Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments

As a worker myself, I used to believe in ‘socialism’. And I used to believe - like many still do

- that Hitler was a capitalist who only put ‘socialism’ in the name of his party to

trick the workers. Upon doing significant research into the origins of the Holocaust,

I then realized my mistake - and saw that National Socialism was a varien t of Socialism

that was hostile to both Marxist-Socialism and Capitalism. I also realized that the assumption

I held when I was younger was wrong. The assumption was that Capitalism was inherently evil and

was in crisis. This was reinforced during my college and university years, when I was

taught a blatantly Marxist, progressive and Keynesian historical narrative of modern history.

I did not fully understand the concept of Capitalism, as no one had really explained

it to me. And so I thought I was a moderate socialist.

Well, it turns out that the assumption that capitalism is inherently bad, is wrong. It

turns out that Socialism is not for the workers at all, and has nothing to do with the ‘poor’

or downtrodden either. And it turns out that Hitler’s Socialism wasn’t Capitalism after

all.

“I have not set myself on the road of politics in order to pave the way for an international

socialism… I bring the German people a national socialism, the political theory of the national

community, the feeling of unity of all who belong to the German nation and who are prepared

and willing to feel themselves as being an inseparable but also co-responsibile particle

of the totality of the nation.”

I would be more than happy to go back to believing that Hitler was a capitalist. I really would.

Considering the backlash I have received so far, with people calling for me to “neck

myself” (kill myself) and calling me “pathetic” for holding this supposedly “dishonest”

“opinion”, it would be far easier for me to give into the social pressure and just

pretend Hitler was a Capitalist. It would be far easier if someone actually managed

to make a convincing case, which stands up to scrutiny, that Hitler was really a Capitalist,

so that I could go back to believing it and sweep all this under the rug.

Unfortunately, nobody has done that so far.

And worse, I don’t care for social pressure. I’m not here for the social points. What

matters to me is the historical truth. So I’m only going to be persuaded by strong

arguments, not by poor ones. And the terrible arguments presented so far by various Marxist-Socialists,

consisting of a poor contradictory interpretation of limited sources, bundled into a distorted

perception of the events, coupled with insults and an overall mockery of the concept of ‘free

speech’ leaves me unconvinced. It is not because I’m “mentally ill”, as some

have claimed. It’s because the ‘National Socialism is National Socialism’ argument

is superior to the ‘National Socialism is Capitalism’ argument.

But many aren’t convinced, mainly because I’ve not even had a chance to fully explain

myself yet. I haven’t had time to present all the evidence, and when I do present evidence,

most of my critics don’t actually watch the videos anyway. They watch two minutes,

decide that I haven’t provided enough evidence - in two minutes - and proceed to mock me.

This is why any video on this topic immediately comes under attack by mobs of Social-Justice-Fascists

who do not care for discussion, nor the truth, only belief in ‘infallible’ socialism.

Slander attacks have been brought against me from various different areas of the internet.

Worse, people have said that, because I didn’t reply to these accusers, I was therefore “refuted”.

No. That’s not how this works. Just because I don’t respond for a while does not mean

I’ve been “refuted”. If I had been “refuted” then I would happily make a video admitting

I’m wrong, which I have done before for other topics, and have no problem doing so

again. But that hasn’t happened here. Currently, I maintain the position that the National

Socialism of the Hitler era was real National Socialism, which was Socialist in creed, and

was not a variety of capitalism.

In this video, I will counter the various points that numerous Marxist Socialists (and

others) have made against this argument, in the hope that some of these people will actually

listen to me, and actually try to understand what I’m saying. Even if you do not agree

with what I’m about to say, that’s no reason to call me names, slander me, jump

to false conclusions or send me death threats. The point of history is to have a debate.

At the very least, by taking this position, I am providing you and others the opportunity

to debate with me. If I’m wrong, you should have no trouble addressing all the points

I’m about to make. If I’m wrong...

And, since there was some confusion over some of the phrases I was using in previous videos,

I’m going to try my best to keep the language as simple as possible this time around, and

explain things more clearly. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, do not assume

I’m wrong, get confused and mock me for being wrong, even though I’m not. Ask me

to clarify my points instead, or seek answers from those who do understand what I’m saying

in the comments below.

Either way, whether you end up agreeing, disagreeing or hating me, I just hope you will find this

video useful - since I will be presenting a lot of historical facts and evidence during

the process which may come as a surprise to many of you. Thank you.

In a nutshell, my argument is that National Socialism was real National Socialism, and

that it was a Left-wing Socialist ideology which attempted to implement Socialism during

its brief 12 years in power. Hitler hated both (what he called) ‘Jewish capitalism’

and ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ (or Marxism). He saw them both as part of a Jewish plot

to take over the world. His anti-Semitism is his anti-Capitalism, and his anti-Semitism

is his anti-Marxism, and his pro-German-Racism is his Socialism. He thought that the Jews

were causing (what many perceive to be) the ‘crisis of capitalism’ in order to cause

class conflict, which would then be exploited by the Jews, who would usher in a Marxist

Revolution. At that point, they would dominate the world and (in Hitler’s mind) be the

downfall of civilization.

And it’s vital that you understand what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that I

believe in what Hitler is saying from a personal political, economic or social perspective.

Far from it. I am not a National Socialist, nor a Fascist, nor a Marxist etc. By explaining

Hitler’s reasoning, or Stalin’s reasoning, or Mussolini’s reasoning etc, that does

not mean I’m embracing those ideologies. (Me explaining the history of war does not

mean I’m pro-war.) My goal here is to explain why the Holocaust happened, and expose the

ideology that brought it about, and educate people about the nature of that ideology,

so that we do not have a repeat of the massacres which totalitarian ideologies have inflicted

upon innocent people caught in the grips of their claws.

I’m also not saying that National Socialism was Marxism. Marxism is but one version of

Socialism, and there are many versions of Socialism. Marxism is not the core concept

of Socialism. In fact, the idea of Socialism predates Marxism. As I will show later, Socialism

is state-control of the economy. Marxism is a class version of this state control of the

economy. Marx said that the Utopian Socialists that came before him were unscientific and

therefore not real Socialists, like he was. And so he created a class-theory of history,

and an ideology based on class-socialism. Then Hitler came along and said Marx was not

a real socialist either, calling him unscientific, and embraced a racial-theory of history, and

an ideology based on race-socialism. So I’m saying National Socialism was Socialism. I’m

not saying it is Marxism. It was also not a version of capitalism, because Hitler hated

capitalism, which he saw as a Jewish concept. His anti-semitism was his anti-capitalism.

And his anti-Marxism was because he thought Marxism was also a Jewish concept. So he didn’t

like Marxism or Capitalism, and embraced a variant of Socialism which was, supposedly,

somewhere between the two. This was known as the National Socialist ‘Third Way’.

I also argue that Fascism was a version of Socialism based on nationality rather than

race, and make the case that National Socialism was not Fascism. They are similar, in that

they both embrace Socialism on a national level, and the Fascists also paint themselves

as somewhere between Capitalism and Marxism in ‘Fascist Third Way’. But they are different

because Mussolini and other Fascists didn’t believe in the Racial Theory of History, and

don’t base their ideology on race. The National Socialists on the other hand, base their ideology

on the race, rather than the nationality. (The race is the nation and the nation is

the race.) Racism is fundamental to National Socialist ideology, and is not fundamental

to Fascism (although some Fascists are racist, just like some Marxists are racist - Stalin,

as an example). In fact, Hitler hated Italian Fascism, and despised Franco’s Fascism - something

many historians seem to ignore.

There’s a bit more to it than that, obviously, but in a nutshell, that’s the premise of

my argument.

I spent an hour and forty-two minutes in my “Public vs Private” video (backed up by

sources at the bottom of the screen and a list of sources at the beginning of that video)

showing the history, the etymology, and evolution of the words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’

from ancient times until today. (Some people actually called it the best video on the internet.)

So, to not make this video longer than it needs to be, I’m not going to repeat all

of that again here. What I am going to do is briefly explain the definitions, but if

you disagree with them, or want a detailed explanation of these words, the link to that

video will be in the description. I highly recommend that you watch that first before

you continue, especially if you disagree with the definitions I’m about to give you.

So, in brief, the definition of the word Capitalism is the “private control of the means of

production”. The word ‘private’ comes from the Latin ‘privus’ meaning ‘individual’

- as in, individual human being. This is why a private in the army is a single soldier.

Private control also means non-state. Capitalism is anti-state, since it gives individuals

or small family-like groups control of their means of production. Capitalism is against

(or at least not in favour of) publicly-owned corporations, publicly-owned central banks,

or publicly-owned central states. This is why the term ‘State Capitalism’ is oxymoronic,

since capitalism is inherently non-state. This term - ‘State Capitalism’ - literally

means ‘state non-state’, which is why it is right to reject it entirely, since it

is an impossibility. Something that is ‘false’, cannot be ‘true’, and something that is

inherently ‘non-state’ cannot be ‘a state’. If people use the term ‘state-capitalism’,

they’re actually saying ‘socialism’.

Similarly, there are many different definitions of the word ‘Socialism’, ranging from

‘collective control’, ‘group control’, ‘worker control’, ‘social control’,

‘national control’ etc, all of them meaning the same thing - group control of the means

of production. And I showed why all ‘groups’ are ‘non-private’. Therefore they are

‘public’. The word ‘public’ comes from the Latin ‘publicus’, meaning ‘of

the people’ or ‘of the state’. This Public Sector is the hierarchy of society.

There can be multiple hierarchies competing with each other - like different local state

‘councils’ (or ‘Soviets’), or different ‘corporations’ (which are collectively

owned by their shareholders), or multiple trade unions vying for power... but they’re

all mini-states within the wider society of the central state. Therefore, Socialism is

the public-sector control of the means of production, or - state control of the economy.

So these are the historic definitions of capitalism and socialism. But socialists disagree. They

deny any definition of socialism, and contradict each other in the process. For example, there

were three socialists who defined socialism at roughly 1 hour and 35 minutes into a debate

on one of Sargon of Akkad’s videos. The first defined socialism as “the collective

ownership of the means of production”, which he says is the classic Marxist definition.

He then listed the Soviet Union, China, Eastern European Countries, and Cuba as all socialist

countries. His definition is funny because it contradicts at least one of the other socialists

in that debate. And the final socialist was so great at defining socialism that he failed

to even do so at that time, but later admitted it was worker-control of the means of production.

But it is true. Socialism is the ‘collective ownership of the means of production’. To

use Karl Marx’s definition for his Marxist-version of Socialism, socialism is -

“...socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with

Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind

forces of Nature…”

This is a lot of fancy language deliberately designed to hide the true meaning of the words.

But, as I explained in detail in the Public vs Private video, the definition is there.

To boil it down into plain language, Marx says socialism is - a group of people, the

workers, controlling the economy together, instead of being ruled by the natural economy.

In other words, collective control of the means of production. And again, a collective

is a group, which is public, which is state. So, the word “collective” is just a word

to hide the true meaning of the word ‘state’. Socialism, therefore, in its truest and most

plainest-language definition, is state control of the economy.

Of course, most Socialists don’t like to admit that totalitarian state-control of the

economy is what Socialism is, and so they try to hide behind other words. This has got

to the point where they even claim Socialism is the truest form of Democracy, since the

people are all supposedly volunteering to submit themselves to the slavery of the central

state. This is why Marxist-Socialist North Korea can call itself ‘democratic’, because

technically by the socialist definition, it is democratic. Interestingly, the Fascists

and National Socialists also use the exact same logic to claim that their totalitarian

Socialist dictatorships are also the highest form of democracy.

Marxist Socialists claim to know their ideology inside and out, and say that I don’t know

what their ideology is, even though I used to be a socialist myself and understand some

of their literature better than they do. It turns out that many of them don’t know the

definition of their own ideology, claiming it has nothing to do with the ‘state’,

since Marx and Engels said that the ‘state’ would ‘wither away’ or ‘die away’.

But again, I tackled this successfully in the Public vs Private video.

In one hostile response, someone ridiculed me for saying that Marx was calling for anarcho-capitalism.

I think he must have missed the very next sentence where I said, “or he’s lying”.

Marx and Engels did say that the State would die away. But there’s a couple of things

to note. First, it requires the setting up of a totalitarian state in order for the totalitarian

state to wither away. Secondly, since a state is ‘of the people’ - meaning, it is the

hierarchy of society consisting of the people - when Marx and Engels say that the state

will die away, they are literally saying that society will die away too. Which means, you

no longer have the hierarchy of society - you have anarchism - and you have every individual

fending for himself in control of his own economy. Individual control of his economy

is Capitalism. So yes, Marx is literally saying that Socialism will die away and we will be

left with anarcho-capitalism.

And then I said, “or he’s lying”. Marx and Engels are calling for totalitarian state-control

of society, knowing full-well that the state won’t wither away at all. They’re just

promising you that it will. Of course I’ll give you a million dollars if you watch until

the end of the video, don’t worry, keep watching. It’s an empty promise and there’s

no reason to assume it’s true, or that it will actually happen. More likely, once all

power is collected into the hands of Marx and Engels, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Hitler,

or Mao, they will be in total control and will dominate every aspect of the lives of

the people they have enslaved. At this point, the people will have no choice but to obey

their masters as they keep promising them “don’t worry, paradise will come soon”.

In fact, this is exactly what Lenin and Stalin did. They had to explain to the starving people

of the Soviet Union that, ‘no this isn’t the paradise of Communism. We’re currently

in Socialism, which is the transition into Communism, and we haven’t got there yet.’

This is despite the fact that until they themselves actually said this, the words ‘Communism’

and ‘Socialism’ meant the exact same thing and were synonyms of each other.

So, Marx and Engels are promising that totalitarianism will wither away once it’s set up, and they’re

doing this to reassure the critics or the doubters that their future paradise will not

look like a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is

not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;

one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

“For neither Lenin nor Marx was the revolution the answer to the question: what can be done

for the proletariat? Rather the proletariat was the answer to the question: what can be

done for the revolution?”

Marxists are self-blind to this, as they are to their own Doublethink. Many Marxists laughed

when I said “Hitler was a Socialist because he wanted to ‘socialize the people’ by

removing the Jews from society”. They asked, what does the phrase ‘socialize the people’

even mean? They said, that doesn’t have anything to do with socialism!

It’s funny how Marxists don’t have any issue with the phrase “socialized man”

when Marx uses it. A group of people banding together into a society, is what “socialized

man” means. So Marx wants a group of people - in this case, the workers - to band together

into a society. And yet, when I say that Hitler wanted to do the same thing - “socialize

the people” - many Marxist Socialists are suddenly unable to gras p this concept.

So let me try and put it in as simple a way as possible for you. Marx wanted the workers

to socialize. Hitler wanted the German race to socialize. Marx wanted a worker collective.

Hitler wanted a race collective. Marx and Lenin wanted a “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Hitler wanted a “People’s State”. Marx wanted a class socialism. Hitler wanted a

race socialism.

Marxists may fall back on the idea that Socialism is not about race, but is only about the workers.

However, ‘Socialism’ pre-dates Marxism. The original ‘Socialism’ was not about

class at all. Socialism was the ‘collective in control of the means of production’.

Well, that has nothing to do with class. Socialism was, the collective, or the public sector

‘state’ control of the economy. You can have a worker’s state, or a racial state.

You can have any type of state. Just because Marxism is (supposedly) for the workers (which

it isn’t) doesn’t mean that it’s Socialism. It’s only Socialism when it calls for State

control of the economy.

Also, this idea that Marxism has nothing to do with race is equally incorrect.

“The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly

they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what

is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money.”

That’s right, Marx despised the Jews and thought capitalism was Jewish. And Hitler

thought the exact same thing.

“... because this capital is international, its holders, the Jews, are international because

of their being spread all over the world. And here everyone should actually throw up

their hands in despair and say to themselves, if this capital is international because its

holders, the Jews, are spread internationally all over the world, then it must be insanity

to think that one will be able to fight this capital of the same members of this race internationally...”

And Marx is not only calling for the socialization of the people, he’s calling for the removal

of the Jews from society.

“As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism - huckstering

and its conditions - the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an

object… The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

And let’s not forget that Hitler had read Marx’s Das Kapital, which he says was what

convinced him that he was in a fight against “a real international and stock-exchange

capital” which he believed was being run by the Jews.

“No wonder Goebbels declared eighty years later that all socialism is antiSemitism.”

So, I think it’s quite ironic that some Marxists accused me of being a "Jew-hater",

having zero evidence to back that accusation up, and only relying on the mistaken belief

that National Socialism was Capitalism (which it isn’t). In reality, given what we have

just seen, it would be fair to say that Socialism is inherently anti-Semitic. And this makes

sense, given the fact that Socialism is designed to divide society into hostile groups in order

to exploit them and allow the accusers a chance to gain power. Workers vs their bosses. Aryans

vs Jews. Men vs Women. The list goes on.

Now, as I explained in the Public vs Private video, when you collectivise the people in

this way, they become the governing body of whatever territory they’re on. So, they

become the ‘state’. Marxist-Fascists rejected my definition of the word ‘state’, even

though I gave the Oxford dictionary definition of the word.

“State noun, a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under

one government.”

An organized political community on a piece of territory - such as a collective farm - would

be classed as a state. But this was simply rejected. Well, for starters, the reason the

dictionary exists is so that you can use it to learn the meanings of words. If you reject

the language that we speak, deciding that words do not mean what they mean, then we’re

not going to be able to communicate. This was the original issue - Socialists didn’t

know the true meaning and definition of Socialism. I have gone back through the literature and

the sources, all the way back to Ancient Greece and Rome, to confirm to you what it was, and

it turns out that, yes, Socialists never say what real Socialism is, because they don’t

know what real Socialism is. If they did know what Socialism was, and if they understood

basic economics, they wouldn’t be Socialists. That’s why I’m no longer a Socialist,

because I did my homework.

But Marxists rejected this definition of ‘state’, not just because they didn’t actually know

the dictionary definition, but because they said, in theory, the given definition would

mean that, when a guy owns his own factory, that he would be a ‘state’. Or, he would

be a dictator.

There’s two points to this. First, the word ‘politics’ comes from the Greek word ‘polites’

meaning ‘citizen’. The origin of that is ‘polis’, meaning ‘city’. If you

watch my Public vs Private video, you will see how a city is ‘Public’ because it

is the hierarchy of society. So, to be political, is to relate to the running of the hierarchy

that dominates society. This means that, because the factory owner is not relating to the running

of the hierarchy that dominates society, a private owner of a factory is not political,

and technically he is not a state, since the definition requires a ‘political’ community.

Secondly, even if we reject this technical definition, and assume that the factory owner

is a mini-dictator of his factory, and thus this is a ‘state’. Okay, well, how many

people work for him? A couple hundred? He has a tiny hierarchy or ‘state’. Anyone

in his state can leave at any moment, and nobody is being forced to comply with his

‘state’. So, he is no threat to anyone. This is why I don’t fear the factory owner.

I don’t fear the owner of a corner shop, or a restaurant chain. I don’t fear them

at all, because the worst they can do to me is sack me, sell me a bad product, or I’d

have one-guy being hostile towards me.

Compare this to the hierarchy of the public state, which can send armed thugs to kick

down my door, kidnap me and throw me in a cage, steal my wealth through the power of

taxation or inflation, drag me off to a slave labour camp, or execute me. The public state

has a lot more power than one guy who owns a small business or factory.

Similarly, when the workers rise up to collectively take over the factory, they’re a mob that

becomes the state. A dictatorship of the proletariat. They’ve already violently overthrown the

factory owner, so it’s not like they’re unwilling to be violent again. They could

do the same to you or me. And even if they’re a supposed ‘democracy’, as Socrates found

out, the dictatorship of the majority can force the minority to drink their poison.

This collective control, this slavery to the majority, the group tyranny, is the essence

of socialism.

So even if one individual is a state, the power of the individual is limited to his

or her property. Thus, Capitalism is natural freedom of the individual. Instead of being

owned by either someone else, or the collective, you could own your own home. You could own

your own workshop and produce things for society. You don’t need to bow to another private

individual, or the public collective. By being self-employed, and owning your own property,

you’re not dominated by anyone else. You’re free to do what you want in your own domain.

And if you need something from someone else, you can make a trade for it. This freedom,

this private control, is the essence of capitalism.

Socialists claim that Capitalism is inherently evil and will collapse, ushering in a Socialist

paradise. The reason Capitalism is evil is because some people have more than others,

and some people who are at the bottom have less than others; thus it is not fair.

Now, Capitalism does not mean that each of us necessarily owns a factory, or a home,

right now. But what it does mean is that, if we work hard and produce things that our

community wants - if we produce goods or services that other people value - we will be rewarded

by those other people. The community around us will reward us for giving to the community.

All men are islands. And the only way to receive value, is to provide value to the other islands.

The only way to get rich, is to give people what they want.

For example, I have a microphone, and a camera. And I work hard to produce videos, which I

provide for the community. I provide something of value to you for free. And the community

values what I produce - to such an extent - that they’re willing to support me in

making these videos. I don’t even ask. The links are there in the description. The list

of names of those who support me rises in every video. I say thank you for supporting

me and making this happen, and I explain how your support will help me get more quality

videos to you. But I don’t beg anyone to do this. These people have decided to do this

on their own, because they think my work is valuable. So I give to the community, and

the community gives back to me. Capitalism.

Another example. Jeff Bezos, the guy in charge of Amazon, is really really rich. But why?

Well, Jeff Bezos wants to collect banknotes or digits on a screen. And the best part is,

he can collect my currency if he wants to, so long as he gives me history books in return I'm happy to give him all my currency.

Over half of the United States is on Amazon Prime, apparently, and they’re willingly

giving their currency to Amazon in exchange for the goods and services that Amazon provides.

So Jeff Bezos is rich because he provides for his community, and the community rewards

him for that. This isn’t evil. This is millions of people working together and rewarding each

other with things they want. Jeff wants currency, you want Jeff’s products. If you want currency,

provide people with products they want.

And Jeff built Amazon up from scratch. So Socialists cannot say - well, he deserves

to have his business and wealth stolen from him by a bunch of people who work in his warehouses.

No he doesn’t. He worked hard and made his own business. Nobody should take that from

him. If they don’t like it, they can do what he did - set up their own businesses.

I’ve done it. Millions of people have done it. And I’d like to see more people do it

too.

Some have argued that Jeff Bezos’s business wasn’t built by him, but by the workers.

They’re the ones who did the physical work of putting his warehouses up, and so on. Except,

Jeff Bezos was the one who organized the entire effort, and he was the one who started the

business. He worked hard, founded his own business, and provided for his society. He

was rewarded for doing that by society, and was then able to hire people to help build

the buildings that housed his business. The people who built Jeff’s business were paid

for a particular service. They didn’t build his business - he did. They were contracted

to perform certain tasks, and he paid them for that. They were rewarded for doing work,

by Jeff, and their contract was fulfilled. They have no claim on his business because

they did not build it, he did. They did not deliver the products to the door of the houses

who’s owners ordered products off of the website. Jeff did. They physically did the

work, but they did it on Jeff’s behalf, and he paid them for that work. If you hire

a guy to install a roof on your house, the roofer doesn’t then own your roof. He build

your roof for you, and got paid for the job. It’s your roof, not his.

Many of us don’t have our own businesses. And that’s because we haven’t done what

Jeff did. We haven’t worked hard, and saved hard, building up the capital to create our

own businesses. We haven’t provided the same amount of value to our society, because

if we had, we would’ve been rewarded by society for it.

Now, some might say that we’re working hard in our current jobs. And we might be. But

that doesn’t mean we’re providing the same amount of value to society as other people.

There’s no point working hard on something nobody wants. There’s no point making mud

and then crying when nobody buys it.

Anybody can work at McDonalds. Working at McDonalds does not require skill, and doesn’t

provide much benefit to society. Again, that doesn’t mean McDonalds staff are not working

hard, or that I don’t respect what they do. But if I compared a typical McDonalds

staff-member to an airplane pilot, there’s no question to me that an airplane pilot provides

more value to society than a single McDonalds employee. Not only do I know this, simply

by reason alone, that there’s fewer people able to fly planes than people able to ask

if I want fries with that, but also, airplane pilots get paid more for their work. Why?

Well, society thinks there’s more value having someone capable of flying a plane full

of passengers, thousands of feet in the sky, and land us safely to where we want to go,

and so society is willing to pay for that ability. In fact, I hope they do get paid

more than McDonalds employees, because I want pilots to have an incentive to do a good job,

and not fail us when we’re up in the air.

So, in essence, you get paid for what worth you’re providing to society. This is why

the workers don’t ‘deserve’ the factories that they physically built but do not own,

nor do they deserve a pay grade artificially higher than what the market will pay for their

work. If you want to get paid more by society, then you need to provide society with more

value than you’re currently doing. That’s not easy, but that is the solution.

Now, the reason many Socialists don’t understand the concept I’ve just outlined is because

they believe in what’s known as the ‘Labour Theory of Value’. They argue that the value

of something is based on the amount of work that went into creating it, averaged over

society. This is not true. Also, the problem, they say, is that because value is fixed,

the capitalists can only make money if they steal from the workers. This is also not true.

I’ve actually tackled this theory before, so I’m just going to copy a section from

my Public vs Private video.

In a nutshell: Marxists believe that hiring someone else to work for you and paying them

for that work is capitalism and, even though they have volunteered to work for you and

have agreed to the wage and can always leave and go live in the woods or something, it’s

also exploitation. In their mind, the reason it’s exploitation is because of the Labour

Theory of Value. This is the idea that a product gains its value based on how many hours it

took to make it. So, if it took you five hours to make a pile of mud, that pile of mud is

worth five hours of wages. And if you happened to find a diamond on the floor, the diamond

is worth nothing because you didn’t put any effort into making it.

Since everything has a set value, you cannot change higher than the value. A car that took

10 hours to make, is worth 10 hours wage. You cannot sell it for higher than that, so

the only way for anyone to make profit is to pay the workers less than their worth.

So, let’s say that you slave away for 10 hours to make a car, and the evil factory

owner sells the car for $100. That means that your wage should be $10 per hour. But the

evil factory owner can’t pay you $100 because he wants profit, so instead he gives you $20

(for a rate of $2 per hour) and pockets the other $80, which is his profit. So, under

the Labour Theory of Value, the evil factory owner makes evil profit by paying you less

than your worth.

The problem, of course, is that goods are subjective in value. The Subjective Theory

of Value came AFTER Marx wrote Das Kapital. And without the Labour Theory of Value to

prop it up, Marxism basically loses its entire substance. Under the Subjective Theory of

Value, you might slave away for 10 hours to make a car, which could get sold for $20,000…

or not sold at all. Either way, you get paid for the hours you agreed to work building

the car, regardless whether the car is sold or not. Regardless whether the owner makes

profit or not, you still get paid. He’s taking the risk with his business, you are

not. And if you don’t like your job, nothing is stopping you from walking out the doors

and finding a better paying job, or make your own car factory, or your own business. Nothing

says you have to work for anybody else. Save up some money from your wages, become self-employed,

and see how the world really works.

But yes, this whole idea that hiring someone is exploitative is just a ridiculous and outdated

view of how the economy works.

In reality, value is subjective - everyone makes a subjective, individual, assessment

of the value of a good or service. You can see this on YouTube. My videos take a long

time to make. This video has a 41,000 word script. Most vlogging videos don’t even

have a script. Maybe they say a couple thousand words… maybe? Yet they receive many times

more views than my videos. Why? Surely, if the Labour Theory of Value is correct, then

society would value my videos way way way more than the average vlogging video. Look

at Operation Crusader - a nine and a half hour documentary about a battle in North Africa;

tons of work went into that video, which is currently the most in-depth and lengthy World

War Two history documentary currently in existence - and yet it only gets a few thousand views.

Why? Because not many people are interested in in-d epth history documentaries on an obscure

(but amazingly awesome and funny) battle in the North African Desert. This video - one

of my best - isn’t as valued as my 15-minute long “Rations at Stalingrad” video, which

took me barely any time to make, and I even dropped some of the bread in the video. Apart

from the research, the only planning I had to do was buy a loaf of bread, and borrow

cigarettes off my mum because I don’t smoke. Yet, apparently, lots more people value short

and stupid videos like that more than they do epic battle documentaries. It’s no wonder

the History Channel became the Alien Conspiracy Channel. Subjectively, people value Alien

Conspiracy videos more than good high-quality history content.

So as you can see, value doesn’t come from the amount of work that goes into a video.

If it did, Operation Crusader would probably be one of the top videos on the platform.

Instead, people value vlogging videos more. In my videos, the Labour is there in spades,

but the value is not (to the same extent). And the reason why is because subjectively,

history videos are not as valued as vlogging videos by the majority of the people. Individuals

value videos based on many different factors - not the labour time that went into it, averaged

across society. Value is therefore subjective, not labour.

Hitler believed in the Shrinking Markets, which is basically a variant on the Marxist

“Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall” concept. In my Shrinking Markets video, I

called this concept a “fallacy”, and this did not go down well with Marxists.

We must bear in mind that the arguments for the fallacy’s very existence are… illogical,

to say the least. The fundamental problem is that this fallacy requires the ‘Labour

Theory of Value’ in order to function. As we have shown, the Labour Theory of Value

is an incorrect value system, so we know, by a priori reasoning, that the Profit to

Fall Fallacy must be inherently flawed. Since value is subjective, then so is labour, and

so is profit. If profit is subjective, then there’s no reason to suppose the rate of

profit will fall over time as the name of the theory suggests, and there’s no reason

to think that the workers are having their wealth stolen off them by their employers,

as the fallacy goes on to claim.

Now, I could sit here for a while explaining all the different inherent problems with the

fallacy, even if we assume it’s true. But that’s been done already by numerous people.

Instead, for the sake of brevity, I will choose just one argument to present to you here.

If you want to look into this further, the references at the bottom of the screen will

provide you with more answers to the problem of this fallacy.

So, here’s one argument - If a capitalist knew that he would make more profit by decreasing

productivity, why would he raise productivity? Surely, if he knew profit would fall, he would

actively seek to sabotage his own factory? He would hire the least productive workers,

and fire all researchers and engineers trying to come up with ways of raising productivity.

Capitalists wouldn’t invest in larger production if there was an economic law that forced them

to make lower profits over time. They wouldn’t invest in the future, which is exactly what

they’re doing by creating mass production factories and businesses. If I knew that profits

would fall as I produced more YouTube videos, then I’d have an incentive not to boost

output of my YouTube videos. The reality, of course, is that the value of each YouTube

video is subjective, which means that the more I produce, the higher chance I have of

producing videos which resonate more with my viewers, which will then increase their

value, not decrease them. In fact, if we thought profit would fall as we increased productivity,

we’d all still be living in the woods, since any productivity at all is therefore worse

than no productivity. Clearly then, the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall fallacy is just

stupid.

Without the Labour Theory of Value, you do not have the Tendency of the Rate of Profit

to Fall idea. Without that, not only are workers not being exploited by their employers, but

capitalism isn’t going to fall. Or, at least, it won’t fall for this reason. There is

no ‘crisis of capitalism’, as the Socialists claim. The Revolution is not inevitable. And

Bernstein understood this. Bernstein was the socialist who was originally asked by Engels

to complete Das Kapital Volume 4, but this was before he deviated from the ‘true’

Marxist faith.

“More than fifty years had passed since Marx and Engels formulated their sociological

forecast that the rich would become fewer, the poor poorer and the middle classes negligible.

Bernstein observed that something nearly opposite had occurred: the rich were more numerous,

as were the middle classes, and the poor were better off. He focused on the prediction that

capital would become ever more concentrated, apparently because data on this was easy to

come by. He was able to show that the number of small businesses was growing and so was

the number of well-off people. Indeed, as a result of research in economic history it

is now estimated that per capita income in Germany and England, adjusted for inflation,

had roughly doubled between the publication of Communist Manifesto in 1848 and of Evolutionary

Socialism in 1899. Such statistics were not available to Bernstein, but the practical

evidence of changes in standard of living were observable all round.”

The amount of meat the average person consumed basically doubled between 1873 and 1912. Sugar

consumption tripled between 1870 and 1907. Beer consumption grew by 57% between 1872

and 1900.

“The implications for Marxian theory were profound. The progressive reduction of society

to just two classes, one small and immensely rich and the other vast and utterly impoverished,

was to form the crucible of social transformation. Without that process, as [Rosa] Luxemburg

had pointed out, there was no reason to expect a socialist revolution. Socialism was still

possible, but it would have to be brought about by human will, not by impersonal historical

forces, and therefore it would have to be justified because it was desirable, not because

it was inevitable.”

At the time, none of the opponents of Bernstein had been able to prove that Bernstein’s

view, that the proletariat weren’t evolving the way that Marx and Engels had predicted,

was wrong. (In fact, they still haven’t.) This was why Lenin realized that he had to

start the Revolution himself, because if he did not start it, it would never come.

“In the year or so after reading Bernstein’s book, Lenin formulated an answer... that was

to change forever the face of socialism. Most workers might not be growing poorer or more

ready to overthrow the system, but the “proletarian revolution” did not need to be carried out

by proletarians; it could be done for them!”

As Lenin himself wrote -

“... not a single Marxist has understood Marx!”

Lenin decided that the Revolution was what Marxism was all about.

“For neither Lenin nor Marx was the revolution the answer to the question: what can be done

for the proletariat? Rather the proletariat was the answer to the question: what can be

done for the revolution?”

Violent overthrow of the current regime and the establishment of a Lenin-state which gave

him totalitarian control over the workers, whether they wanted it or not. And this wasn’t

inevitable any more, but desirable. Lenin wasn’t interested in helping the working

class, or even his fellow Socialists. He was only interested in one thing - power.

“Be firm. If there are waverings among the Socialists who came over to you yesterday,

or among the petty bourgeois, in regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat, suppress

the waverings mercilessly. Shooting is the proper fate of a coward in war.”

All this was because Lenin had realized that The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall

was indeed a fallacy. He had realized that capitalism may not fall by itself. And indeed,

it didn’t. The reason the Russian Revolution happened was because of the First World War.

A war between different States. It wasn’t a war between private citizens, it was a war

between multiple public sector hierarchies, which took the opportunity to take more and

more resources from the production industries and consume them in violent conflict. The

result was impoverishment of the private sector by the public sector, leading to rebellion.

Lenin used this societal breakdown to his advantage. And once he was in power, he did

everything he could to stay in power, which meant he had to steal as much grain as possible

from the peasants to feed his revolution. To Marxists in one province, Lenin wrote -

“1. Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks,

rich men, bloodsuckers 2. Publish their names.

3. Take from them all the grain. 4. Designate hostages…”

The peasants were condemned to starve in the name of the workers. If they resisted, they

would be murdered.

“Some were shot, others drowned, some frozen or buried alive, and still others were hacked

to death by swords.”

And this was when both the Whites and the Reds targeted Jews, in anti-Jewish pogroms.

Yes, the Red Army attacked Jews, and this was under Lenin’s watch. Budyonny’s Red

cavalry division committed many crimes against the Jews. His men stole possessions (including

women’s underwear), tortured the men, and the general himself attempted to shoot one

man who threatened to report him to the higher ups, only failing to do so when his pistol

misfired. Rather than be punished by the Soviet Socialist system, Budyonny would later rise

to the rank as Marshal of the Soviet Union, take part in the Second World War, and die

in 1973 having completely got away with his crimes. In other Red cavalry units, the prettiest

girls were simply taken - either in the streets, or carted off first. Polish people suffered

a similar fate as Lenin exported the revolution abroad. At the same time, the Red police - the

Cheka - pillaged and plundered Soviet lands (and the people upon it) in much the same

way.

“Historians only hazard guesses about the total, but in the Crimea… at the end of

1920, somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 were shot or hanged. The witch hunt continued

afterward, stoked by Lenin, who talked about how up to 300,000 more “spies and secret

agents” in the Crimea should be tracked down and “punished”.”

The peasants fought back against the requisition brigades sent to steal their food, burn their

homes and collectively ‘Socialize’ their women. Tens of thousands took up arms, but

were savagely crushed by the Marxists. Families of those who resisted were carted off to concentration

camps - set up by Lenin. These were the precursors to the now infamous ‘Gulags’.

Meanwhile, the rest of the supposedly-‘capitalist’ world was doing just fine. You might recall

that the 1920s was known as the roaring 20s, and even in the 1930s during the Great Depression

(itself caused by Socialism) millions weren’t starving to death like they had under Lenin’s

Socialism, or like they were doing under Stalin’s Socialism. And, far from the crisis of capitalism,

it was the crisis of Socialism which led to the fall of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and,

more recently, Venezuela. But Socialists claim none of it is real Socialism, even though

it was - it was state control of the economy which caused the downfall of these nations.

So, as you can see, the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall fallacy does not apply to

capitalism, because capitalism is based upon the Subjective Theory of Value. Due to the

fact that capitalism does not rely upon a Labour Theory of Value, the Tendency of the

Rate of Profit to Fall fallacy does not apply to it.

But Socialism is based upon the Labour Theory of Value. As a result, it is subject to the

Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall fallacy. Now, even though this fallacy doesn’t really

exist, socialists who believe in it, really believe in it. They understand that when an

economy (especially one which has not yet implemented full-socialism) is in economic

crisis, the only way for them to solve the problem is to conquer external markets. This

is what they believe capitalist economies are doing. In their mind, profit, or wealth,

comes directly from the exploitation of workers. So, in order to pay for social programs - like

pensions or roads - they must exploit the workers. And this is something they don’t

want to do. So, unable to produce more wealth, they need to take more wealth from somewhere

else. In Lenin’s and Stalin’s case, they simply renamed some of the workers as “kulaks”

or “traitors” and shipped them to the slave labour Gulag camps to “exploit”

their wealth there. But even this backfired. As the Germans discovered at Auschwitz, slave

labour is 50 to 80 percent less productive as paid labour.

So, unable to exploit all the non-slaved workers, and relying upon a slave economy, their only

other option is to seek new wealth and slaves from external markets. This is why Lenin was

busy exporting Revolution abroad, conquering Living Space into Poland. And despite calling

for “socialism in one country”, Stalin conquered Living Space in the Baltic States,

and tried to do the same with Finland. When the Soviets invaded Berlin and Eastern Europe,

they ripped up everything they could get their hands on - machine tools, trains, trucks,

bathtubs - and shipped it all back to the Soviet Union. Then they exploited the people

of Eastern Europe for years. (They couldn’t exploit their own workers, but they could

exploit workers from other countries, although they did exploit their own workers as well.)

So much for paradise.

In conclusion, it appears that Socialism is in crisis, not capitalism.

Some Marxists have claimed that the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall fallacy is only

for internal markets, not external markets. This therefore “refutes” what I said.

Well, first off, this argument assumes that I only said that the concept applies to external

markets. That is incorrect, and is a total misrepresentation of what I said, as I will

explain shortly. Secondly, as Rosa Luxemburg makes clear on Page 366 of Accumulation of

Capital, because of the supposed Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall problem, capitalism

needs external markets in order to survive. She later says -

“Capital requires to buy the products of, and sell its commodities to, all non-capitalist

strata and societies.”

She also says that -

“Capital must get the peasants to buy its commodities and will therefore begin by restricting

peasant economy to a single sphere - that of agriculture...”

She calls the final stage - the “imperialist phase of capitalist accumulation”. This

is where the hinterland (home country) has fun out of its surplus value and must seek

new markets abroad. For the Marxists, the west is industrialized, and the rest of the

world is not. Therefore, in order for capitalism to survive, it must conquer new markets around

the un-industrialized world. This is what they call ‘imperialism’, and is their

explanation for it.

Well, the reason given as to why capitalist states must conquer external markets is because

of the failure of the internal market. So when the Marxists say that the Tendency of

the Rate of Profit to Fall is only for internal markets, not external, and that I, apparently,

only said that the concept applies to external markets - well, this is simply not true. Yes,

under the fallacy, an internal market is impacted, but then this impacts external markets because

the home market seeks foreign markets to compensate. So the conquest of external markets is the

consequence of the failure of the internal market, meaning that the fallacy of the Tendency

of the Rate of Profit to Fall fallacy does impact external markets.

Then, some Marxists claim that capitalism in the Third Reich was failing, and thus the

Germans conquered the East because of it, supposedly “proving” that Germany was

capitalist during the Third Reich era. But the first thing to take note of here is that,

even if Germany was capitalist (which it wasn’t), that does not mean that the ideology of National

Socialism was capitalist as well. What the Third Reich was, and what National Socialism

was, are two separate things.

Stalin wages a war against the kulaks right into the mid 1930s. In fact, in 1936, only

89.6% of the farms in the Soviet Union were collectivised. Well, why not 100%? Why after

nearly twenty years in power, did the Soviet Union still not implement full-Socialism?

‘Clearly, it’s because Marxist-Socialists are Capitalists!’ No, it’s because it

turns out that, despite waging war after war against the peasantry and killing millions

of people, they had failed to implement real Socialism. It’s not because they weren’t

socialist - it’s because they were failures.

Similarly, when the National Socialists are only in power twelve years, six of which they

are at war for the Living Space they need in order to sustain their real Socialism,

the reason that they don’t implement real Socialism is because they failed to implement

it. It’s not because they didn’t aim to do it, or that they were Capitalist, or they

weren’t Socialist. No, it was just because they failed to implement it. The Marxist-Socialists

in the Soviet Union had nearly twenty years to implement Socialism by this point and they

couldn’t do it, so why do you think Hitler could do it in six? In fact, he tried to do

it in four, as the name “Four Year Plan” suggests. Compare this to the multiple Five

Year Plans that Stalin attempted (even after the war), let alone the socialism during the

‘Revolution’ that Lenin tried to implement and failed to do so, and you can see that

implementing real Socialism just wasn’t realistic in as short of a time as Hitler

had.

So by the Marxists’ own reasoning, even if the Third Reich was capitalist, that does

not mean that Hitler or his regime was, nor does it mean that National Socialism is capitalism.

In fact, maybe if Germany wasn’t fully-Socialist and was partly-Capitalist, that would explain

why Hitler had to go East. Maybe, because he was a Socialist in power who understood

the Marxist concept of the Shrinking Markets, that Germany’s capitalist economy only had

so long to go before it was done for. And, since Germany doesn’t have enough land and

resources that she needs to implement Socialism for her people, perhaps Hitler thought they

needed to get that land and resources first before capitalism fails and is taken over

by the “international Marxism in the Jewish and Stock Exchange parties”, and then implement

real-Socialism once they had the land. You can’t implement real Socialism without the

resources to do so, after all.

So let’s see if there’s any evidence for this. First, in Mein Kampf, he makes it clear

that the German racial community needs land.

“The foreign policy of a People's State must first of all bear in mind the duty of

securing the existence of the race which is incorporated in this State. And this must

be done by establishing a healthy and natural proportion between the number and growth of

the population on the one hand and the extent and resources of the territory they inhabit,

on the other. That balance must be such that it accords with the vital necessities of the

people.”

Notice, there’s no talk about trade or profit here.

“What I call a healthy proportion is that in which the support of a people is guaranteed

by the resources of its own soil and sub-soil. Any situation which falls short of this condition

is none the less unhealthy even though it may endure for centuries or even a thousand

years. Sooner or later, this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline or even

annihilation of the people concerned.”

So, his people - his race - need more soil, otherwise they will die. There’s no talk

about trading for the food, which you would do under capitalism, or getting the soil in-order

to then make a profit, as you would do under capitalism. Hitler just says soil must be

taken for the Germans alone.

“Against all this we, National Socialists, must stick firmly to the aim that we have

set for our foreign policy; namely, that the German people must be assured the territorial

area which is necessary for it to exist on this earth.”

“The territory on which one day our German peasants will be able to bring forth and nourish

their sturdy sons will justify the blood of the sons of the peasants that has to be shed

today.”

Again, no talk about trading surplus food abroad, or making a profit. And, instead of

embracing capitalism, Hitler rejects capitalism in his Second Book, saying -

“The sense of such an economic system lies in the fact that a nation produces more of

certain vital commodities than it requires for its own use. It sells this surplus outside

its own national community, and with the proceeds therefrom it procures those foodstuffs and

also the raw materials which it lacks. Thus this kind of economics involves not only a

question of production, but in at least as great a degree a question of selling. There

is much talk, especially at the present time, about increasing production, but it is completely

forgotten that such an increase is of value only as long as a buyer is at hand. Within

the circle of a nation’s economic life, every increase in production will be profitable

to the degree that it increases the number of goods which are thus made available to

the individual. Theoretically, every increase in the industrial production of a nation must

lead to a reduction in the price of commodities and in turn to an increased consumption of

them, and consequently put the individual Folk Comrade in a position to own more vital

commodities. In practice, however, this in no way changes the fact of the inadequate

sustenance of a nation as a result of insufficient soil. For, to be sure, we can increase certain

industrial outputs, indeed many times over, but not the production of foodstuffs. Once

a nation suffers from this need, an adjustment can take place only if a part of its industrial

overproduction can be exported in order to compensate from the outside for the foodstuffs

that are not available in the homeland. But an increase in production having this aim

achieves the desired success only when it finds a buyer, and indeed a buyer outside

the country. Thus we stand before the question of the sales potential, that is, the market,

a question of towering importance.”

So basically, capitalism is not going to resolve the “soil crisis” for the German people.

Hitler then talks about the Shrinking Markets, which sounds very similar to Marx’s and

Rosa Luxemborg’s ‘crisis of capitalism’ theory caused by the ‘Tendency of the Rate

of Profit to Fall’ fallacy -

“The present world commodity market is not unlimited. The number of industrially active

nations has steadily increased. Almost all of the European nations suffer from an inadequate

and unsatisfactory relation between soil and population. Hence they are dependent on world

export. In recent years the American Union has turned to export, as has also Japan in

the east. Thus a struggle automatically begins for the limited markets, which becomes tougher

the more numerous the industrial nations become and conversely, the more the markets shrink.

For while on the one hand the number of nations struggling for the world market increases,

the commodity market itself slowly diminishes, partly in consequence of a process of self-industrialization

on their own power, partly through a system of branch enterprises which are more and more

coming into being in such countries out of sheer capitalistic interest…

“The more purely capitalistic interests begin to determine the present economy, the

more the general viewpoints of the financial world and the stock exchange achieve a decisive

influence here, the more will this system of branch establishments reach out and thus

artificially carry out the industrialisation of former commodity markets and especially

curtail the export possibilities of the European mother countries. Today many can still afford

to smile over this future development, but as it makes further strides, within thirty

years people in Europe will groan under its consequences.

“The more market difficulties increase, the more bitterly will the struggle for the

remaining ones be waged. Although the primary weapons of this struggle lie in pricing and

in the quality of the goods with which nations competitively try to undersell each other,

in the end the ultimate weapons even here lie in the sword.”

So Hitler paints a clear picture that capitalism is dying, and as he says in Mein Kampf, this

crisis will be exploited by “the Jews”, and thus will bring in “international-Jewish-Marxism”.

So he’s only got a limited amount of time to implement his version of socialism.

“The trend of development which we are now experiencing would, if allowed to go on unhampered,

lead to the realization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy that the Jews will one day devour

the other nations and become lords of the earth.”

And, in order to implement his version of socialism, he will have to destroy ‘international-Jewish-Marxist-Capitalism’.

“For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the

idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in existence.

As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a

new order of things but to clear the ground for its establishment.”

And there you go. Hitler saying before he got into power that he was going to destroy

the “Jewish State” (meaning the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, and ‘international

Jewish capital’) before he was going to implement his version of Socialism. He can’t

implement full-socialism, and/or full-Autarky, without clearing the ground first, and without

taking the Living Space and resources of the East. (‘Autarky’ meaning ‘economic self-sufficiency’

and is closely tied with the idea of socialism, which is why Lenin and Stalin, as well as

syndicalists in Spain, also tried to implement it.) The point being - he has to conquer the

East (destroying the “Jewish State”) before he can bring in Socialism.

“How could a large land empire thrive and dominate in the modern world without reliable

access to world markets and without much recourse to naval power [Britain]? Stalin and Hitler

had arrived at the same basic answer to this fundamental question. The state must be large

in territory and self-sufficient in economics, with a balance between industry and agriculture

that supported a hardily conformist and ideologically motivated citizenry capable of fulfilling

historical prophecies - either Stalinist internal industrialization or Nazi colonial agrarianism.

Both Hitler and Stalin aimed at imperial autarky, within a large land empire well supplied in

food, raw materials, and mineral resources.”

“For Hitler… the strategy of economic expansion was a necessary outcome of the already

existing incongruity between Lebensraum [Living Space] and population. In order to bring both

factors back into line again, and to realize an autarkic large-area economy, the conquest

of new Lebensraum was first necessary. But before this Lebensraum had been conquered,

autarky could not be realized, from which it follows that trade had to continue, and

therefore competition… We are dealing here with a circulus vitiosus of which Hitler was

certainly well aware. His solution: by first employing emergency measures, for example

the production of synthetic raw materials and the substitution of such raw materials

that would otherwise have to be imported, to achieve a limited ‘temporary’ autarky

and thereby create the conditions… for war. After the conquest of Lebensraum in the East,

a true autarky which could be maintained in the long-term could be created out of the

‘temporary’ autarky with the aid of the raw material and agricultural areas now available.

The ‘temporary’ autarky was therefore only an emergency solution.”

A limited ‘temporary’ Autarky (or Socialism) was to be achieved as a result of the Four

Year Plan. Full-Autarky would come after the conquest of Living Space when a pan-European

economic order could be established. Now, no one in their right mind is going to say

- well, Hitler didn’t implement full-Autarky, therefore he didn’t want Autarky. And for

the same reason, no one can seriously suggest that just because he was waiting until after

he conquered Living Space before implementing full-Socialism, that therefore he wasn’t

a Socialist. That would be a fundamental misinterpretation of Hitler’s intentions.

Bottom line: Hitler needed the resources of the East in order to bring in the full-socialism

he desired. Even if the Third Reich was capitalist (which it wasn’t), that still wouldn’t

mean that Hitler wasn’t a Socailist, just because he failed to conquer the resources

of the East which he needed to implement his socialism. Hitler failed to bring in Socialism

because he was a failure, not because he was a capitalist.

In their counterarguments, Marxists have claimed that imperialism was a form of capitalism.

And they say Fascism is capitalism, thus ‘Fascist Imperialism’ is a thing, and that Hitler’s

conquest of Living Space was ‘capitalist-Fascist imperialism’. They then conclude that capitalism

is evil. Well, even if we fully-accept the Marxist reasoning here - that capitalism resulted

in Fascist Imperialism - they’re still wrong.

“The realization that for Hitler the conquest of Lebensraum in the East was not a means

of ‘re-agrarianization’, and that he specifically regarded Russia as a source of raw material

and a market, will certainly be drawn upon by Marxist historians as support for the thesis

of a ‘Fascist imperialism’. What speaks against such an interpretation is, as we have

shown above, the argument that Hitler roundly rejected the exploitation of these sources

of raw materials in the service of private capital profit interests [in the Marxist sense]

and advocated instead that the economy of the East should be organized by the state

from the very beginning. How far this would still permit an argument in the direction

of ‘state monopoly capitalism’, cannot be discussed here.”

Luckily though we rejected the term ‘State Capitalism’ for being oxymoronic long ago.

‘State capitalism’ just means Socialism.

“What should at least be noted is that Hitler, as his refusal to industrialize Russia demonstrates,

clearly rejected the practice of capital export which was characteristic for the phase of

monopoly capitalism.”

So, even by their own logic, Marxists have misinterpreted this whole thing anyway. And

I could go into the whole history of imperialism, explaining how it was implemented by collectively-owned

(shareholder) corporations or by the public central-state, and thus wasn’t capitalism,

since collective control of the means of production is socialism - but I don’t want to get bogged

down here.

However, even if we used the Marxist pseudo-definition of capitalism here, and thus collective-shareholder

controlled means of production (corporations) are somehow capitalist, it still isn’t ‘Fascist

Imperialism’. The National Socialists aren’t Fascists. And I don’t care what Wikipedia

says - they’re not Fascists. It’s two different ideologies. Fascists and National

Socialists and Marxists all have Socialism in common - but that doesn’t mean they are

the same. National Socialists actually have more in common with the Marxists than they

do the Fascists, since the National Socialists want to unify the race on an international

level, just like the Marxists want to unify the class on an international level. Fascists

only want to unify the nation.

So yes, the Marxists were correct that it was imperialism, but were wrong because it

wasn’t capitalist imperialism - it was socialist imperialism. To be specific, it was ‘National

Socialist Imperialism’ that was heading East. The crisis of Socialism was to blame

for National Socialist Imperialism, not capitalism.

A lot of the counterarguments against the idea that Hitler’s Socialism was real Socialism,

fail to understand one vital aspect of Hitler’s ideology, which explains why it is Socialism,

and why it doesn’t look the same as Marxist-Socialism. People don’t know about the fundamental

problem that Hitler has to face, which he never solved, and which other Socialisms can

just dismiss. And because people don’t know, Marxists can make the claim that the Nazis

were capitalists, throw a few pieces of evidence at you that are completely out of context,

and start smearing and slandering away. Well, such Marxists need to listen to what I’m

about to say, because grasping Hitler’s decision to just ignore the fundamental ideological

flaw in his ideology will, in turn, completely annihilate the counterargument that states

‘Hitler’s Socialism was capitalism’.

So here we go. Apart from the obvious fact that National Socialism has racism built into

it, and demands the destruction or enslavement of what it deems to be “inferior” races,

and calls for totalitarian Socialism, the ideology itself is based on a contradiction.

In order to get you to understand it, I need to explain Hitler’s racism again. So, here’s

a short clip from one of my previous videos -

Hitler believes that when two animals of different species have an offspring, that offspring

is inferior. So a donkey and a horse make a mule - which is infertile. Hitler says that

this is nature’s way of saying that diluted blood is wrong. Yes, it’s pseudo-science

that is not true at all, since tigers and lions can have ligers and they’re not infertile,

but you get the idea.

Hitler then applies this logic to humans and says that only pure-blooded Aryans can create

nations. He says that in history, nations didn’t rise and fall because of wars or

economics, but because of their blood. Nations can only rise because of Aryans. And, in Hitler’s

mind, when an Aryan race creates a nation, they would conquer other races. They would

then interbreed with their slaves, dilute their blood with the blood of the lesser-peoples

they’d conquered, weaken themselves, and cause the downfall of their nation.

“A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys the unity

of the soul of the national in all its manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the

inevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood.”

Okay, let’s just stop there a second. A collective is a group of people. In this case

it is a collective based on the people’s skin colour, or race. In Marxism it is a collective

based on someone’s class. Which is why Lenin was happy to murder anyone who was born into

the bourgeoisie class, and why Hitler was happy to murder anyone born Jewish.

The thing with Marxism is that, they think everyone is a member of their class - individuals

don’t exist, you’re all part of your collective. If you go against your class, you are a ‘class

traitor’ and can be killed. So, ideologically, everyone belongs to the group. Marxism embraces

“socialized man” - the class collective.

Well, National Socialism attempts to do the same thing. It says that everyone is a member

of their race - you’re born into your racial collective, just like the Marxists think you’re

born into your class collective.

The problem with National Socialism though is that there’s a little concept called

“Social Darwinism”. You may have heard of the idea of the “survival of the fittest”.

Well, that idea not only says that the fittest race, or group, will survive, but it also

says that the fittest individuals will survive. Because, in order for the “race” to be

fit, the fittest individuals need to survive and breed, passing their genes down from generation

to generation.

So, while Marxism can reject the idea of the individual (and does so), racism requires

the idea of the individual. And this is a big problem for collectivist ideologies like

racism and National Socialism.

If I am an individual who is male, and another individual who is male commits a crime, I

don’t go to jail for it. Why? Because I’m an individual ‘man’ - I’m not ‘men’.

I’m not plural. Just because I’m male doesn’t mean I’m guilty when someone else

who’s male does something stupid. Judge me - the individual - for who I am, not for

what I’m not. Similarly, I have white skin, but if someone else who is white commits a

crime, I didn’t commit the crime. I’m not guilty just because I share the same skin

colour, or the same eye colour, or the same hair colour. If someone who’s a worker is

lazy, that doesn’t mean I’m lazy just because I’m a worker, right? And so on.

Ultimately, if we’re individuals, then what someone else does is not relevant. We’re

not guilty by association.

To be a socialist, or a collectivist, you need to join the collective. It requires that

individuals give up their individuality and submit themselves to the group (the collective

needs come first). If they don’t do this, if you keep the idea of the individual, you

can’t have a collective. I’m an individual, not a plural - therefore there is no collective.

So, to have socialism, they have to get rid of the idea of the individual. Well Marxism

does just that. Marxism says that everyone is part of their class. And anyone who rejects

their class, is a class traitor, and, so the logic goes, can be be wiped out. There’s

no place for individuals in Marxism, and since class is a socially made-up concept that has

no basis in reality, they can reject the idea of the individual and get away with it.

But National Socialists and other racists can’t ignore individuality because of ‘Social

Darwinism’, which is fundamental to their racism, and to nature. They have to fit the

individual into their collectivism, and this presents a fundamental issue because collectivism

and individualism are polar opposite concepts.

If I’m an individual and I’m free to do individual things, then I haven’t submitted

to ‘my’ group. And that makes sense. And if I’m part of the group and submit myself

to it, I’m no longer free to make individual choices. Effectively, I’ve lost my individuality.

And that makes sense. However, if I’m part of the group, and that group is racial, then

‘Social Darwinism’ says I, as an individual, am competing against my group in order for

the fittest individual to survive. Therefore, I’m still an individual, and the collective

doesn’t exist. If we’re all part of the race, but we’re competing against each other

for survival of the fittest, then we’re not all working towards the race. You see?

If we’re all individuals, and we’re all competing against each other, then we’re

not working together for the collective - which would be socialism. So if we’re individuals,

which we are, socialism is impossible.

Here’s how the flaw in their logic goes -

Hitler says the Germans are all ‘supermen’ because they all share this ‘superior’

Aryan blood. They all have to work towards the racial collective, cooperating together

towards the whole. In such a society, the Aryans will have been socialized, hence ‘socialism’.

But what about survival of the fittest? Doesn’t that mean that, if a ‘fit’ German wants

to pass his superiority onto the next generation, he has to outcompete the other ‘weaker’

Germans? If so, the ‘fit’ German has outcompeted the weaker German. Meaning, he is competing

against ‘the race’, and against the ‘racial community’, rather than cooperating together

towards the collective? Which means, they’re not a collective working together at all,

and thus, aren’t ‘socialized’.

And if Hitler insists that they are socialized and that they must not compete, then they’re

no longer individuals, and thus you cannot have survival of the fittest. And round it

goes, in circular logic. So, the ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘Social-Darwinist’

concept actually destroys the idea that there’s some sort of ‘collective race’ that they’re

all supposed to be working towards, which is the central idea of National Socialism.

It actually places a massive contradiction snap-bang in the middle of National Socialist

ideology, and Hitler himself wasn’t able to solve this.

“He was a socialist and deliberately so. But in his attachment to nature he was constantly

able to observe the fight for existence, the struggle to defeat the other one, and to recognize

this as a natural law.”

And this actually causes problems for the National Socialists of today. For example,

Nazis like to say that there’s a ‘Jewish Banking Cartel’ that’s pulling the strings

behind the scenes, which supposedly ‘proves’ that there’s a Jewish plot to take over

the world. Well, for argument’s sake, let’s just go accept their premise for a second.

If that is the case - if there is a bunch of Jewish bankers ruling the world, or being

criminals or whatever - then why are all Jewish people to blame for the crimes of a few? Again,

when one ‘white’ guy commits a crime, he is punished for the crime, and other ‘white’

guys are not punished for it. If I had a kid, and the kid runs someone over in their car,

I don’t get punished for it. It wasn’t my fault - I didn’t do it. So why should

I get punished for it? That doesn’t make any sense, right? Similarly, if there’s

individuals owning an international banking cartel committing crimes, then surely we should

just punish the individuals who are committing the crimes. We can’t punish a new born baby

for the crimes of an international banking cartel - the baby hasn’t committed the crime.

Even if the baby happens to be the kid of one of the bankers committing the crime - the

baby is innocent. The baby, regardless of his race or whatever, is not to blame and

doesn’t deserve to be punished. And the reason why is because the baby is an individual,

not a skin colour, and the baby isn’t guilty by association for the crimes of other individuals.

So yes, if this ‘international Jewish banking cartel’ does actually exist, punish the

individuals committing the crime, not the whole of the Jewish race. Can you imagine?

In World War Two the Germans committed lots of crimes - so I guess, by the Nazis’ own

logic then, we have to blame every single German that has ever existed for the crimes

that some Germans committed at a certain time. I mean, what kind of logic is that? Can you

imagine if one guy from China commits a crime - therefore all 1.5 billion Chinese need to

go to jail.

The same applies to the Marxists. One worker is lazy, therefore every worker is lazy. One

woman smells, therefore by the collectivist-Feminist ideology, all women smell. No, it’s stupid,

childish logic which makes no sense. We’re all individuals. So if there’s one ugly

duckling - only that duckling is ugly. All ducklings are not ugly.

So as you can see, this is the fundamental problem for the National Socialists - but

also for other collectivist ideologies. If the National Socialists say that the ‘Jews’

have committed a crime, or if the Marxists say that the ‘bourgeoisie’ have committed

a crime, the question needs to be - “what, you’re saying that all of the Jews, including

new born babies, are to blame? And you’re saying all the bourgeoisie commited the crime,

including the children, and that we should murder them all, including the innocent? Really?”

And if they say “no”, then they’re admitting that there’s no reason to punish the entire

class/racial/gender/nationality/whatever collective.

If they say “yes, they all committed the crime”, then we can say “no they didn’t,

not all Jewish people are bankers, so they can’t all be guilty”. Because obviously,

it’s highly unlikely that every single Jewish person works in a bank. Similarly, I’m sure

some factory bosses form cartels, or are racist, or are sexist or whatnot. Great. Punish those

individuals that are at fault, not the millions of other people who happen to be associated

with the individual who commited a crime.

Anyway, Hitler has a bit of a problem because of this contradiction. As a Racial Socialist,

he wants to unite all the German race into a national collective - a People’s State.

But he has this ‘survival of the fittest’ concept to consider. And since individualism

and collectivism are polar opposite ideas, they don’t go together properly and want

to break apart. So basically what he does is, he takes his racial Socialism and slaps

the concept of individualism on the side. Then uses bluetack, sticky-tape and string

to keep the whole mess together, hoping it won’t come apart. The result is a contradictory

ideology with a fundamental flaw at the heart of it, which is why it doesn’t look like

Marxist Socialism.

“The racial Weltanschauung [world view] is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist

by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also

personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure.”

So National Socialism is both ‘for the race’ (collectivism), but also allows ‘personal

worth’ (individualism).

“If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance

of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of

the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete

with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself

a Weltanschauung. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality

and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with

the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.”

Hitler is saying, if they forget about the individual, or the fact that they are racists

(rather than class-ists), then they will be just like Marxist Socialists. Hitler literally

spells that out. And now, hopefully, you can see why National Socialism is basically Marxism,

but racist, and with the concept of the individual stuck on the side. Yes, it is different - but

only slightly. And it’s not capitalism just because it tries (and fails) to keep the idea

of the individual; it’s still Socialism. However, this slight difference in the ideology,

of course, has some big implications for the way that the National Socialist economy turns

out.

Now that we understand that Hitler’s ideology is calling for a racial-collective, but has

individualism stuck on the side, it’s important to understand how this warps Hitler’s view

of economics, and of history. But it also explains why he hates Jewish people.

In Hitler’s mind, nations are created only by Aryan races. And the individuals of the

Aryan race work together for the betterment of their racial community. He says that, when

a ‘superior’ race mixes its blood with that of an ‘inferior’ race, the blood

gets weak, and the nation falls as a result - since only pure blooded people can create

nations (in his mind). And, if there are no Aryans left, then, by this logic, civilisation

will end.

“The greatness of the Aryan is not based on his intellectual powers, but rather on

his willingness to devote all his faculties to the service of the community…”

“The Jew offers the most striking contrast to the Aryan. There is probably no other

people in the world who have so developed the instinct of self-preservation as the so-called

'chosen' people’.”

“With the Jewish people the readiness for sacrifice does not extend beyond the simple

instinct of individual preservation… Jews act in concord only when a common danger threatens

them or a common prey attracts them. Where these two motives no longer exist then the

most brutal egotism appears and these people who before had lived together in unity will

turn into a swarm of rats that bitterly fight against each other.”

So notice, Hitler’s saying that Jewish people are entirely individualistic, and thus do

not work for the betterment of their community. They’re not capable of creating a racial

collective like the Aryan races are, and thus they are entirely capitalistic, and cannot

create civilisations.

“Since the Jew... never had a civilization of his own, he has always been furnished by

others...”

“That is why the Jewish people... have not a culture - certainly not a culture of their

own. The culture which the Jew enjoys to-day is the product of the work of others and this

product is debased in the hands of the Jew.”

“If the Jews were the only people in the world they would be wallowing in filth and

mire and would exploit one another and try to exterminate one another in a bitter struggle,

except in so far as their utter lack of the ideal of sacrifice, which shows itself in

their cowardly spirit, would prevent this struggle from developing.”

The caricature of Capitalism (to those who do not understand it) is to think it is purely

about individuals competing against each other for greed and profit. Well in Hitler’s mind,

the ‘Jews’ are supposedly out for themselves like that. So he thinks the Jews are Capitalism

and Capitalism is the Jews. So, when people argue that ‘Hitler is a Capitalist’, not

only are they completely wrong and do not understand Hitler’s own ideology, but they

are literally saying that “National Socialism is Jewish”. And then they wonder why their

arguments don’t work.

But, to understand National Socialist ideology even further, what Hitler goes on to say is

that the Jews are aiming to destroy civilization. He says -

“Jewish self-expansion is a parasitic phenomenon--since the Jew is always looking for new pastures

for his race.”

“The Jew wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow from

inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and

disintegration, until he has ruined his hated adversary.”

“The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection of instructions for maintaining

the Jewish blood pure and for regulating intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world: that

is to say, their relation with non-Jews.”

“History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling

clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race

the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher

culture.”

“A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys the unity

of the soul of the national in all its manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the

inevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood.”

Right, so Hitler is making it clear that, in his mind, the Jews are aiming to infiltrate

the nations of the world, then interbreed with the Aryans, poison the ‘blood’, and

(since nations cannot exist without Aryan blood, apparently) this will cause the end

of civilisation. Everyone will end up Jewish, and thus no nations can exist, since the Jews

aren’t Aryans and can’t create nations. This is why, in a previous video, I jokingly

sang a song saying “Hitler thought he was trying to save the world”. But joking aside,

in his mind, Hitler genuinely thinks that he is trying to save the world. That’s not

a joke - he actually thinks this.

But Hitler goes even further. He says that industrialization and ‘Jewish capitalism’

have caused a ‘crisis’ for the modern world.

“...the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the situation offered him for the future.

While on the one hand he organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate

degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of this policy and his power and

in a short while became the leader of their struggle against himself.”

And there you go. Hitler is saying that the Jews are using capitalism to bring about a

social-economic crisis. And this is all a cunning plan, because the Jews are using this

crisis to gain support from the victims of this crisis - the poor workers. And they,

in-turn, will call for Marxist-Socialism, which is actually what the Jews really want.

“Just as he succeeded in obtaining civic rights by intrigues carried on under the protection

of the bourgeois class, he now hoped that by joining in the struggle which the workers

were waging for their own existence he would be able to obtain full control over them.”

“When that moment arrives, then the only objective the workers will have to fight for

will be the future of the Jewish people. Without knowing it, the worker is placing himself

at the service of the very power against which he believes he is fighting.”

“This Marxist doctrine is an individual mixture of human reason and human absurdity;

but the combination is arranged in such a way that only the absurd part of it could

ever be put into practice, but never the reasonable part of it. By categorically repudiating the

personal worth of the individual and also the nation and its racial constituent, this

doctrine destroys the fundamental basis of all civilization; for civilization essentially

depends on these very factors. Such is the true essence of the Marxist Weltanschauung

[world view], so far as the word Weltanschauung can be applied at all to this phantom arising

from a criminal brain. The destruction of the concept of personality and of race removes

the chief obstacle which barred the way to domination of the social body by its inferior

elements, which are the Jews.”

Yes, so ‘Jewish capitalism’ (in Hitler’s mind) is causing a crisis that ‘Jewish communism’

is using to seize control of the world. And since communism destroys the idea of ‘race’

and individuals, this will allow the Jews to breed with the Aryan race and bring the

downfall of civilization (supposedly). So, when in the past I’ve shown the political

spectrum from the point of view of Hitler and the National Socialist, you have Jewish

capitalism on the Right, and Jewish Bolshevism on the Left. And Hitler puts himself in the

middle - a ‘Nazi Third Way’. (There is a ‘Fascist Third Way’ but the Fascists

didn’t believe in the Jewish world conspiracy like the Nazis do, so they’re a separate

entity, but you can see why people think they’re the same thing - because they’re closely

aligned. Anyway - ) Hitler is actually fighting against both Marxism and Capitalism, and the

doctrine he’s using to fight these ‘evil’ forces is Socialism - a racial-Socialism.

“The internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the transference

of our productive forces to the control of Jewish international finance, can be completely

carried out only in a State that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting

forces, commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finally smash

the national resistance in Germany without friendly help from outside.”

“Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for the complete

destruction of Germany.”

“The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization of Germany,

that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making

it possible to force German Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance - that

is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally

subjugating the world to its rule.”

So, there you go. We can see that Hitler and National Socialism are fighting against the

Jews, who are using both capitalism and Marxism to destroy the world. In Hitler’s mind,

Marxism is being controlled by “international Jewish finance”. In other words, Marxism

is controlled by capitalism, which is controlled by the Jews. This is why he dislikes both

Marxism and capitalism, and the Jews. Thus, in Hitler’s mind, he thinks he’s trying

to save the world.

“Contrary to the accepted Marxist interpretation, Hitler was not an opponent of Marxism and

did not want to destroy it because he was ‘inimical to labour’ but because he was

caught up in the insane idea that Marxism was an instrument of the Jews for the achievement

of world domination, and above all because he rejected internationalism, ‘pacifism’

and the negation of the ‘personality principle’ by Marxism.”

In 1928, Hitler wondered if Jewish-Marxism (funded by Jewish-capitalism) would be overthrown

in the Soviet Union.

“However, it is conceivable that in Russia itself an inner change within the Bolshevist

world could take place insofar as the Jewish element could perhaps be forced aside by a

more or less Russian national one. Then it could also not be excluded that the present

real Jewish-capitalist-Bolshevisk Russia could be driven to national-anti-capitalist tendencies.”

He concludes that this would be unlikely. So how does he intend to fight the Jewish

capitalist-Marxist conspiracy?

“For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the

idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in existence.

As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a

new order of things but to clear the ground for its establishment.”

Hitler will fight the Jews, then bring in a socialist “People’s State”. To fight

both ‘Jewish-Capitalism’ and ‘Jewish-international-Marxism’, Hitler with forge his own Nationalistic version

of Socialism.

“The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if, in the positive

struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread the international poison among

them are exterminated.”

Hitler is saying here that he’s going to exterminate the ‘international poison’

- meaning, the Jews. And, once he’s done that, he’s going to bring about the ‘nationalization

of the masses’. In other words, the collectivisation of the race. He’s going to ‘socialize

the people’ - create a ‘People’s State’ for the German race.

“I am a German nationalist. This means that I proclaim my nationality. My whole thought

and action belongs to it. I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before

me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united

by a language, and subject to a same general fate...”

“The National Socialist Movement which I lead today views its goal as the liberation

of our Folk within and without.”

Hitler’s also going to unite the German people and go East, in order to get Living

Space and the resources he needs to create his National Socialist utopia. This also serves

the purpose of destroying the Marxist Soviet Union, which he believes is run by Jewish-capital.

So when the Marxists claim that Hitler’s not a Socialist, they’re wrong because he’s

fighting Marxism (which he thinks is Jewish) in order to found a true Socialist collective

for Aryans. And when they claim that Hitler is a capitalist, they’re also wrong because

he’s fighting against Capitalism, which he sees as Jewish. Thus, Hitler is a Socialist.

He’s just not a Marxist-Socialist. He wants a racial National Socialism.

Both National Socialism and Marxist Socialism are discriminatory ideologies. If you were

born into the bourgeoisie, the Marxists of Lenin’s regime would view you as inherently

bourgeois. Your class would always be with you; a stigma you were born with and could

never erase. Once a bourgeoisie, always a bourgeoisie. Marxism promises a classless

society, but in reality, the only reason it’s classless is because all the bourgeoisie would

have been murdered or enslaved. Well, the same thing applies to Hitler’s racial-version

of Socialism; all Germans are equal, and those who were not born German bare the stigma of

their race.

“The Nazis’ racist teachings have been read solely as encouragement for hatred, violence,

and murder, but for millions of Germans their appeal lay in the promise of real equality

within the ethnic community. Externally, Nazi ideology emphasized differences; internally,

it smoothed them over.”

“For all those who legally belonged to the German racial community - about 95 percent

of the population - social divides became ever smaller.”

Lenin called for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Hitler called for the ‘dictatorship

of the Aryan’ - or a “People’s State”. For Lenin, the bourgeoisie must be removed

from society. For Hitler, the Jews must be removed from society. So this isn’t class-Socialism,

which is what Marxism preaches. National Socialism is a racial-Socialism, and manifests itself

slightly differently to Marxism. In fact, Hitler wanted to cure the class crisis of

Marxism by removing the Jews, who he thought were causing it for their own ends.

In their counterarguments against me, Marxists have said that, because I made up the term

‘racial-Socialism’, this is proof that I am willing to make stuff up, therefore I

cannot be trusted. No, the term ‘racial-Socialism’ describes National Socialism perfectly. In

fact, it’s better than saying ‘National Socialism’ since Hitler needed to destroy

and conquer several nations in order to unite the German people under one nation. Therefore,

his end-goal was a nationalism, but his policy was inherently ‘international’ in nature.

Same goes with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They were ‘international’ because they wanted

to unite the workers in every country, but their end-goal was ‘nationalism’, since

if they united the workers of the world under one State, that State would be a nation. A

nation can be the size of a city, or encompass the world. There’s no rule that says a nation

is not a nation just because it’s the only nation in existence. Uniting the world under

one nation would be a nation. ‘One nation, under God.’ So Marxism is national and international

in nature. Well, so is German National Socialism.

The main difference between these two ideologies is not the nationalism and internationalism

(which are two sides of the same coin), but their theories of class and race. Marxism

is class-socialism, since it believes in the Class Theory of History, and hopes to unite

the workers of the world under one nation. National Socialism is racial-socialism, since

it believes in the Racial Theory of History, and hopes to unite the Germans of the world

under one nation.

“The more fanatically nationalist we are, the more we must take the welfare of the national

community to heart, that means the more fanatically socialist we become.”

“...socialism becomes nationalism, nationalism socialism. They are both one, socialism and

nationalism. They are the greatest fighters for their own people…”

Thus, the term ‘racial-Socialism’ does a decent job of describing the ideology in

question. It simplifies the concept and puts it in plain language that’s easy to understand

for most people. The term ‘class-socialism’ does the same for Marxism. And this frees

up the term ‘nationality socialism’ to best describe Fascism, since Fascists aren’t

always racist, and there were plenty of Jewish members of the Fascist Party in Italy.

“...the Fascists were not racist - necessarily. Mussolini believed, for example, that race

was not a biological phenomenon but a spiritual one… A Jew could certainly be an Italian.

Many of the most committed Fascists were Jews… Given Italy’s rich racial mix, Nazi style

racism would have been quite impossible in Italy anyway. The Fascists did not advocate