelacized itself you might say) even had there not been a war, probably by the late 50s.
Thank you John. After all the criticism in previous videos I wanted to solidify the points and define everything so that there was no real comeback regarding the definitions at least. It's led me to some interesting places, and I've discovered a lot of interesting pieces of information which substantially changed my perception of WW2. I'll be delivering this info in future videos.
And yes, the clumsy State management may explain a few things... :)
From what I've read, the nazi state control apparatus looks less like a centrally controlled economy and more like a pile of haphazard kludges, conflicting bureaucracies and emergency fixes on top of an oligopolistic industry. I don't disagree with the idea that Nazis wanted a racial control of the economy and did by and large try to eliminate private control... But the end result was mostly a huge conflicting mess, which I think is largely responsible for how hard it is to understand Nazi economy
What I find so remarkable is, only 20 years after winning the war,Ted Heath set us on the path to subservience to the EU.
That is not interesting, the Austrian Mises School and other links provided and pushed by the Koch brothers is clearly the extent of everything TIK has ever read about economy.
Fantastic video. Good to see someone trying to discuss difficult subjects instead of sweeping everything under the carpet. Your definitions of Socialism, Marxism, Fascism and Nazism were spot on.
Thanks! Glad you agree! More to come on this topic
I recently discovered your channel and am VERY impressed with it. Degrees and formal accreditation mean nothing compared to hard work and clarity of mind in the presentation and documentation of a piece. You literally have segments on how to read and asses history that is a solid guide for the newcomer. I wish nothing but many more viewers for your work as you cover things that are important for people to know and think about.
I am about half way into this video as I write this. One thing that has struck me is how similar an action is going on today through regulatory means, usually in the name of the environment in some form. The economic system described would ultimately collapse, wonder if that is covered as I continue to listen?
One of the books I read many decades ago was Albert Speer's "Inside The Third Reich". We can talk later about which parts were true, or at least honest memory, and which parts were "I don't want to be hung for War Crimes". In it he talks about how after he was made Minister of Armaments he brought about a vast loosening of the regulations inside Germany and production increased vastly just from that. It will be interesting to see if that comes up in the next 16 min.
You are doing very good work here. Please continue.
Thank you so much for this video! I´m a german, 52 years "young", very interested in eoconomics and history. Your explanation is the first one in my life, wich leads me to understand the differences between marxism, n-socialism and fashism! thumps up! :)
Do you mean GDR vs. GFR? The oeconomy?
Thank you for the recommendation
Reading through The Vampire Economy, it's amazing what a basket-case the German economy was in 1939 - the whole text gives the impression of a country that's a few months from toppling over altogether. But for the wars of plunder, the whole edifice must surely have collapsed before 1941.
Hitler is actually trying to save the world - TIK 2019
:)
Nobody thinks of themselves as "evil". We all think they're doing the "right thing". Hitler was no exception to that... which is probably the biggest lesson in all of history.
@Trans Am That's exactly it. The idea that everyone should be able to do what they want, so long as they don't harm others, has been lost to these people. They feel like they should be able to dictate to others how everyone should live their lives. And they call this clear domination over others 'freedom'. It is not freedom, it's slavery by another name - 'socialism'.
@@TheImperatorKnight 'Nobody thinks of themselves as "evil".'
I disagree. That may be true for those who are motivated by ideology or religion to commit a certain act, but I think very few serial killers, drug dealers or pedophiles think that their actions are morally good. They just don't care and put personal gain first.
@@keyboardwarrior9258 The psychopathic and sociopathic are incapable of making moral judgements and distinctions. So most of the time, yes, it doesn't even occur to them, or they decide to "be evil" or to commit evil acts in the name of _whatever_ cause they've latched on to because they lack empathy and don't really understand what it means.
So TIK's statement is still true.
@@jamestheotherone742 You are contradicting yourself.
You claim ''they decide to "be evil"''
And then say that TIK's statement ('Nobody thinks of themselves as "evil"') is true.
See the problem?
The whole ''Fascism and Nazism is not the same thing'' is still not known for many people, and I think its partly because especially in Eastern World, people were taught it was the same thing by the Soviets who just called everyone ''Fascist'' regardless if they were one or not. Soviets (purposely) just used it as a slang word for everyone who was their enemy, so Finland was Fascist, Italy was Fascist, Germany was Fascist, and now some even call Ukraine Fascist too. I think they did it , because ''national socialism'' sounds a little too similar to their own ideology, so they tried to mask it with just blasting ''they are fascists!'' to hide that from their population. And it worked, 70 years later many in Eastern World still believe this nonsense
That is probably it. And they also said that Fascism was capitalist. This means that everything that wasn't Marxism was 'Fascism' and thus 'evil', and the distortion lives on to this day. The reality was that Marxism, Fascism and National Socialism were all versions of the same thing.
TiK….. I appreciate how you distinguish between the different forms of government. You have provided some points of clarity for discussing Fascism, National Socialism and Communism. They do all seem to be a dictator's way to justify taking and holding power. By this I mean that the philosophy the leaders of these governments espoused was not nearly as important as their having control and power. In some respects the ideology was created to meet the political needs of their situation.... the rest was just setting up the government to maintain their control. I am also wondering about how you fit labor unions and cooperatives into your paradigm of economics. Are they socialist, because its seems like they would not be, from what I took from your essay here. I really do appreciates the sense and reasoning you bring to the topics.
The problem with his definition is that Yiddish is classified as Germanic, so in my opinion,
National Socialism = Religious-Socialism.
TIK, thank you, that has to be one of the best explanations of the subtle differences.
Glad to hear! More to come on this subject :)
Holy crap this is an amazing video, like it genuinely clears up the differences between fascism, socialism etc is amazing. Good work!
Thanks Matt! I do want to go into more detail about the differences between Fascism and National Socialism in the future, but this is a start :)
I really want to thank you for your efforts in replying to my comments. This will help me a lot in furthering my knowledge and understanding. Although I am arguing with you on some points, I find everything thing to do with your channel stimulating and informative. Please do not be put off by negative people who comment on your work. My only interest is to explore further into these subjects, and you have helped me.
Good influencial book to read to understand the whole socialism/marxism thing: Prussianism and Socialism by Oswald Spengler
Thank you very very much. I have just checked it out and have ordered it. I think it will end up being very useful...
🤔🤔🤔🤔
🐕🎺?
@@TheImperatorKnight it's actually hilarious that (and I'm not sure if this is in Prussianism and Socialism but most certainly is in The Decline of the West) Spengler stated the Nazi state would not like more than a decade past the end of the war.
High quality videos man. My hat of to you and your knowledge, it is good stuff!
I'm not very far into the video, nor have I actually read this book, but I am a Marxist-Socialist myself and think I can clear up why Reimann "doesn't realize" that capitalism is private control of the economy. Simply put, private ownership is explicitly rejected by Marx and Engels as being the defining feature of capitalism.
"I am familiar with capitalist production as a social form, or an economic phase; capitalist private production being a phenomenon which in one form or another is encountered in that phase. What is capitalist private production? Production by separate entrepreneurs, which is increasingly becoming an exception. Capitalist production by joint-stock companies is no longer private production but production on behalf of many associated people. And when we pass on from joint-stock companies to trusts, which dominate and monopolize whole branches of industry, this puts an end not only to private production but also to planlessness." - Fredrick Engels
So, Reimann is well aware that private control has been lost, he just doesn't care because that's not a part of the Marxist understanding of capitalism. You disagreeing with him on that is *fine*, but it's not Reimann's ignorance or lack of understanding that leads him to say what he says.
"Simply put, private ownership is explicitly rejected by Marx and Engels as being the defining feature of capitalism."
Thank you for pointing this out, because this is interesting and I'm going to have to think this over and figure out why he would think that.
I know this is going to sound like it, but what I'm about to say is not me having a dig at you or Marxists in general, it's more stating an observation I've made recently. I have honestly been wondering if anything Marx said was correct, or not contradicted by something else he/Engels said elsewhere, or if the logic doesn't always end in knots.
As a big example of what I mean, they wanted a state-less (the state would "die" after it was created) and class-less society... which is anarcho-capitalism. Since without state control (group), you have private control (non-group), which is capitalism. Capitalism without a state is anarcho-capitalism.
Now you might say it would be more anarcho-syndicalism... but a syndicate is a group. In anarchy, you don't have a group. So it's not socialism/syndicalism at all.
And don't get me started on the Labour Theory of Value (which was outdated in Marx's time).
My interpretation of Marxism is that it was purely designed to make the world burn, because they despised the world. It wasn't designed to create a new functioning society, but one which would divide and divide over and over in a constant revolution.... because they wanted to see the world burn. This is why even Lenin had to drop Marxist economics when he got into power.
Marx/Engels and co were social-revolutionaries, not economists. And that's what mattered. Simple ideas like "steal from the rich!" are promoted, encouraging people to get angry with their fellow man, and choose violence (theft) over cooperation (trade). Thus, what mattered more was the revolution, not the economics. And this is exactly the conclusion Lenin came to prior to power, and why he so despised Bernstein when he realised Marxist economics didn't work.
But this is just my current intepretation. I haven't solidified this yet.
So tell me, why do you feel entitled to rob, murder and enslave people?
@@hermitoldguy6312 😂😂😂 Dude chill
@Ricky Torres. Theft is a crime. Conspiracy to steal is a crime. Socialists are de facto breaking the law.
@Ricky Torres, I'm "chill", but I'm also in agreement with Hermit Oldguy. Theft is immoral, and that's exactly what Socialism wants - to steal from the "Bourgeoisie", and when they put up a fight, kill or enslave them. This is why socialism (historically) leads to violence.
BUT I think the problem is that most socialists either feel like "capitalism" is oppressing them or stealing from them (it's not, but they think it is because they don't understand that trade is not stealing), and so they feel entitled to steal and murder. They're blinded by their anger.
The good news is that, when you sit down and talk it through with them and explain the logic of what they're saying, the whole theory starts to come apart. It's not a 'nice' theory, and the lies they've been told "workers should get a fair wage" are hard to break unless you know how. ("How is 100% taxation a 'fair wage'?" and "if a worker doesn't think he's getting paid enough, or doesn't like his job, he's free to leave it at any time and get a better job")
The bad news is that a lof of people don't listen, or don't think things through when they do listen. Economics is also very a complicated topic so it's hard to explain complexity simply. This is why socialism has the advantage in recruiting people because it's not based on economics, but utopian dreams.
This is an exceptional channel I cant believe this is not further discussed
Thank you for an interesting and informative video.
What do you think of the Brittish war economy, was it socialist?
There were a lot of price controls, government control of factories etc.
A Black Market is a free market inside a state-controlled economy. The British had a Black Market, just like many societies today have Black Markets for drugs and other commodities.
Therefore the British economy in WW2 was not a capitalist economy. I would say it was certainly more socialist than what it was before the war, although not as socialist as it was after Labour got in at the end of the war.
@@TheImperatorKnight : Yes but that is just state capitalism which is what happens when the state owns the means of production and decides who does what with what and when. For it to be socialism the factories would actually have to be owned by the workers and they along with their local communities would be deciding what is produced and what happens with it. In Russia the people made a revolution to own the means of production directly which is exactly what they did in many areas until the bolshevik counter revolution which then nationalized the means of production which then of course was the end of socialism in the Soviet Union.
I am quite surprised that you believe undemocratic or even dictators when they call their systems socialist as i would expect you would be aware that we don't have democratic outcomes in most western nations and our leaders keep calling it democracies. Their leaders lie to their citizens and ours to us and when we believe ours when they agree with foreign dictators that should be quite the clue.
State capitalism is state non-state. It's an oxymoron invented by the Left to hide the true meaning of Socialism: state control of the economy. As I explained in the video, a worker-GROUP controlling the means of production is just a fancy way of saying state control of the economy. State = public, meaning group. Please see the video.
"bolshevik counter revolution"
I'm not even going to bother addressing this. The Bolsheviks weren't capitalist.
@@TheImperatorKnight The "true meaning of Socialism"? TIK what are you on about - there is no 'true meaning of Socialism' - for there to be a true meaning that means it would need to gain acceptance by a large amount of the people who advocate it or practice it or write about it- which doesn't seem to be the case. These ideals - no matter what they are - aren't concrete. That's not how history works nor is it how society works, they're sprawling and detailed, with no real center other than whomever the first schmuck to talk about it happened to be, and more often than not his iteration is going to be largely irrelevant for the present circumstances of the times so dredging up his say on the matter is good for coffeehouse debates and little else.
Even all this is in retrospect, because sheer practicality renders any ideological scruples largely moot and this is often simplified, moved aside, or otherwise disregarded for sheer simplicity's sake when talking about history or political science. You can't just say "this is the true meaning of Socialism/Fascism/Marxism/Socialism/Anarchism(okay that one might be a bit of a different argument)" - because there's nothing "true" about them. They're amoebas, warped with the passage of time and the grand game of telephone we call society/civilization. You should know this. You're starting to talk like a crazy person, all of these absolutes. All of these ideological boxes - "The Left want this.... the Right want that" as if they're monolithic enterprises instead of a mob of disparate penguins grouped together only by a shared sense of survival in numbers and a roughly uniform set of plumage to differentiate one band from the other.
Listen, the prime target for a recruitment into a cult is the person who thinks "I could never be susceptible to joining a cult." I think you're falling prey to a cult of the mind, which is even more insidious because it is so much more personal. The cult of the mind is the belief that the way you see things now is the way things are in actuality - in reality - objectively, instead of the subjective accumulation of ideas and experiences that are due to change with every passing hour. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you have it all figured out to a 'T' - but I've met a lot of people who've come off confident in their understanding of the world and they either realize in time that they were full of shit or years later they're still talking about yesterday when they'd 'figured it out' and the world had passed them by and self-deception was more of a lynch-pin in that worldview than anything else.
You're setting yourself up for a fall, not externally - there will be no catastrophe that anyone else can see but it'll be within and you will see it. The moment you said "The LEFT/RIGHT/WHOEVER propagated this lie to hide the TRUE meaning of..." is when I knew you'd truly disappeared up your own ass - because you're equating to conspiracy which is likely explained by the muddy waters of historical perception and interpretation. That's not quite as sexy, though, I know. I enjoyed your stuff, TIK - I've been waiting and seeing if I should do the whole Patreon thing again but I don't even want to be subscribed anymore. No skin off your nose, I know. Nor mine, really - I'll still get your videos popping up regardless, but it's a level of tacit support to this channel which is increasingly becoming a platform for narrow-mindedness. Not even necessarily ideologically or politically motivated narrow-mindedness, but just in general, and I don't want to give it any level of support if I can make the choice. I don't support people who think they know everything about anything. Because they're always full of shit.
@@TheImperatorKnight the state is the tool used by the ruling class to enforce their power, capitalism has a ruling class, therefore it needs a state. Your definition of state being a "group" makes no sense. Capitalism didn't start as an idea, it evolved out of feudalism and mercantilism and the state for obvious reasons was included with it, you can't have capitalism without the state enforcing the rule of the capitalist class. You can't have capitalism without the state stealing the peasants' lands and tools and forcing them to work for wages for capitalists; the aquisition and protection of the newly stolen property requires state violence.
Edit: and even by your definition of state, if a piece of private property isn't 100% owned by a single person, it's a state all of the sudden. 2 people owning a home together for renting is a state.
Nixon tried wage and price controls in the early 1970s. It didn't work, grocery stores invented new cuts of meat, to get around the rules that Congress never voted to do. Price controls never work. Controls will always lead to serious inflation in Nixon's case. Jerry Ford was left to deal with it.
The lessons of history are never learned by those who need to learn them most.
Thanks- this was an interesting discussion-I’ve read dozens of books about World War II but not much on this specific subject. Keep up the good work!👍
There is no one agreed upon definition of capitalism. Private control of the economy is not always capitalistic, such existed under feudalism as well. Contrariwise State capital would still maintain the capitalistic exploitation of wage labour, but the ownership by the capitalists would be 'collectivized' under the state. Such phenomenon happens under wartime conditions as we have seen in WW1 and WW2 .
"There is no one agreed upon definition of capitalism."
Yes there is. It's private control of the means of production.
"Private control of the economy is not always capitalistic, such existed under feudalism as well."
Feudalism isn't capitalism as it had serfs who were tied to the land. They were thus not in a free economy and didn't have private control of the means of production.
"State capital would..."
State capitalism = state non-state. It is an oxymoron that doesn't exist, as I explained in the video.
"but the ownership by the capitalists would be 'collectivized' under the state. Such phenomenon happens under wartime conditions as we have seen in WW1 and WW2 ."
Yup. A 'black market' is a free market. If you have a black market, you haven't got capitalism.
@@TheImperatorKnight Being really confident that you're right doesn't change the fact that you're provably wrong :P
@@TheImperatorKnight Please explain how USA ceased to be capitalist state under New Deal and during World War Two.
When you use extremely narrow definition, like the one you prefer to use, then you're right. However your definition is neither the only one nor the most commonly used.
@@TheImperatorKnight Louis XIV privately owned all of France! Does this make him a capitalist? By your kiddy definition it does!
Take this all back to basics. If you have a garage sale at your house, and the mayor of your town says everything you sell at your garage sale must have a price that is approved by the mayor, you will be a very unhappy person. To see this on a national level, look at Venezuela right now
AS ALWAYS ENTERTAINING AND INFORMATIVE! THANKS TIK!
These economy videos are a nice reminder that even the best historians can have ideological blinders and that being good at one thing doesn't necessarily mean being good at another, related thing.
I'm not a communist btw.
I think this was excellently structured and explained.
It definitely is real socialism. It worked like most socialist countries work.
Hush
garbage.
Wow! It's always great to come across someone who really knows his material. Thanks for a great video.
Specifically referring to situations described by Gunter Reimann (8:30-14:30), if it weren't Nazi Germany, I'd say, "Welcome to the Soviet Union." It was very much the same there.
State Capitalism is the economic model of Fascism. It is a hybrid. Marxist economic theory and social theory need to be distinguished , the economic theory is much more rigorous and useful. State control using the cover of decentralized private enterprise is an old model.
Good distinctions between the social and political elements and the independent quality of xenophobia, with its definition of who "us" is.
"State Capitalism is the economic model of Fascism. It is a hybrid."
I mentioned this in the video. You cannot have "State" "non-state (capitalism)". It's not possible.
TIK ¿And the State Companies, like in latin America during the 60’s, for example CAP, Codelco and others?
Well discussed. The mechanics of the centralized economies of this period are fascinating , as is the allegiance in both the Soviet Union and Germany of intelligent, sincere utopians.
What is the old punch line?, "I may be crazy , but I'm not stupid."
your explanation is the best I've heard ever, TIKle my fancy
"Hitler nationalised the Economy"
Well yes, but actually no.
"Hitler was a fascist"
Well no, but actually no.
That's what i can gather from this video
Welcome to human science where the right answer is "yes, but actually no" or "depends"
@@matheusimon7316 less like the correct answer and more like "you can't boil down this complex system evolving over time into a simple yes/no answer to this question".
National socialism by definition is a TYPE of fascism as it meets the minimum standard of Ultra-nationalism, Populism and Palingenesis. All the other crap about authoritarianism, totalitarianism, racial spergatism, economic controls, cult of personality etc, is not unique to Fascism and can be found in western republics, ancoms, and full blown communist movements.
Most commonly Fascist economies apply a corporatist economic system which is not total control of the economy like the USSR but at the same time has way more government oversight compared to liberal democracies, ultimately it boils down to the regulation of interest groups vs the power of the state.
Thank you, this has open my mind to the real truth of socialism. It is helping me understand the parts I though I knew and could not understand. Good work and please keep up the good work
It was national socialism. Socialism for the ethnic Germans at the expense (abuse) of other nations such as Poles, Czechs, and other Slavic and Soviet nations.
The Czechs were treated pretty well under Germany all things considered especially under Heydrich. They could access the exact same welfare benefits as German workers and could marry Germans with the caveat that a Czech woman who married a German man became legally German and a German woman who married a Czech man became legally Czech. As for Poland as late as 1938, the Germans were offering an anti Soviet Alliance with them in exchange for Danzig and a railroad through the corridor.
This is a very important topic. it can be seen that have very strong points there and you are very knowledgeable, but a clearer video is necessary. i don't think any youtuber have covered this topic so throughly. you know what, even Hyak in road to serfdom is not so clear. Thanks
I agree and there will be more to come. You'll probably enjoy the new video on Mussolini and Fascism coming out later today, for example.
I believe it is Fascism, but a particular German form of Fascism. Fascism should be understood as a flight from a perceived inept Liberal Parlimentarism which could not succeed in achieving national goals, and that the whole country should become unified behind one Party and one leader. I think it also has Imperial and Racist implications too, that there is one people or group in the country who are the True People and that the State should and territory should be strengthened on their behalf. They sought out territories for which they could become U.S. Style Super Powers on the basis of the believed superiority of their people. There are also elements critical to Fascism if you read Carl Schmidt that the key to this level of sovereignty must be attained through the use of emergency powers. If the majority through parliament cannot choose their victory, they will have to impose it themselves.
And your analysis of Capitalism was overly ideological, would you call the War Time Economy of the United States Capitalist with the tremendous amount of government control? What endeavor of man is truly independent of government, certainly none in an age of war on this scale. If the Third Reich had survived there would probably be huge government investment in industries related to military, as well as subsidizing other industries, but we do that today here in America as well as providing social welfare benefits. Fascism is NOT about economics, it is about power and the force of their particular ideology to use whatever economic tools necessary to achieve their vision. There are no ethics or principles, just duty to the Supreme people.
"And your analysis of Capitalism was overly ideological, would you call the War Time Economy of the United States Capitalist with the tremendous amount of government control?"
If you have a black market, that's an indication that you don't have a free market. If you don't have a free market, you don't have capitalism.
The reality is that all economies have parts which are capitalist and socialist to some extent. But some are more socialist than others. Too much socialism ends up in Fascist/National Socialist/Marxist Totalitarianism. Too little and you have anarchy. All that matters in our discussion on Fascism and National Socialism is - were they trying to create more socialism (state control) or not? If they were, they were socialist.
"I believe it is Fascism, but a particular German form of Fascism."
Fascism is a completely different ideology. This would be like saying the Protestant Church is the Catholic Church. Yes they are similar, but they're not the same, rather they are part of the Abrahamic religions.
"Fascism is NOT about economics, it is about power and the force of their particular ideology to use whatever economic tools necessary to achieve their vision."
So it Marxism. That's why it doesn't matter if their economics doesn't work, or that they're aiming for anarcho-capitalism (a state-less class-less society).
A war time economy is not the same thing as ideology-backed state control of the economy. For a capitalist country, a war economy is done purely out of necessity and truly an exception to the rule. In a fascist state, that state-controlled economy is the goal and the norm. That's an important difference. I agree fascism is about a duty to the nation/people (in national socialism there is a strong emphasis on the people element of that), but creating a state-controlled economy that services the people instead of some business interests is an inherent part of that ideology. I don't think you can be fascist and have a capitalist economy that is mainly in the interest of businesses and maximum profit. It goes directly against their ideas about how a strong central government should provide for its nation.
@@TheImperatorKnight Name a "free market economy" in the 1930s, in the wake of The Great Depression nearly every Capitalist market had major reforms which involved an incredible amount of reform. German economic reforms of course had in mind arming for war, which was central to their idea of building a racist land Empire across Continental Europe to provide Lebensraum for the Volksdeutsche. They also had to achieve autarky which meant futher rationing would be necessary, while the relative postions of States like the U.S. or Britain afforded access to vast free trade networks.
You seem to be thinking only in an Anglo-American Liberal Conservative sense of the Right being essentially about less government and the left wanting more government, which seems synonymous in your book. Socialism is a utopian vision based upon emancipation from oppressive labor arrangements. There are revolutionary forms of Marxism that require a temporary dictatorship in order to abolish Capitalists, Nazism more so Nationalized the Capitalists on behalf of the preferenced class, to build a strong Empire in order to build a strong people. And the examples of Socialism in the 20th Century were largely preindustrial societies, which had to collectivize agriculture in order to produce the requisite surplus production needed in agriculture to provide the foundation for industry, this was disastrous in every instance and though I am not a Marxist I would note that his theories invovled an advanced Capitalist society and its essence was in hope of the dissolution of the State not it's ultimate exaltation in the Nazi Sense. If anything the Nazi Economy was a combination of Racist Welfare Capitalism with Autarky and varying degrees of war economic intervention (which indeed was extensive). There was not any abolition of private ownership, just a new hybrid form of Capitalism to suit the chief interest of building an Empire that would last a thousand years.
Others have noted that you seem to be operating off of a distinct definition of Fascism, which I agree with and think others have discussed further. I will conclude by saying that I am a fan of your work, I have watched the whole crusader series along with your latest, so I'm not some random troll just wanting to disagree. I think your errors have troubling implications in the present that are reemerging from the political Right which are impacted by this analysis, as the same ideas are being repackaged. This isn't just an exercise of history.
@@Timbo5000 What would you call the New Deal? That was ideological intervention on a large scale into the economy, which was ultimately insufficient until the demand from the wartime economy pulled the U.S. out of the depression. There is no such thing as a purely Capitalist economy, that's a figment in Libertarian/Classical Liberal's imagination, every economy is mixed. And the ideological control in Nazi Germany was based on the foreign policy objective of creating a vast racist land Empire, by capturing the vital economic and agricultural sectors in the East to feed and supply an Aryan Super Power. They essentially wanted to create a New Roman Empire based om their ideas of racial superiority, and all economic policy was subservient to that purpose. They did not however abolish Capitalists, as they did not have Socialist objectives to democratize the work place or emancipate the working class, indeed even though these Capitalists did not have full autonomy they still were making handsome profits.
"@TIK Name a "free market economy" in the 1930s, in the wake of The Great Depression nearly every Capitalist market had major reforms which involved an incredible amount of reform."
I can't, because there wasn't any. Some were more capitalist than others, some were more socialist than others. The closest any country has been to capitalism was Britain in the 1880s. But that didn't last because the Liberal Party became more socialist as time went on.
This was such a great job breaking it down into the simplest forms of government that many will take 1 thing and just LUMP it as a whole belief. Amazing job yet again and because of this video Iv subscribed. Keep up the great videos 👍. And this was a great book to read a couple of times. Have yet to read the other but after this video its next on the list, thank you.
Hey TIK I agree that the german economy was not-capitalist/socialist. However your distinction between private and group is somewhat murky. A lot of multinationals/busnisses do not belong to an individual but to a collection of share-holders or other types of groups. The term "publicly traded company" comes to mind. With your explanation publicly traded company would mean that it is an state traded company (or any sort of group of investors etc). This would follow that in the current era that almost all large companies are state controlled. This does not ring true to me. You say that the definition of state is "A polically organized community" but than you stretch this definition by excluding the politicall aspect in some of your examples and boiling it down to just "group". Regardless I think your main point of the video still stands but this supporting argument was not really convincing.
Yes, you can say that these days we've got a lot of big business and state joined control. This is exactly the reason why capitalism is in decline. The most important division is between individual and collective way of life. Big business can be easily classified as collectivism if it monopolizes economy in cooperation with the state.
I very much agree with those points that you make, TIK's definition of capitalism makes any company with share holders not privately controlled, for they are not owned by a single individual. Combined with his definition of a state (being a group of individuals), would mean that any company with share holders would be a "state owned" company. His definitions are very problematic and I agree that they don't debase his argument that Nazi Germany was not a market capitalist economy but they do not supported it either.
Ever since corporations became people, they began to be treated as individuals, and thus considered private owners in themselves. Really, the illiberal idea that corporations can be people is why you see corporations owning parts of other corporations.
TiK's definition of the state was blurry, imo. I'd say it's a corporation (as in a literal body/physical entity) or institution given legitimacy to create laws and policy and then enforce them upon the people.
A Jim Fan he term PLC is misleading to you, it just means the public can become private owners in a stock as it is available for purchase. Has zero to do with stat control.
All modern industrialized economies have varying degrees of state intervention but there are still major differences.
The problem is that large scale western companies are not actually state controlled in fact these corporations have more power than the government and lobby government to protect them aka a corporatocracy(this word is commonly mistaken for corporatism which is another way of saying National syndicalism and is totally different). While Trump is fighting with companies and scrambling to produce masks China instantly produced a million masks in couple of days. The tale of the two in this crisis is a litmus test for how much control they have over the country and economy. The Chinese government dictates, plans and directs what happens to the national economy. Business leaders are required to join the Communist Party and always be subservient to the state before doing business deals. China's economy is the closest modern example to a fascist corporatist state while the United States is a stereotypical plutocracy like most liberal democracies.
For those who think Hitler was a socialist in the leftist school here it is from Hitler himself:
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.
Interview with George Sylvester Viereck, 1923"
This is from Wikiquote with spelling and punctuation left as is.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Exactly. Note that when he says "national", he thinks a nation should be created based on race, not nationality. He is not a nationalist.
This is quite an interesting video, you are doing a really good job here. Despite this I want to bring a few details that may be reviewed.
I use Marx a lot and also read it a lot. I'm not an orthodox marxist though, I take in account many others philosophies and theories.
So I've got to say that you are defining capitalism and socialism in a way Marx never really thought about it, meaning for example, that a socialist state for Marx would be one ruled by the workers, yes, but not only through the state, the state is just a tool the working class may use. He founds it to be the most useful by his time because of its power, there is where you can start differentiating anarchists form marxists socialists. The idea of socialism for Marx is that the means of production, that is factories, farmlands etc., are not owned by an individual or a group of individuals that employ workers to produce for a wage even if they are called "leaders" and controlled by the state. He thought more that the subjects that work and make the mean of production produce own that same factory they were working in, and of course benefit from their own work themselves and not someone on top of them.
So in the economy of Nazi Germany you didn't have the workers running the factories, in most cases it was those "leaders", who were also as you say employees of the state in a practical way but did profit from those capitalist-state enterprises as if they were private, because they were, they only had a huge amount of state regulations by legal and illegal means. The faculties of expropriating a private enterprise by the state for a compensation nowadays is still present and implemented, they were just using it really aggressively to control the capitalist economy.
In a socialist state, in the marx view of socialism, this is a contradiction that cannot be if we talk about a socialist state where the state just organize the production but the factories are not private, they are run by the workers or unions, as a collective owned and regulated by the state factory.
An example of a socialist organized society with no state you can see the Catalan case in the 30's, where there was no state controlling the production but the factories were run by the workers in a relatively more socialist way than in most of the world's factories and therefore a socialist economy with no state own factories. That was not the strategy of Marx because the state was almost nonexistent, but it was the kind of social production he was speaking about. He just saw the state owned factories as a tool and not the final goal for a socialist country to be led to.
Then when you say that a single racial strongly state controlled private economy is as socialist as the marxist socialism only with the difference that in one the cohesive identity is race and in the other is class I see that you may not be having in account most of the Marx theory of labour and capitalism.
I want to remember that I liked the video but I had to express this uncomfortable feeling about all the critics to the marxist view of the author of the book that I saw on this video.
I also want to say that I didn't read the book in question so if there is something I am missing because of that, point it out for me and of course if someone finds any mistake in what I've said let me know.
Sorry for any bad english I could have made.
You'll never see workers in control of the economy. It's not that it's just so stupid idea. It's that all this socialist ideologis are just different ways to trick masses into accepting state control. No beurocracy will ever let workers to be in control, despite of what they say.
Miłosz Skwierzyński of course that if you have a state it will tend to take as much control as it can and even more in a socialist lined country. But what I wanted to show was that socialism as Marx puts it is the real workers state control and if you see they don’t we might see that there is something not going according to Marx’s socialism.
That’s why I’ve gave the Catalan example of the 30’s where there was no state controlling the factories and still the economy was run by the unions of workers. Of course until the republic and the anarchists lost the war to the nationalists, meaning fascists.
All that is to light up the idea that if you have a state owned company it doesn’t necessarily is a socialist company if the workers have the same conditions as in a private owned one.
@@vontrubka44 So you've never heard of a cooperative? Sometimes a network of cooperatives dominate a city's economy like current modern day Mondragon, Spain is by the mega co-op by the same name. They generate about 2 billion in revenue a year.
More then 3 trillion dollars worth of GDP globally is ran by democratically ran worker owned cooperative businesses.
To clarify cooperatives legally do not qualify as private nor as public property. They count as collective property, which again, is legally different from private property and public property.
I must say TIK I know politics of this sort is not really your thing you have done one of the best videos on this subject on the internet. Well done!
The only people saying I don't know about politics and economics are the Marxists. And there's a obviously obvious reason why they don't want Hitler to be associated with socialism...
"Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff the government does, the more socialister it is"-Karl Marx
Still a good video, I just couldn't help but to make that joke.
The best joke is that Marx wanted a class-less state-less society... so anarcho-capitalism then
TIK He wanted a classless society with no money. An anarcho-capitalist society would still have money
@@matiasgazzarri4959 So he wanted cavemen. :D
@@shorewall Anarcho-primitivism perks up its hairy ears...
You are doing amaizing work men. One of the best channels out there. Keep on doing that! :)
It may be worth clarifying some confusions on political economy.
Capitalism, Ownership and Control
Capitalism isn't just about private ownership. Rather, private ownership has been the standard for most of history, but capitalism just arose with the industrial revolution. So there's more to it. The distinguishing trait is a typical separation of those with the means to run an economy and those having the ideas. And (at least in the beginning) it is all about industrialization, which introduces a new, special kind of surplus (earnings less investments) with machines practically multiplying the output of human labor. Say, it's the 19th century and you are an ideas guy (the entrepreneur). You've seen those spinning machines in England and want to implement them in Germany, and you know how to do this. However, machines, buildings, and running them are neither free nor cheap, so you either have to confine to saving (maybe, with a bit of luck, your grand-grand-grand son will eventually have the money to implement your ideas) or you may look for someone who will give you the money in return for a major share of the surplus. So you eventually find someone who will contribute the money to start the business (the literal meaning of "capital"), the capitalist. ("I have some money, but no idea about all this spinning business. However, your pitch sounds promising and I'm not opposed to put my money to work.") As a result, the control is typically allocated at the side of the entrepreneur/management, while the major share of the surplus is allocated to the capitalist. However, this is by no means exclusive and there's typically a high level control on the side of the owners (the board), while the details are controlled at site by the entrepreneur and/or management.
Surplus, Control and Socialism
The major criticism on the side of the "Left" is that the state of technology allowing for this kind of surplus isn't due to the accumulation of wealth, providing the capitalist the means to incubate a business, but rather due to general progress and effort of society. Hence, tying the access to technology and its exploitation to capital may be neither due nor fair. Further, Marxists tie the question of the distribution of the surplus and the question of exploitation and control of the technology to the question of the ownership of the means of production. Moreover, Marxist analysis has it that an eventually increasingly lopsided distribution of wealth resulting from capitalist economy and its exclusive collection of surplus will eventually bring down economy as a whole and that there's an imperative to address this questions - and that there's just a single way to do so, namely revolution.
Socialism in general and social-democrats specifically do not necessarily tie the question of the distribution of surplus to ownership and control, but rather focus on the key of distribution, arguing that there must be a greater share going to the workers (who are also members of the society which brought forward the technology and should therefore be allowed to participate in the fruits of technological progress as well). Also, social-democrats do not subscribe to revolution as the means to address this. Notably, there's an absolute lower level of income for the workers, namely the means to maintain themselves and to bring up any children, the next generation of workers (the means of reproduction of labor), and there's an initial value to the labor invested by the worker, namely the value of the labor invested before the multiplier of technology is applied to it. So, any participation in the surplus must be in excess of both.
There are also macroeconomic reasons to do so, namely to increase the general throughput of the economy, and this has been implemented by various sides of the spectrum, by entrepreneurs (Ford doubling the minimal wage in his plants), by theorists (J. M. Keynes, etc), and by politics (social-democrats, etc). Therefore, fronts are rather diffuse in practice and more about a general weight put to individual factors. (Which also prevented the Marxist projection of an eventual crash of economy in a crisis of oversupply to become a reality.)
As we can see, control and ownership are neither going hand in hand in capitalism nor does a political critique of capitalism necessarily include the question of ownership or control. Also, the distribution of ownership and control is typically a dynamic one in capitalism. (E.g., with venture capital and start-ups, we typically see an initial share of a quarter or below on the side of the investors, leaving the majority and control to the entrepreneur according to the restrictions of the business plan. However, as the start-up eventually exceeds its initial means, entrepreneurs are often forced to sell off additional shares to investors with the majority and over-all control eventually allocated to capital.) Moreover, there's quite some spectrum in between extremes. E.g., governmental intervention may take the place of high level control normally effected by the board without touching the share of surplus collected by the owners and without changing much to the on-site control of the management. Or the state may take ownership in total, like seen in a nationalization of a branch of economy, thus collecting the capitalist's share, without touching management, or it may do so with additional restrictions to the control of the business. On the other hand, there may be a state owned business (maybe a former private possession of the old regime) with the state retracting to the sole position of ownership and handing over control to management, restraining itself from any interventions by law. Or, like in Marxist-Leninist economies, the state may be the exclusive owner, handing over some restricted control to a local management, according to the goals of planned economy, collecting any earnings and redistributing them for further investments and costs of production to the site according to plan. On the other hand, there may be claims to the general, high level control of production and economy in general in order to achieve some goals of "national interest", totally unrelated to leftist ideas. So an economy may be socialized without any ties to socialist ideas, even working against socialists ideals (e.g., by keeping wages low to increase immediate production, while restricting workers from a representative access to the general surplus.)
There's no simple formula for this to match every case and things are actually a bit more complex. And there's more to this than just a single axis. We may observe a variety of crucial factors involved, which may vary independently, like ownership, control, distribution of surplus, general social and economic development as described by macroeconomics, etc, as well as a variety of interests arising from this. Notably, socialists and Marxists do not share a common position on this, rather, they are opposed. (It's a bit like Muslims and Christians: while both believe in a personal, benevolent creator god and share a bit of history, they are by no means the same. Rather, we find them heavily opposed. Moreover, there is no such thing like a single, solidified interpretation on either side and in practice we find a broad variety in believes. Likewise, there's no such thing like a unified "Left", which would agree on any particulars, nor is any of the possible positions in these spectra exclusive to the "Left". E.g., while Ford believed in a greater share of the surplus to be distributed to the labor for macroeconomic reasons [which would ultimately increase his own surplus], he was by no means a socialist.) Picking a single factor and generalizing on this, won't provide an accurate picture.
Let's say, I'm not totally averse. (Notably, there had been time when Keynes was accepted widely amongst conservatives.) In a Keynes - Mises continuum, I'm certainly closer to the former.
What I do find particularly interesting is that way back in the 1970s, the general conservative accusation of the Left was about an almost exclusive eduction to economy, while nowadays the reduction to economy is a major trait of the conservatives (and the Left is seen by the mirror of "Cultural Marxism".)
@Kevin A First, somebody has to accumulate the capital, which is not a natural state.
(About as natural as a business plan. Capital has its name from being the very first step (head, caput) in the process of forming a business enterprise, i.e. collecting investments in order to acquire means of production so that you can profit on the time multiplier implied in the deployment of machines and compensate investors with interest. Which is, why we require a business plan to convince investors. There is quite an amount of pre-requisites in this - and none of them come naturally.)
@Kevin A Ok, so you care not about words, concept nor meaning. I mean, it's literally named after the heading, montary investment.
Means of production are about multiplying the worth of the productive time of workers. They are called so, because they facilitate production. (So, if you are renting or "buying" a workers time, this comes with some natural or liminal costs. The owrk of a worker and the time required to accomplish this has a worth and a price. In order to collect any revenews/earnings of your own and to bring in your own investments, not to speak of satisfying investors, your business must surpass this cost on income. How do you do this? Industrialization - i.e. machines as time multipliers -, and then there are of course other instruments, as well, like marketing, arbitrages…)
Maybe, arts and crafts is what you are thinking of?
There are actually such things like economic and political theories, and their concepts do have a particular meaning. These are not up to deliberate chosing.
BTW, accusing someone (without proof) of adhering to a Jewish thinker and being an anto-semit in the same paragraph, is a bit weird, as well.
@Kevin A P.S., I really had have enough of this Prager U & Co -style "reinterpretation" and disinformation. The NS era is part of the actual and factual history of several countries and peoples and not just a turf to promote your fantasy theories and ideas.
E.g., you may be suprised to learn that National Socialism was a theist movement. Phrases like "the Will of the Creator" or "the Creator's Oder" were reoccuring themes in "Mein Kampf" and Hitler's speaches and official NS propaganda, as well. God and expressions of faith were in official emblems, formulas of oath, etc. There was a NS-aligned wing of Christianity, "National Christendom" (Nationales Christentum), which about a third of German Christians adhered to. (There were plans to [forcefully] unite the various churches under the umbrella of National Christendom in 1935, which really caused the - still moderate - opposition by other Protestant and Catholic churches. That National Christendom proposed a newly redacted Bilbe in 1941, which consisted mostly of a single, unified Gospel, which would have caused another schism, didn't help either.) "Positive Chritianity" was an explict agenda in the NS party program. Christian propaganda had it that Hitler would always have a New Testament in his left inner pocket, close to his heart. Known or suspected atheists were not admitted to the SS (at least, when it had been still an order, before the later forced mass recruitments.) It was only in the very last days in the Berlin bunker that Hitler distanced himself (unofficial) from his Catholic faith by condemning it as a "jewish and bolshevist conspiracy" in private conversations. (Which may be a bit ironic to the left vs right discussion.) - Now compare this to the "reinterpretation" of various, mostly US, right-wing outlets, and their proposed moral.
You can't just model historic context just as you wish. This is also true for economic and political theory and the historic context of the terms and concepts used. E.g., in Germany of the 1920s and early 1930s, the pair of opposits was not Capitalist vs Socialism, but rather Burgois/"Bürgerlich" vs Socialism/Marxism. (BTW, the term "socialism" was still reminiscent of a publicly moderated private sector, aimed at moderating the worst effects of opposing forces and interest in the interest of the public good, as in the War Socialism - "Kriegssozialismus" - of the Wilhelminan Empire during WW I. In a German 19th century context, "Sozialismus" also refered to this kind of moderation, proposing to provide workers a fair share of the surplus, rather than a radical change in the ownership of means of production, as proposed by orthodox communists. Compare Marx's saying of the "Bersteinan treason"- "Bernsteinscher Verrat".) Capitalism, on the other hand, referred rather to the Manchester capitalism of the 1950s, which had resulted in an economic collapse of epic dimensions, which was followed by another related collapse in the 1870s. (Heck, even the first party program of Germany's modern conservative party, the Ahlener Program of 1947, still condemned both communism and capitalsim as equally failed.) - There is no sense in importing 21st century US talking points into a German 1920s discourse.
@Kevin A > It's interesting that you never made any direct arguments against my original point.
To the contrary, I gave a rather extensive explanation, why capitalism wouldn't be "the natural state". I'm sorry that you apperently aren't able to grasp this. However, you did make an argument to the supposed contrary referring to human control out-weighing any material aspects of production, which is - as detailed in another reply - not in alignment with the general concepts. Nor is the argument towards creativity. Mind that the heading investment, after which capitalism is named, is not the idea of an entrepreneur, but the third-party investment, which defines ownership and control of the means of production. (In this sense, capitalism is also opposed to the bourgois economic order of the ancien régime, which has still a presence in arts-and-crafts like orientation.)
Capitalist centralism is still capitalism. Just because some INDIVIDUAL capitalists get their property rights violated doesn't mean it isn't capitalism.
This is really interesting to learn about, the Reich economy. This makes me question why people tend to place Hitler as far-right on the economic spectrum if really the Reich economic policies were somewhat on the left, combined with a very authoritarian state and method of enforcement
Are you just a neo Nazi?
Wow, I didn't know this, thanks TIK!
Glad you found it useful :)
@TIK Could you please provide any examples of countries with capitalism, given your definition. Every state has indirect control over means of production inside the country.
"@TIK Could you please provide any examples of countries with capitalism, given your definition. Every state has indirect control over means of production inside the country."
Bingo. Arguably the closest country that ever got towards capitalism was Britain in the late 1800s during the classical-Liberalism era. But even then, they didn't have full-capitalism because it the Liberal Party was taken over by socialists (especially after Lloyd George and Churchill).
@@TheImperatorKnight Now I understand you position better. It sound like in the world we have socialism for particular classes, nations or races. But there is no true capitalism. Then if everything is a socialism then why do you put so much emphasis on the fact economy was a socialism, but not a capitalism? As the result you didn't answer original question, as far as I understood it.
The reality is, it's not black and white. The world at the minute is a mix of socialism and capitalism. The UK economy has a partly-free economy (e.g. me, Tescos and Costa etc), but also a part-state economy (e.g. the NHS, regulation, centralised planning etc). Somewhere in the region of 35% taxation basically means the UK individual is 35% non-free.
"Then if everything is a socialism then why do you put so much emphasis on the fact economy was a socialism, but not a capitalism?"
Because if you move from free-market towards socialism, then the government and ideology that does that is socialist. Hitler and National Socialism absolutely moved towards Socialism during this period, as Günter Reimann makes clear. To say that it wasn't socialist/socialism would be very very wrong.
@@nobody227 I'm not an expert, but it seems to me the answer is Keynes, we live in "light" capitalism, or capitalism with some state intervention.
@@TheImperatorKnight
OK so under your logic that any form of government intervention in the economy is socialist, is the abolition of slavery a socialist measure by the government?
You're doing a tremendous job i mean its fantastic keep up
Misquote heaven for the enemies of TIK.
Brilliant video though. I almost hope someone tries to defame TIK just so he can pummel them in the ground with logic and evidence. Thank you so much.
My favourite video so far. Most commentators ignore or misunderstand the politics economy of Nazi Germany
Glad you enjoyed it! More to come. And yes, many are saying things that are simply not true, such as Hitler wanted to create farms... I knew they would say that, which is why I mentioned it in the video. It's not true, as I will explain in a future video
Well according to your interpretation there is no Capitalist Nation on Earth. 1/ The USA has had price and wage controls at various stages. 2/ Foreign exchange control ( the state controls the purchase of product from overseas usually in situations where there is a shortage of foreign exchange) or for political geopolitical reasons has been done by every State an example of this is Venezuela and the USA. 3/ There is no State on Earth that does not control Factories in some way even if it is only work place health and safety. So your definition of Capitalism is at best so poorly defined as to mean there is no Capitalist anywhere in the World and never has been.
"So your definition of Capitalism is at best so poorly defined as to mean there is no Capitalist anywhere in the World and never has been."
This is the definition of capitalism - private control of the economy. There's no ifs or buts about this.
"Well according to your interpretation there is no Capitalist Nation on Earth."
Yep.
@@TheImperatorKnight So as I said no country on Earth is Capitalist!
@@TheImperatorKnight To be fair Western Capitalist Nations are called Mixed Economies as they do not meet the criteria for a pure Capitalist Nation. ( It is how we get out of gaol free in Economics)
@@TheImperatorKnight Also to be fair you could argue that Fascism as used in defining the movement covering quite a few countries is as much a Economic Classification as a Political one. you could argue that in some ways, it is an Economic Classification as the role of the State should not be as powerful as in these States, while the central claim to Private Ownership makes it not classifiable as Socialist hence the term Fascism to describe hybrid with the worst of both systems.
There are two types of people, "those that divide the world into groups and those that don't" I'm one of those that don't!
Same!
Requesting TiK do a Blacula parody with Hitler as Prince Mamuwalde
Is "Blacula" a thing?? I'm not a big film watcher
@@TheImperatorKnight It's unironically one of the most famous blaxploitation films of all time and true '70s kino
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacula
Also recommended viewing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Gestapo
TIK you are right on with economics and I really enjoy listening to you. You might be the first patreon for me and what do you think of Ayn Rands objectivism? I would say read Atlas Shrugged.
I haven't actually read Ayn Rand, and despite people accusing me, I only recently got Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which I haven't fully read. Interesting that I came to similar conclusions separately from Hayek due to realising the true nature of the National Socialist economy... I may pick up Ayn Rand at some point if it's useful. Concentrating on Nazism and Fascism and Stalingrad at the moment though :)
The economic, cultural and social revival of Germany from 1933 to 1939 is very interesting. There are so many useful and worthwhile aspects in it that can be used very effectively. Unfortunately, when someone does a 1000 bad things, the one good thing is usually ignored. I like David Irving's books too when it comes to this subject, as he very thoroughly describes how institutions were used on the one hand to improve Germany and German life, yet also used to facilitate a regime and of course certain individuals. His Hitler's War and Göring books are quite hilarious too, as you get all the information about National Socialist economic seizure and for example their humongous wire tapping operations. Their moral duality is very interesting to read about. Wether you like David Irving or not, it is quite astonishing what he put together on that period.
On the point of German economy being a war oriented economy from 1933 onwards is something I can agree with to all extents. Although there was "rapid" rearmament and the economy was indeed catered to this, we must then take into account the situation Germany found itself in when Hitler took power in January of 1933. Germany had seen occupation by the French in the decade before. Germany was also surrounded by countries with large armies, including the French, the Poles, The Russians next to them and still in striking distance and of course the British a stone throw away at the other side of the channel. Especially the French and the Poles were not very fond of the Germans. These armies, all to different degrees, had many divisions, air forces, tanks and of course some had sizable navies. Germany, being surrounded by these countries and their army's capabilities, had an army of a little over a 100.000 men, no air force, no tank force, some small obsolete cavalry and a very small navy with no submarines. To make matters worse, the nations just mentioned that were bordering Germany directly or indirectly (through alliances), were also rearming at the time in different capacities. I have to be quite frank here, if I had come to power in Germany in January of 1933, I would have made rearmament the top priority too and would have done so wolfishly.
Does this make what ensued in the late 30s and 40s justified? No. But none in their right mind would have not done the same with their army as Hitler did in the situation he found himself in when he took power in January of 1933.
An elderly friend of mine worked for Reimann after he got to the US.
There is of course always some sort of overlap between what a goverment has as it's ideal way of doing things and the requirements of the circumstances. Somethings might be ......de jure but de facto........
And there dwells the black market.
One note on that economy: it even effected the "Tanks and guns" argument, which is a big reason, as TiK says, you can not seperate military from political questions.
th-cam.com/video/wQ3JZ--0LkY/w-d-xo.html
We need to find TIK a girlfriend
i agree
16:27 - great! You have worked out the differences. Now everybody can understand. Thumbs up!! :-D
30:19 - another great point. Everybody follows his own interests and tries to blind and addle the others.
*Nationality State control = Fascism*
By that logic, America is a Fascist state, as it is controlled by those of American Nationality.
Clearly you're lacking in your description of it.
If you have a black market, you don't have a free economy. A black market is a free economy within a socialist economy.
Doesn't the USA have a black market for drugs?
@@TheImperatorKnight Did you respond to the wrong chain?
A very good explanation! It also helps highlight the fine line the American economy teaters on between Socialism and Capitalism .. Especially if you look at the utilities and government controls placed upon them!!
First off, you are obviously a free-market pro-capitalist. Therefore by your own logic we should take your video with the knowledge that you are biased and have an agenda to push. That is that Nazi Germany was socialist, to put your own capitalist viewpoint up by saying this in daily conversations I imagine.
Some arguments against what you say in this video:
So, large factories for essential things for war are taken over by the state... Instantly communist/socialist? What about German small business owners and non-essential factories? Were they taken by the state as would be in a socialist nation? Additionally the capitalists in Germany keeps the profits from the business and he is free to spend them how he wants = capitalist. What about Krupp and Blohm and Voss and other such corporations? Seems capitalist to me... Additionally. Have you ever heard of the First War Powers Act? Essentially it gave the United States government free reign on military productions. Very similar to Nazi germany, but you never say the United States was communists.
I think some socialists believe that
Socialism = when government does something good for the people
Capitalism = when they act maliciously or in self-interest/
TIKs definitions are pedant arguments with convoluted reasoning.
@Etb Etb Your first sentence is an exercise in committing what we grown-ups call a 'category error'.
Your second sentence refers to a petty sectional dispute between Internet trolls that's divorced from politics in the real world of academia.
My third sentence will be about you being subscribed to an infowars conspiracy nut.
Love these videos
Glad to hear! More to come
First!
Nice one Jamie!
I approve of this message.
I don’t ”like” a lot of videos on TH-cam. One a year maybe... tops.
I ”liked” this video.
Its amazing to listen to this! I have the same book on Kindle and it blows my mind how if you remove 'Hitler' or 'National Socialism', the economic policies can actually look enticing to downtrodden people on either side of the left right spectrum. Case in point is that some people want the state (US), to step into the economy and have cheered when its Obama/Trump trying to take control and move away from free trade.
If Trump didn't simply give a tax break but had someone walk on into the offices of Apple and 'tell' them to build a factory for the Iphone, it would be cheered on but be a naked violation of capitalism & free markets.
Man, I hope one day you start doing videos on the ancient wars.
love how you explain it makes so much more sense
I have always thought this economic talk is boring. How wrong I'm. I love how TIK explains all this stuff.
I have been pointing these things out to people for years. Many forget that there are different versions of socialism, just like there are different versions of democracy. If we look at history honestly, we can clearly see that the Nazis were socialists, but with their own flavor (flavour for my friends across the pond, oh yes, and down under. Come to think of it, most places other than the U.S.!). Obviously, their very name says it, but if we look at their words, the words of contemporary writers, and especially their actions, it should be clear.
Thank you for your in depth description.
During my last year of school, this was our topic in history class.
Really? And what was the consensus? I'm guessing there wasn't one
@@TheImperatorKnight This particullar book was merely one source and a large focus fell on the fact that hitler used smoke and mirrors so the common laborer felt better with his situation than under the previous government. Even with workers unions and all parties but the NSDAP dissolved. And offcourse that here iin germany people still believe that these changes boosted the economy and living standards.
Consensus was reached... due to most of my fellow peoples being kind of disintrested in anything history related.
The "Socialisms" graphic is effective and clarifying. The most confusing aspect of facism for 99.8 percent of the general population is the far right tag, because the NSDAP and fascism borrows far left ideology and language. Whether this is sincere or dogmatic depends on the specific national case, but in all cases it is anti-Marixst AND anti-capitalist. In that sense it not is not far right, rather far left as opposed to Randism or what Ayn Rand described as objectivism.
Objectivism is pure, unadulterated individualism, in that all life and political and interpersonal relations are inherently and unapologetically selfish. Not in a derogatory use of that word, but just simply as a technical definition.
Lots of $5 words in that description above I know, but the simple way to explain the Marxist/socialist/communist/Bolshevism is total public and societal cooperation of ethics and morality, while Objectivism is total self interest.
This is why facism is is confusing: its neither one, but against both - yet certainly most virulently anti-Marxist over anti-captialist. It introduced nationality and racism to the equation and is socially far right of objectivism or hands-off laissez-faire capitalism. Economically its far left of that but utilizes industry, military and economic tradition, so falls on the right of (take your pick) Marxist/socialist/communist/Bolshevism.
So my simple graphic:
Fascism =
ECONOMY: far left
SOCIAL VALUES: extreme far right (nationalism/racism)
Marxism:
ECONOMY: extreme far left
SOCIAL VALUES: far left (class struggle, eventual abolishiment of all nations, nationalism)
Objectivism:
ECONOMY: extreme far right (free market)
SOCIAL VALUES: non existent but for simplicity sake middle (worship of individualism, distain for unconditional altruism)
Tik, would like to send a history Analysis request. With the ongoing war in Ukraine could you do a review of all the battle sites in Ukraine over the history from the Kievan Rus? Say from when the Mongols sacked Kyiv and all the other battles in the Ukraine plateau and how the battle locations today overlap locations of historical battles. If any.
Reimman: "One of his grandchildren is Melina Abdullah, co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter."
Sorry if you've been asked this before, but did Hitler's national socialism make his peace overtures to Britain (mostly) genuine? For example, letting the B.E.F. off the hook, avoiding bombing civilian targets at the opening of the Battle for Britain etc.
There's no reason to think otherwise. Obviously the only way we could have been sure those overtures were genuine is if Britain took them up, but even as late as 1944-45 at the Battle of the Bulge, Germany's military strategy was dictated by the desire for a separate peace with the Western Allies.
@@captainneedadrink absolutely, people often argue the toss about things that never actually happened. Therefore it can only ever be a matter of opinion I guess. 👍