“Hitler privatized the industries” is ridiculously misleading

Another book relating to Nazi Germany's economy, which you may enjoy is "Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, And The Nazi Welfare State" by Gotz Aly.

The whole definitions game played by Marxists is insane. In their world, basically every commonly used political term has a different meaning from how laymen use it. Capitalism, socialism, property, ownership, capital, workers, whatever.

If Germany was capitalist because it sold ownership of industries, are modern European governments socialist because some of them still own the majority of stocks in rail companies? Even "privatised" ones? Was Weimar Germany a socialist state, since Hitler apparently made things more capitalist?

If people don't want to conceive of Nazi Germany as socialist, that's fine, but then they were simply statist, totalitarian, state monopolist, a command economy. If people don't want to call that socialist because it doesn't meet some standard of "real" socialism (because it wasn't internationalist and progressive socialism) then whatever bro. But to then sit there and say it was "actually" capitalist (as in some kind of liberal sense) is utterly asinine.

Either you have bad intentions or you simply haven't even read the sources you intend to criticize. In "From Utopian Socialism to Scientific Socialism", Engels had already explained: when a state takes control of certain monopolies, this does not mean "socialism" in the Marxist sense of the term.
Engels gives some examples to ilustrate the idea: the tobacco monopoly in France or the railway transport monopoly in Germany, which became state property, and mocks the idea that Napoleon or Bismarck could be considered "socialists".
The state control of monopolies was also achieved in fascist Italy and that system inspired German national socialism; however, the difference between the control of monopolies in a national socialist state and the collective ownership of the means of production in a proletarian socialist state is that the production processes in a proletarian state have a social oriented planning in order to develop the society as a whole.
(By the way - In "From Utopian Socialism to Scientific Socialism", Engels also explained this concept of a social oriented planning.)
So, the production in a national socialist state does not have the same character as in a proletarian state: as the planning of the first is oriented towards the conquest and exploitation of peoples and nations that are not part of its national welfare.
Finally, in a Fabian socialist state, the nature of its production neither has a social orientation, since its planning only takes into account dividends and profitability.
Furthermore, the policy of constant market expansion - or lack of planning- needs wars of conquest, similar to a national socialism system, but without a concept of racial superiority over other nations and peoples🌻

The story: I sell you a shop, then use your money to buy a gun, walk into your shop, rob, then shoot you.
The Marxist version of the story: I sell you a shop.

Seriously, as a German, I can tell you that nobody here would even consider the "Nazis were capitalists" idea. Until recently, there existed a generation here who had first-hand memory of the Reich, and whether they hated or revered National Socialism, they'd have laughed at you for believing that it somehow was a market-liberal regime. Even the German Neo-Nazis know perfectly well what it is that they want economically - a paradise of national equality and fairness, united in blood. And I won't even mention the careers Nazi functionaries had in the GDR, and its wider, well-known affinity for Nazism. Interestingly, in the German psyche, National Socialism is completely disconnected from general socialism (because Germans love socialism) - the one was "right", demonic and insane, while the other is "left", benevolent and innocent. Still, we collectively remember the basic conditions of life in the Reich, and they certainly weren't conducive to entrepreneurialism. Being too successful outside the party-state apparatus would invite visitors in the night.

"Hitler was socialist" is equally ridiculously misleading.

I find that nobody manufactures nonsense quite like an advocate of some rabid totalitarian ideology desperately trying to distinguish it from other rabid totalitarian ideologies. Because this time, it will be different. This time, they'll get it right, since this time, they have them on the team. Moreover, they'll demonstrate how the coming utopia will work by getting really, really angry at you if you don't just believe them.

Yesterday was voting day here in SA, and everyone is voting wrongly for precisely the way that book is written and then believing they are making an informed choice, When doom strikes they are never able to see through the fog of lies.

Feels like Keynesians look at how eeriely similar Nazi and Fascist economic policies are to their own, and distort their conclusions to feel more comfortable.

It is quite similar to how China regulates all companies operated in China, native and foreign companies.

Isen´t the video about: was the 3reuch bulilding a Planed Acconomy?

I don´t see a point about: Is it a Sotialist or a Faschist sociaty. "die Volksgemeinschaft" is ideologicaly not similar to the Workers and Farmers State

So, basically Nazis were jew hating racist communist... 🤔

This channel is misinformation and I can’t tell if it’s on purpose. Everyone do your own research.

Has anyone of you good people collated a list of all the ways Adolf was Socialist?
I'm currently in dispute with BBC over some of their claims on their Bitesize re-education website.
Thanks.

Never believe what a British man, except DI, has to say about NS Germany. Nothing is objective.

He paints AH and the NSDAP to be bad while all governemts literally own everything you think you own: property, cars, literal DNA, animals, financial assets. Tick is purposely misleading to innocent students who want to study these events.

Tick has a hard time figuring out governments that make their citizens a top priority. Not incompatible browniezzz like modern countries prioritize. Culture is racial. When you dont epioritize culture, you end up with a population of Ticks.

So a lot of companies were technically privatised in the sense of the state becoming a minority shareholder, but privatisation had become meaningless due to the command economy.

Nooooo the Nazi state was not running the majority of businesses, you complete brain dead clown 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Damn somebody put the Inside IG Farben book on libgen lol.

So why did Hitler hate Marxists/Communists? Because of the Jewish connections I guess?

So they were privately owned but effectively state controlled.

socialist are evil.

An excellent example is the opening scenes of Schindler's List. Schindler isn't schmoozing the Nazis to gain their business. He's doing it so he can start his business which requires him to be a party member since he wanted to operate a business identified as critical to national security.

Ideology lives in the backward land of over subjectivity know as wishful thinking.

They started controlling more companies to support war effort. Why else would they

TIK must love today's Britain.

Wonderful videos

I remember when Silvio Berlusconi called Der Ekonomist: “Der Komunist”.

Me - I find your impressions hilarious. Some pink hair communist - What?! you find his impressions of hitler amusing, that makes you a facistnazibigot?!

I have never met an ideologue who doesn't peddle in lies and censorship as their MO.

If you own a car but only drive it on public roads, do you really own it?

We even have this silly thing happen in Sweden not too long ago. Energy used to be fully owned by the government. Now it's a private company, but in name only. Ruled by a board of directors. Appointed by the state. And energy isn't the only thing this has happened to. And it's pretty sad to see this deception play out, because when these not so very private companies does something silly, it's capitalism and the free market that takes the blame

Having government “contact man” is necessary for most American companies too

You don't need a free market to have a privatized market. A common instance are privatized social services...

This shows that being technically correct isn't necessarily the best kind of correct.

One must understand that Hitler was not necessarily a “socialist” and did what he could to obfuscate and redefine the word. Often to the complete opposite of the definition of socialism. Nationism yes - socialism no - despite the presence of the word socialism in the name of the party itself. The discourse on the topic is purposefully confusing because it was meant to be. The national socialists needed socialists and trade unionists initially - and eventually supplanted the primary objectives of “nationalism” and when the socialists were no longer necessary- discarded.

There is an arc of economic policies and changes during before during and after Hitler are not absolutes - because they constantly changed. And in history obfuscated in absolutes. Instead of incremental changes.

Eg Republicans in America are not republicans - not Democrats democratic. Names - even words are meaningless. On purpose. Liberal is not liberalism and no longer means the same things it once did. And it’s intentional.

What I find interesting is that first, people here conflict totalitarianism with socialism, but second more dishonest take on Nazi economy is saying that as on paper the business might been privately owned, the Nazi Party had the power ... but no one mentions a few things, first, the poicies mentioned were implemented after 1938 when germany was full steam war-time economy ... In US and OK the state had exactly the same power, the military and the government decided what is needed for the war effort and different factories are "forced" to produce certain good, yes it is not free market, but still the owner of the factory received the profits, And the profits were good, especially when thanks to the war efforts, now in germany there were millions of POW and other undesirables who were worked to death, because it was more effective than feeding them. And believe me the Schindler's list scenario if ever happened was the outlier not the norm.

These historians are making no mistakes, they do this intentionally - to chip away at any public goodwill of markets and freedom and move them towards socialism.

I think an easier way to explain your point is to say that the Nazis took over industry through the labor front play all businesses having to employ labor front members the party got themselves in control of the businesses.

The Chocolate Museum in Germany has a small area of its exhibition dedicated to the period covered in this video. All manufacturers were required to take part in the Leistungskampf (achievement struggle) regardless of notional private ownership. This campaign included improved conditions for workers, but also firing any remaining Jews. A picture book was published celebrating the most compliant companies, copies of that book are still available. Companies which refused to participate were punished by the withdrawl of raw material allocations. Since chocolate companies depend on imports of cocoa beans, the regime destroyed resistance among the confectionery manufacturers by blocking those raw material imports and bankrupting them. Stollwerck was compliant with the regime's demands, and that's why it became a Nationalsozialistischer Musterbetrieb.

b- dubz would be crying right now.

The absolute mental gymnastics people go through to say the Nazis were "capitalist" is astounding. They point to "privatization" which it really wasn't, businesses under the Nazi regime had their prices, operations, and leadership all regulated by the Nazis to serve specifically the needs of the Nazis instead of a market, which is it say capitalism. It was effectively a command economy, not the one socialists would want but still effectively a command economy anyway. I would still take a fascist economy over a communist economy any day however, the former is by no means the best economic system but latter has a far worse track record and on top of just being retarded.

But let's be honest, all of this is just an attempt to pin the crimes of a boogeyman figure onto the backs of people that support capitalist/free market economics. It's absolutely stupid and this type of behavior should be called out whenever. Obviously, it's stupid to say they were socialists by pointing to their name like what Tik, but it's abhorrently dishonest to say they were capitalists by cherry-picking and misrepresenting their economic policies.

This is gay and liberal, Hitler privatized all German industry for rearmament purposes

“The conspiracy of international capitalism and Bolshevism is not an absurd phenomenon but a natural condition. The driving force in both cases is that race whose hatred has torn mankind to pieces time and again throughout the millennia, corrupted it inside, exploited it economically, and destroyed it politically. International Jewry is “the ferment of the decomposition of people and states” today as in antiquity. Things will remain this way, unless the people find the strength to rid themselves of this germ.

― Adolf Hitler, Collection of Speeches: 1922-1945

Hope you guys are doing well. I know I've covered this subject before, but I wanted to specifically tackle the part about the National Socialists selling stocks as "privatization", which I haven't actually addressed directly. Plus, having a separate video on it allows for easy sharing when someone makes the claim that Hitler "privatized the industries".