Public vs Private | TIKhistory


To fully understand the present, we must understand
the past. And one thing I see time and time again is people misunderstanding elements
of the past, which is bad because it leads to false conclusions, which in turn leads
to horrible and needless suffering. One of my Patrons, John Hargreaves, recently asked
me a question regarding Hitler and National Socialism. He said – “I am a naive scientist and engineer with
an interest in all things about people and what drives them therefore may I ask a question
please: “In the creation of the National Socialist state by Hitler did he not effectively privatise
the whole state as his and his board of directors sole control ?” Was he and the inner party
reaping the benefits of ownership of the state; I understand I think all you have said but
surely any dictator from whatever political colour is a dictator because they have taken
over the State in their private control – just a thought.” Bear with me here, because what I’m about
to describe to you is 100% relevant, but in order for me to explain this properly, for
the first time on this channel, we have to go right back to the dawn of western civilization.
So, let’s do that. In the earliest days of Ancient Greece and
Rome, you had the family. The concept of the individual had not been created yet. Instead,
you were a part of your family, and the good that you did, or the bad that you did, impacted
the honour or value of your family. Each family had a hearth, and a sacred fire.
You would offer sacrifices to that fire because the fire represented both your family and
your family’s ancestors. Your ancestors – your gods – lived underground as spirits,
and were embodied in the fire, which is why you would offer the fire food and drink and
sacrifices. The fire could not be allowed to go out as your ancestors were still alive
as part of the fire. “Honor with worship the chiefs of the country,
the dead who live under the earth.” The eldest son would succeed the father as
the man who tended to the sacred fire and the sacred hearth. And the gods only accepted
offerings from the members of your family. The gods – your ancestors – were your family,
nobody else’s family. You must worship them and none others, and nobody else could worship
your gods unless they were part of your family. Daughters would perform a ritual – saying
goodbye to her old family, her old ancestors, her old gods – before her old sacred fire. The daughter would no longer be able to worship her old gods any more, and would no longer be
part of her old family. Her new husband would carry her across the threshold of his house
– which is a tradition which still carries on to this day – being careful not to touch
the sides of the door. He would take her to his hearth, his sacred fire where a ceremony
would welcome her into the new family. The bride, having lost her old gods and family,
would now receive new ones – the gods, ancestors and fire of her husband. Once she is married
she cannot return to her old family anymore because she has renounced them forever – even
if her new husband dies. As you can probably imagine, the family – not
the individual – was the basis of society. A family did not share anything in common
with another family. They were completely separate. Even in late Roman times, the houses
had to be a minimum of 2.5 feet from each other and could not share a common wall because
the gods of the family have to have their own homes. And the sale of property was forbidden,
since it wasn’t the property of the individual, but the property of the family and of the
gods within it. The family had its own customs, laws and traditions. The head of the family
– the father – was the head of its own temple. He had absolute authority within the family,
and even had the right to kill his wife and/or children, and no other family could stop him. “The family did not receive its laws from
the city… Private law existed before the city.” These families were “private” families.
“Privus”, meaning ‘single’ or ‘individual’, meant (and still does) a person or belonging
to a small group of people that was separate from ‘public’ life. In a sense, small
independent private ‘estates’, rather than large organizations. But families would expand in size, eventually
growing to include a few thousand members. These larger families were called “gens”
or “gentes”, and might be a single line, or several branches of the same family, all
sharing the same sacred fire or common burial tomb. Each family had its chief – like a little
king – and would probably have slaves, which may have had families themselves within the
greater family. This is why we have the word Gentleman in English. The origin of the word
Gentle, meaning a noble or having the qualities attributed to noble birth, comes from the
Old French gentil, meaning ‘high-born, noble’, which comes from Latin gentilis ‘of the
same clan’. “The Athene of the Acropolis of Athens belonged
to the family of the Butadae. The Potitii of Rome had a Hercules… It appears highly
probably that the worship of Venus was for a long time limited to the family of the Julii,
and that this goddess had no public worship at Rome.” Now, while the private domestic religion forbade
two families from uniting, it was possible for several families to join together in the
celebration of superior gods which they may find in common. And when a number of families
formed this new worship, they called it a phratria (in Greek), or curia (in Latin).
They would raise an alter to a new divinity – one which was higher than the domestic gods,
and one which they all had in common – and light a new sacred fire to that being, in
a new temple. And the curia or phratria had its own chief, or curion, or phratriarch. This new phratry (where we get the word Fraternity
from, or brotherhood) had its own laws, customs, gods, worship, priesthood, and government.
It was a small society, and when several of these societies joined together, they would
create a ‘tribe’. This new tribe would also light a new fire at the new altar, and
do the same – creating laws and traditions. The head of the tribe – the ‘tribunas’
– would be the king of this society. And when several tribes united together, this new alliance
would be the founding of a city, which would adopt its own laws, customs, gods, worship,
priesthood, and government. In fact, Rome was supposedly founded by three such tribes. “Little by little, the god, gaining more
authority over the soul… left the domestic hearth. He had a dwelling of his own, and
his own sacrifices.” The gods of the family with the most prestige
would be adopted by the wider society. If we take Athens as an example, this was why
Athena was the head of the city. The entire structure of the city was the alliance of
multiple families in a hierarchy. This hierarchy united the many ‘private’ families together.
And this hierarchy and society was known as the ‘public’ – or publicus – ‘of the
people’ or ‘of the state’. This ‘public’ hierarchy was the structure
of the central state. This is why, today, we call the state the ‘public sector’
– meaning: “noun, the part of an economy that is controlled by the state.” The word
‘public’, even to this day, retains the same meaning as the hierarchy of Ancient times.
From the Oxford English Dictionary: “Public, adjective, 1. of or concerning the people
as a whole. 2. open to or shared by all the people of an area or country. 3. of or involved
in the affairs of the community, especially in government or entertainment. 4. of or provided
by the state rather than an independent, commercial company.” There are other words too, which can be used
in place of the word ‘public’ or ‘state’. These include words like: common which means
– adjective, belonging to or involving the whole of a community or the public at large:
e.g. common land. Noun, a piece of open land for public use. Or words like society noun,
1. the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. 2. the
community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs,
laws, and organizations. 3. a specified section of such a community. Or there’s group noun,
1. a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together. 2. a number
of people that work together or share certain beliefs. 3. a commercial organization consisting
of several companies under common ownership. Or nation noun, a large body of people united
by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory. The public, the public sector, the nation,
the society, the social group, the collective, the common, or commune… whatever – they
all mean the same thing – the hierarchy of the ‘public’ state. “At the core of ancient thinking we have
found the assumption of natural inequality. Whether in the domestic sphere, in public
life or when contemplating the cosmos, Greeks and Romans did not see anything like a level
playing field. Rather, they instinctively saw a hierarchy or pyramid.” Then came Jesus, or at least Paul’s interpretation
of Jesus as he wrote about him. Prior to this point, you were a member of your family, and
your actions were a reflection of your ancestors, your gods, your family, your social group.
You were part of your group, your society; you were not an individual. But Jesus died
on the cross for your sins. He said: your individual actions will be judged, not by
your family, or society, but by God. And he will judge you alone. You are responsible
for your own life: and you will go to Heaven or Hell based on what you do, not based on
what your family or your society does. If another member of your family commits a murder,
you don’t go to jail for it. You are not guilty by association in the eyes of God. Whether you believe in him or not, Jesus’s
significance for the history of humanity is profound. This was the invention of the concept
of the individual. Every human being is now individually responsible for their own lives. “Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus
amounted to the discovery of human freedom – of a moral agency potentially available
to each and everyone, that is, to individuals. This ‘universal’ freedom, with its moral
implications, was utterly different from the freedom enjoyed by the privileged class of
citizens in the polis.” “The Christ provides a foundation in the
nature of things for a pre-social or individual will. Individual agency acquires roots in
divine agency. The Christ stands for the presence of God in the world, the ultimate support
for individual identity.” The ‘private’ individual is born. Prior
to this point, ‘private’ meant a small group or family sized unit at the bottom of
the hierarchy. And it still does. But now, it also meant the individual within that small
group or family. An individual who owns his own ‘private’ tools and ‘private’
workshop, is a ‘private’ individual. And a small family who own their own business
could also be classed as ‘private’. But when you rise higher on the hierarchy,
you shift from ‘private’ control to ‘public’ control. To “go public”, is when a company
makes shares available on a stock market for the first time. So, a company that goes
public is no longer owned by individuals or small families, but is owned collectively
by a wider portion of society – anyone can buy shares in the company. It’s ‘private’
in the sense that you or I may not be able to just walk into its head office and visit
the executive bathroom. But it’s no longer a private company, it is a public company.
It’s owned by society as a whole – or at least, the part of society which wishes to
own a portion of it. It may not be the central ‘state’, but it is still a ‘public’
state. Let me say that again: a public entity may
not be the central state, but it may be a mini-state in itself, in competition with
the central hierarchy. There can be competing public entities. You, for example, are the
private viewer watching this video on YouTube, and I am the private creator. We are the private
sector. The ‘public’ company YouTube is above us in the hierarchy. Google is above
that, and Alphabet is above that. Alphabet is an internet ‘public’ state. It is the
top of its own hierarchy. It’s not the central state – it’s not the government of Washington
or London – but it is its own state. It’s ‘private’ in the sense that you or I can’t
just put our feet up on the CEO’s desk, but it’s still a ‘public’ entity because
it is a public hierarchy. And it is in competition with the central states for power, which is
why they’re getting in trouble at the moment over their censorship and election rigging
scandals. Both the central state and the internet state are in competition with each other for
power. Of course, a ‘public’ entity may also
be part of the central ‘state’ hierarchy – and a good way to tell is to find out if
it gets its money or revenue from the state. Here’s why this is important. A private
company trades with other private people or entities. This trade – the exchange of goods
and services – is called barter. You give me fish, and I’ll give you a lump of this
shiny metal metal called gold. However, after a while, lumps of gold and silver were turned
into coins, which had a fixed weight and size. It was then possible to start saying things
like – this quantity of fish is worth 16 one-ounce gold coins. Therefore this quantity of fish
is worth 1 pound of gold. (16 ounces is a pound, which is where Pound Sterling comes
from.) The exchange of goods and services by lots of ‘private’ people and entities
is what generates prices. We only know the value of whatever it is we buy because of
the exchange of goods and services by private individuals. Without the trade of private
individuals – without the buying and selling of items in exchange for money or currency
– we wouldn’t be able to put a price on something. If you’re alone on a desert island, how
much is a coconut worth in gold or paper? Well… it’s not. It has no price-value. It’s
valuable, but you cannot calculate the price of it because you have no one to agree with
you on the price. Only by exchanging goods with other people in a free market can we
come to a price. And that price isn’t fixed and also varies depending on circumstances.
If you’re drowning in a river, a glass of water isn’t worth much to you. But if you’re
dying of thirst in a desert, you’d give anything to have a glass of water. Is a bottle of water at the supermarket the
same price as the same bottle of water at a motorway service station? No, because you
have less access to quantities of water on a long flat road than you would have if you
were at home, so the price is more at a service station than it is at your local shop. Products
do not have inherent prices. An apple fell off a tree and hit Newton on the head. If
that apple was still around today, you can be sure that people would pay a lot more for
that super-special apple than they would some random apple in an orchard. Apples are not
worth a set price, and neither is anything else. The exchange of goods and services between
people in different locations, with different quantities, and differing wants and needs,
is what gives something its value – its price. We call this concept the ‘Subjective Theory
of Value’ – which was first conceptualized in the late 1800s by economists like Carl
Menger. Without ‘private’ individuals buying and
selling goods and services, it would be impossible to calculate the true value of things. It
would be impossible to calculate prices. Some authority can arbitrarily order that a bottle
of water is worth one Dollar. But if it is worth less than that, people wouldn’t buy
it. Why would you pay for something that’s more expensive than it should be? So there
would be massive quantities of unsold bottles of water piled up in warehouses. And if the
bottle of water was worth more than one Dollar – if the authority had artificially reduced
the price in order to appease the people – everyone would rush out and buy more water than they
actually needed, since they’re on offer. But since there’s only a finite number of
bottles of water, there will be shortages of bottles of water, and soon you wouldn’t
be able to find bottles of water anywhere, except on the Free Market where sellers would
give you a bottle if you paid its true market value – which would be artificially higher
than it originally would have been due to the artificial shortage caused by the authority.
Usually though, authorities don’t like free markets, and ban them – calling them Black
Markets or criminal organizations. Profit indicates to someone that a product
is in demand. Viewers want history videos, so I can see there’s a demand for history
videos. Therefore I’ll make history videos rather than Close Combat videos, which is
what I started out with. If there was a high demand for pizza, then pizza entrepreneurs
will start making more profit, which they’ll reinvest into their businesses, and be able
to boost production of pizzas to fulfill that need. Thus higher profits indicates higher
demand. If you get rid of profits, or if the true value of something is impossible to determine,
then how would you know what’s in demand? How would you know what’s economical to produce and what isn’t? And what’s the most economical way to produce that thing? Is it better to
use more labour, or more machines? Which machine is more efficient or less costly? How would
you know if there’s no prices or value? You can’t even calculate how costly the
electricity is that you’re using because there is no price. Private markets create
prices, which shows demand, which can be fulfilled by the market. So, private individuals exchange goods and
services. This is called the private market – or the free market. And the way to tell
if a social entity or business – a ‘public’ company – is part of the central hierarchy
or not, is to find out if it gets its money or revenue from the state or central hierarchy,
rather than the free market. If the highest authority funds it, then it’s no longer
subject to the rules of the private or free exchange market. So essentially: if it’s
paid for by the state, it is the state. For example, a private individual gives money
to an individual doctor in a building. This building would be a private hospital, because
it provides patients with health care directly through the exchange of goods and services
on the market. If, instead, the government provides health care by taxing you and giving
that money to the doctor indirectly, this would be a ‘public’ or ‘social’ health
care system – because the market for health care has been abolished, or at least, artificially
manipulated. I’ve had people in the comments of my videos
tell me not-so-politely that the National Socialist Health Service in Britain is a private
company. This is despite the fact that everyone in the UK – the public – has to pay into the
ridiculously expensive, inefficient and murderously out of date system, via taxation, which is
collected by the state, which then claims it’s ‘free’. That’s why I, as a private
citizen, can opt out of the National Socialist Health Service – oh wait, no I can’t. Because
clearly there’s no market and I’m not free to do so. But it’s not a real social
service or anything like that. By the same token, when the government ‘privatizes’
an industry, but continues to pay for it, it hasn’t privatized it at all. As an example,
the ‘Academy’ schools in the UK have been called ‘private’ schools, and the UK government
and press have said how they are a great example of how the private sector cannot do education
correctly. However, they are not private schools. They are state funded schools. Yes, they don’t
follow the National (Socialist) Curriculum, but they are regulated by the state and must
do as the state wishes, and they are paid for by the central state, not by private citizens.
They are not receiving all their funds directly from the private citizens, meaning they are
not on the private market. There’s no way to know how efficient they are being because
you cannot generate prices. Yet, that doesn’t stop Goebbel’s Ministry of Enlightenment
criticizing them as being expensive to run, even though there’s no way to calculate
that. Again, they are being funded by the state. And if it’s paid for by the state,
it is the state. And guess what else is funded by the state – yes, the BBC. The same BBC which
has racial quotas, requiring them to recruit people based on the colour of their skin.
They judge you by the colour of your skin. They have sex quotas. They judge you by your
sex and gender. TV owners in the UK are being forced to pay a tax that funds a racist and
sexist state-corporation. And if it’s paid for by the state, it is the state. So yes,
the UK government is sexist and racist. The ‘private sector’ is non-state: “noun,
the part of the national economy that is not under direct state control.” Or “noun,
businesses and industries that are not owned or controlled by the government.” When you have a market which is in private
control, it is owned by individuals or small groups (like families). A ‘private market’
is also known as a ‘free market’ because it is free from state control. And Capitalism,
which is a term made up by the enemies of capitalism to make it sound greedy and evil,
is technically defined as the “private control of the means of production”. It is power
to the individuals and small businesses, not the big businesses, not the central banks,
and not the public state. “Capitalism noun, an economic and political
system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit,
rather than by the state.” “To-day no influential party would dare
openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word ‘Capitalism’
expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil.” Capitalism is all about small independent
‘private’ groups or individuals owning their businesses. Emphasis on small family-like
groups, and emphasis on individuals. “Private Enterprise noun, business or industry
that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than being controlled
by the state.” A public company is owned by the society as
a whole. It is a public hierarchy. “To go public – a company that goes public
makes shares available on a stock market for the first time…” …so that the rest of society can buy into
it. And thus, it is no longer private. “Private Company noun, a company whose shares
may not be offered to the public for sale…” Capitalism is for “private control”. Small
and individual. This is what the word ‘private’ means. It does not mean the hierarchy. It
does not mean big business, or corporations, or central banks, or state. Capitalism is
non-state, it is non-corporation, it is against big business, and against central banking,
because it knows that private businesses cannot grow large naturally. Why? Well, as businesses
grow, they find it harder and harder to be internally efficient because there is no exchange
of goods and services inside the business. They find it impossible to calculate internal
prices. It becomes incredibly difficult for a company like Amazon to know if they are
being efficient or not. It’s also impossible to have a monopoly under a free market. Monopolies
are only possible by government regulation or manipulation. Competition forces businesses
to lower prices to attract customers, helping the consumer, but also lowering profits, thus
keeping businesses lean and efficient. A giant, bloated mess of a corporation is getting killed
by small YouTubers like Tim Pool, who’s getting similar sorts of daily views on his
channel as they are. Competition is bad for big businesses because, despite the fact they
have a bigger budget, bigger teams and more expertise, they cannot compete with a guy
with a camera, who’s doing as good a job, if not better, than they are at delivering
the news. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be getting the views. As another example, in the 1800’s in America, Commodore Vanderbilt competed with the state-subsidized and regulated monopoly steam ship company – owned by Fulton. Technically it was illegal for Vanderbilt to compete with the government
monopoly, but, since rules are meant to be broken, he did anyway, undercutting Fulton’s
monopoly by charging lower prices and being more efficient with his business. Eventually
he cut prices to zero. Yes zero. He charged nothing to passengers for travelling on his
steamboats, making money by selling them things on the boats themselves. This is what capitalism is all about: the
idea that left to its own devices, the market will keep things small and cheap. It is all
about giving as much power as possible to the small companies and private individuals
in society, benefiting the consumer and limiting or bringing down the big businesses and corporations,
and states which weigh heavily upon society. It is against the hierarchy, for the benefit
of the people at the bottom. It uses profit as a guide. Are the people going hungry through
famine? Ok, then there’s profit to be made, if only I can figure out a way to put food
in the mouths of those people who are hungry. The rest of the hierarchy – the public sector
– is built upon the private sector. Without the private sector, the hierarchy has no foundation.
There can be individuals without states, but no state without individuals. You know this
is true because during regime changes or the fall of nations, the people live on. The Norman
conquest of Britain did not see the Angle-Saxons – the Anglish – wiped from existence. The
English still exist today. The downfall of one public regime and the replacement by another
might be bloody, but doesn’t necessarily destroy the private foundation. This replacement
of a regime is like a wheel. You start at the top, flow around, and come back to as
you were. You’re not moving anywhere (in fact, in some cases you’re going backwards),
you’re just replacing the old public state with a new public state. And this is why we
call this process of regime change a Revolution. Wheel – revolution – you get it? So, if capitalism sees the need for the private
sector to dominate society, what is it called when the public sector dominates society?
Well, there’s a few different terms. Collectivism noun, 1. the practice or principle
of giving a group priority over each individual in it. 2. the ownership of land and the means
of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system. Or socialism
noun, a political or economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means
of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community
as a whole. “It is the aim of Socialism to transfer
the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to
the State.” “The term ‘Communism’ signifies just the
same as ‘Socialism’. The use of these two words has repeatedly changed during the past
decades, but always the question which separated socialists from communists was only political
tactics. Both aim to socialize the means of production.” Socialism is the socialization of the means
of production. That’s just a fancy way of saying that society as a whole – in other
words, the public sector hierarchy – is in total control, not the private individuals.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that the central state is the only authority. You could have
other public bodies which are in control of certain sectors of the economy as well. Trade unions,
for example, also known as syndicates, could dominate society by being another hierarchy
either outside or as part of the central state structure. This is still the socialized control
of the economy – it’s still socialism – just a different form of it. You could also live
in a collective, or organize societies into other public bodies that form their own hierarchies. And just to clarify, the word communism has evolved over time, but prior to Lenin and Stalin, communism and socialism were synonyms of each other. They meant the same thing. And even now, they both
advocate public-sector control of the economy – they just want to get there in different
ways and rule over society in different ways. But, essentially, they mean the same thing. Marx and Engels described their Marxist version
of socialism and communism as – “…socialised man [which is the public
sector], the associated producers [in other words, the workers], rationally regulating
their interchange with Nature [meaning: they’re controlling the market and not letting it
be free], bringing it under their common control [bringing it into the hierarchy of public
state control], instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature…”
[instead of being ruled by the free market – or private market, capitalism.] So the public sector state, in the name of
the workers, is controlling the market, not letting it be free, by bringing all of society
into the hierarchy of the public state. But then some Marxists reject this. They say
that their ideology is non-state. They claim that Marx and Engels said that the state would
die away and there would be no state left. Instead, you would have a socialist Utopia.
And Engels does say this in his essay, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”. “State interference in social relations
becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government
of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes
of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out.” So, what Mr Engels is saying here, is that,
once the workers’ state has been established, the public hierarchy just “dies” out and
goes away of its own accord. Ok, so let’s just accept the idea that, once the next Lenin
and Stalin are in power, they and their goons will just disappear – even though that will
never happen – but let’s just accept it. Ok, so the public sector hierarchy just dies
away. There it goes. Ok, so what are we left with? The private sector without a state. Anarcho-capitalism. So that’s right – ladies and gentlemen,
Marx and Engels were anarcho-capitalists! Or, they’re lying and trying to trick you
into bringing in totalitarianism. Wake up people. But, we know they won’t wake up… anyway.
A trade union – also known as a worker’s ‘council’ – in Russian is known as a ‘Soviet’.
The Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – the USSR. It was a union of workers
trade union councils. This is the principle of Marxist Socialism – or communism – that
everything was owned by the public sector – a public sector set up in the name of the
workers. Workers were forced into trade unions or Gulags, and peasants were forced into collective
farms or Gulags, resulting in millions of deaths. Why? Because they abolished the free
markets, thus preventing the free exchange of goods, meaning that there was no way to
calculate prices. Without the prices or independent ‘private’ people to fulfill the need,
there was no incentive to meet demand, and thus the peasants starved. When Lenin got into power in Russia after
the October Revolution (which happened in November), one of his first tasks was to get
bread from the farms into the cities. But Lenin, like all socialists, believed that
profit was theft. Therefore he ordered the peasants to sell their grain to the state
at a fixed price, and then this would be, in turn, redistributed to the people in the
cities. Of course, the price Lenin was willing to pay for this grain was lower than what
the grain was actually worth, so the peasants decided not to sell it to the government…
obviously. Instead, they hopped onto the trains with sacks of grain on their backs, and sold
the grain directly to the workers in the cities – creating a free market. Lenin wasn’t happy
with this – calling the free market, a black market – and ordered these bagmen to be shot.
He then ordered that the peasants hand over all of their crops which weren’t required
to feed themselves. “If they would not yield it, armed teams
of workers and soldiers would be sent to take it by force.” So, basically, instead of trading their own
goods for food, they stole food instead. Lazy people with guns, claiming to be workers,
stole food off the people who grew food. And you know they were lazy because if they had
got to work and had produced something of value which the farmers wanted, they wouldn’t
have had to resort to stealing. But no, the workers were producing bullets and bombs – things
the farmers didn’t want – so they had no incentive to sell their food to the cities.
There was now a shortage of food in the cities, causing the price of food to go up, making
people hungry. Instead of producing consumer goods that the farmers might want, Lenin called
for the peasants to sell their food for cheaper prices, giving them no incentive to do so,
they then refused and decided to go behind his back, then Lenin decided to shoot people
who tried to trade for food, bringing a halt to the free market. Thus the only way to get
food was to steal it by gunpoint, which is what they did. Welcome to utopia! Anyone who refused to hand over their grain
was deemed to be a capitalist, and the term ‘Kulak’ (meaning ‘tight-fisted’) was
applied to describe them. This was during the Russian Revolution. But later, in the
1930’s, the Marxist Socialist State under Stalin decided to crack down on the peasantry
even more – since Marx had called for the “improvement of the soil generally in accordance
with a common plan” in the Communist Manifesto. Well, this “improvement” could only happen
by force. Stalin’s Five Year Plan, the collectivisation of agriculture, and the war against the Kulaks
resulted in the direct death of somewhere in the region of 3 or 4 million Ukrainians
through famine, plus more indirectly, more weakened by hunger, and hundreds of thousands
more deported to Siberia as slaves. Socialists around the world then say – well, this wasn’t
real socialism! But it was. The forced collectivisation of
the peasantry – into the public hierarchy – according to the central state’s central
plan was done by the ‘public’ sector. And we know that the public sector is not
capitalism – we know that it is socialism. These Marxists though claim it was State Capitalism.
Well, the term State Capitalism is an oxymoron. It’s a term made up purely to confuse people.
It’s saying ‘public’ and ‘private’ at the same time, which is impossible. An
entity is either not part of a public hierarchy, or it is. And if it is public, then it’s
not capitalism, it’s socialism. Simple. And this is why the term State Capitalism
was invented to hide the term socialism. If the public sector state is in control, as
the phrase implies, State Capitalism, then it’s socialism – public or social control
of the means of production. But the enemies of capitalism want to deceive
and confuse people. If they muddy the terms enough so that you don’t understand them,
you’ll give up trying to understand everything, and instead turn to the slogans. Slogans like:
steal from the rich and give to the poor. Even though Robin Hood stole from the King,
who was the state, and gave the money back to the taxpayer, regardless whether they were
rich or poor. But shhhh! Don’t tell you that. “Liberalism champions private property in
the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic
organization, not because it wishes to help the owners. In the liberal economic system
more would be produced than in the socialistic. The surplus would not benefit only the owners.
According to Liberalism therefore, to combat the errors of Socialism is by no means the
particular interest of the rich. lt concerns even the poorest, who would be injured just
as much by Socialism.” Here’s another slogan that socialists use
to confuse you: capitalism is for big corporations. But that’s simply not true. Again, capitalism
is about the private sector – the non-hierarchy part of society. It is distinctly anti-corporation.
In fact, it is the socialists who are pro-corporation. They want government control of the economy.
They want central banks – as Marx called for in the Communist Manifesto. They want trade
unions and workers’ councils – which are corporations. Let me explain. If you have large trade unions which dominate
society (something that Marxist syndicalists believe in), you could say they would embody
the nation. If they embody the nation – embody, body, corpse, corporation (that’s where
the term comes from) – then they would be giant public entities. A central state finds
it easier to control a handful of public corporations than it does thousands of small private businesses.
So statists – socialists – who want to control society – want a handful of public corporations,
rather than thousands of small private companies. This is the central idea behind Marxist Socialism,
and anarcho-syndicalism, or corporatism, or Fascism, or National Socialism. They all want
the public sector to have total control. Total state control. Totalitarian control. “The modern roots of the Fascist corporate
state were revolutionary syndicalism.” Socialists want the end of capitalism. They
want the end of the private sector. They want everyone to be part of this hierarchy – the
body of the nation, the corporation, the corporate state, socialism – with most of you as slaves
at the bottom, and them in total control at the top. In this utopia – for them – there
can be no individual who is outside of the state. “…everything in the state, nothing outside
the state, nothing against the state…” Marx called for – 1. Abolition of property in land and application
of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income
tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with
State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication
and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments
of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement
of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction
between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory
labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c,
&c. So, a state-monopoly on property, a state-monopoly
on media and transport, a state-monopoly on factories and production centres (also known
as nationalization), a central state-bank which has a monopoly, state monopoly on education
and agriculture, and so on. All within the state, nothing outside of the state. This is why they call for social welfare,
and social security, and social medicine, state regulations, state taxes, state monopolies
– if the state ruled the economy, everything would be better! – they claim. “Gentile [the one who invented Fascism]…
believed that the true state – his ethical state – was a corpus – a body politic – hence
corporate state – and that the state was more important than the parts – the individuals
– who comprised it because if the state was strong and free so too would be the individuals
within it; therefore the state had more rights than the individual. Only within the ethical
state could individuals realise themselves as proper individuals.” …apparently. “The great social and constitutional reform
that Fascism is accomplishing, instituting the corporative syndicalist regime as a substitute
for the liberal State, arose out of the very character of the Fascist State. Fascism accepted
from Syndicalism the idea of the educative and moral function of the syndicate. But since
the intention was to overcome the antithesis between the State and the syndicate, the effort
was made to enter the system of syndicates harmoniously into corporations subject to
discipline by the State and to thereby give expression to the organic character of the
State.” Blah blah blah – basically, they were against
capitalism, against the private sector, and against individual freedom, and they were
pro-trade union (or syndicate, or corporation) and they were pro- public sector dominance
of society. Their main influence was Marxism, but they can’t admit that, because most people feared Marxism at the time. So they wanted to distance themselves from the Marxists by calling themselves
something else – in the end, calling themselves Fascists, and claiming that their way was
a Third Way, between Marxism and Capitalism. In reality, it was just national Marxist-Socialism,
rather than international Marxist-Socialism. “The people is the body of the state and
the state is the spirit of the people… The tools with which the idealita is achieved
in the state, are the party and the corporation.” All must bow to the collective – the worker,
the nation, the race, the gender, the group. All must bow to the state. All must bow to
the leader. Hence the term: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. One people, one state,
one leader. Alternatively, one class, one state, one comrade. Capitalism is NOT about state control, and
it isn’t about corporations or any other ‘public’ entity. It is about the private
sector – individuals and small groups at the bottom. It is about giving power to the individual
– individual freedom (classic liberalism), not public freedom. Capitalists believe that,
left to free market forces, the public sector entities will collapse in on themselves. You
know this is true because, if the lazy state wasn’t able to forcefully collect taxes
from those who actually work, then the bloated corpse of the state would expire in an instant.
The public sector does not create wealth, it can only dig its claws into the workers
and extract wealth from them. Without a private sector – or the ability to forcefully take
money from it – the public sector would not be able to sustain itself. The only reason corporations get larger and
larger is because the state is propping up the rotten edifice of their businesses. They
do this through regulations and minimum wage (both of which hurt small companies more than
larger ones), they do this through tax breaks, tariffs on goods, anti-competition laws, and
so on. This is why large corporations like YouTube and Twitter aren’t making profit,
but have somehow survived for years longer than they normally would have done. This is
because funds are being artificially funnelled into them from external sources – from society
as a whole (through ‘public’ shareholders, or from the ‘public’ state). They’ve
not earned this revenue legitimately through profit. Instead, they’ve had money granted
to them in the hope that eventually they will turn a profit. Now yes, you could say that
this is an ‘investment’. But it’s clearly a bad investment – I know let’s invest in
a company that’s not profitable. I’m sure that’s a good idea, right? Clearly the only
ones investing in these companies are public investors – and they operate slightly different.
If we invest in something that doesn’t work, we lose our money. We can only blame ourselves
for not being more careful. But when the state invests our money into something that doesn’t
work, it cannot admit to us that it made a bad decision, since it wants to get reelected.
So it takes taxes and prints more money and pumps all that into the project in the hope
that it will, somehow, create a profit. This is why states generate huge companies that
are internally inefficient, and then props them up, inflating bigger and bigger bubbles
of stupidity, until eventually – pop! The bubble bursts. Confidence is lost. The downfall
of the inflated bubble. This is known as a recession. A depression. Or a collapse. This process is then used as proof that capitalism
is failing. See, capitalism doesn’t work! Well, hold on – this wasn’t capitalism to begin
with. The bubble that burst was artificially created by the public sector – by society
as a whole, or by the state. The failure of socialism, is being used to blame capitalism.
The public sector is failing – see, the private sector doesn’t work! No. The correction
to fair value; the reset; the recession; the depression; the crash – all of this is reality
catching up on the artificially inflated public sector economy. It is the collapse of the
hierarchy of inefficiency and corruption. It is the private sector saying – we can’t
support this rubbish any more. It is the unshackling of the chains that held down the private sector,
allowing the actual economy to function again once more. This is why living standards increase
for those who do retain their private sector jobs during a recession – the public sector
is what’s failing. Yes, some private companies are latched onto the public sector, and so
when that falls, they fall too, but the point is that the collapse comes from the public
sector, not the private sector. But socialists don’t want to admit this.
They don’t want the free market to function. They want to retain power. “…all are socialists who consider the
socialistic order of society economically and ethically superior to that based on private
ownership of the means of production…” So instead of letting the economy correct
itself in a matter of months – like in the Great Depression of 1920 (yes, there was a
depression in 1920) – they try and retain their control on the economy – like in the
Great Depression of 1929. The 1920 recession lasted 12 months. Why? Because the US government
did nothing. The 1929 recession lasted 17 years, until 1946. Why? Price controls, wage
controls, deficit spending, quantitative easing or ‘dollar intervention’, government bonds,
government loans, laws and regulations, restricting the free functions of the private market,
central bank manipulation of inflation or deflation. It wasn’t a free market. And
so the private sector free market wasn’t allowed to recover from the correction, which
is why the US economy didn’t recover until 1946, when Roosevelt had died and the shackles
came off the economy – see Higgs’s “Depression, War and Cold War” for more information.
The same happened recently, which is why the world economy has been at a standstill since
2008, and why we’re on the verge of another collapse. The Everything Bubble – as it is
called – is not the problem of the private sector. It’s the fat beer-belly bureaucratic
public state sector which isn’t working, and it’s about to crash again. And it will
keep on crashing, again and again, and we’ll keep getting hangovers until people decide
to learn from history – until people realise that the public sector is the problem – the
cancer of society – and decide to sober up. Some people genuinely believe that a strong
public sector, a strong collective, a strong nation, a strong society, is what is needed
to solve all our problems. Because the answer to the problems of the current state, is a
revolution which brings in another state. The problem of the old aristocratic regime
can be cured by the French Revolution and the dictatorship of Napoleon. The problem
of the Czarist state can be cured by the Leninist state or the Stalinist state. The problems
of the Kaiser Reich can be cured by the Weimar socialist democratic state, which in turn
can be cured by the National Social state. The problems of the current authoritarian
state can be cured by a insert totalitarian regime ideology here state. They’re not
interested in anything other than power. They want more public-sector monopoly control,
and they want to be in charge of it. That is all. We call these people socialists, and
they belong on the Left of the political spectrum. “The leftists believe in strong centralization.” “The leftist is always a statist.” Other people believe that the problem is the
public sector itself. They call for the limitation of government power, for a voluntary tax system
(rather than force), or the abolition of government altogether. They want more private-sector
control. We call these people Right-wing Libertarians or Classic Liberals, and they belong on the
Right of the political spectrum. “The right has to be identified with personal
freedom, with the absence of utopian visions… it stands for free, organically grown forms
of life…” Some people believe that anarchism is on the Left. There are anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, who call for the abolition of the current
state, and then start talking about a new utopian federal state, which is apparently
classed as “anarchism” in their minds. Really? Anarchists want public collective
control, do they? They want a federal system, do they? No, they want the opposite: they
want to get rid of the public hierarchy in favour of private individual freedom. Anarchism
in the Leftist sense is, just like the term State Capitalism, an oxymoronic term. You
cannot have socialist-anarchism – they’re directly contradictory. Socialism is state,
anarchism is non-state. This is why, if you watch any videos by anarcho-syndicalists – the
whole thing is a mess of contradictions and doublethink. We’re anarchists who want giant
corporations that we call syndicates! Yeah, real revolutionaries. Others say that the National Socialists and
the Fascists are on the Right and are capitalists. Really? These people genuinely think that
Fascists and Nazis don’t want a strong leader or a strong state which is in totalitarian
control. They genuinely believe that Fascists and Nazis don’t promote collective racial
or national control, but instead promote individual freedom and free trade. Clearly that’s not
the case. Hitler makes it blatantly clear that he hates capitalism and free markets,
which he associates with the Jews. “The internationalization of our German
economic system, that is to say, the transference of our productive forces to the control of
Jewish international finance [capitalism], 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.” Yes, Hitler hates both capitalism and Marxist-Socialism
because, in his mind, both of these two ideologies were created by the Jews in a giant conspiracy
to bring down civilisation. As Zitelmann points out – “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.” The primary reason why Hitler was against
Marxism was because he thought Marxism was Jewish. Let that one sink in. But clearly,
Nazis and Fascists are for a strong public sector, and thus, are on the Left of the political
spectrum and are socialists. “…National Socialism should not be primarily
interpreted as anti-Marxism. It was rather an alternative, competing revolutionary movement
which did not have the destruction of Marxism as its main objective but which had to destroy
it, not despite, but because of its proximity to it.” “…the vast majority of the leftist ideologies
now dominating or threatening most of the modern world are competitors rather than enemies.
This, we think, is an important distinction.” “When the totalitarian wave started, the
old liberals were persecuted, in a sense, more bitterly than the people on the left.
Those on the left – Socialists, Communists, and Jacobin democrats – were totalitarian
competitors, not mutual enemies. The Social Democratic worker in Essen and the Socialist
worker in Sesto San Giovanni or in Turin could very easily switch sides: The worker in Essen
gave up international socialism and embraced National Socialism. The directors of his factory
were now mere stewards of the state. The worker in Turin knew that Benito Mussolini had been
a Socialist and that the Fascist movement had grown out of Italian socialism, shedding
first of all its international outlook.” And they’re not the only ones to think that
Fascists and National Socialists are competitors with the Marxist Inter-National Socialists. “The world is split today into two hosile
camps, fighting each other with the utmost vehemence, Communists and anti-Communists.
The magniloquent rhetoric to which these factions resort in their feud obscures the fact that
they both perfectly agree in the ultimate end of their programme for mankind’s social
and economic organization. They both aim at the abolition of private enterprise and private
ownership of the means of production and at the establishment of socialism. They want
to substitute totalitarian government control for the market economy. No longer should individuals
by their buying or abstention from buying determine what is to be produced and in what
quantity and quality. Henceforth the government’s unique plan alone should settle all these
matters. ‘Paternal’ care of the ‘Welfare State’ will reduce all people to the status of bonded
workers bound to comply, without asking questions, with the orders issued by the planning authority.”
“Neither is there any substantial difference between the intentions of the self-styled
‘progressives’ and those of the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis. The Fascists and the
Nazis were no less eager to establish all-round regimentation of all economic activities than
those governments and parties which flamboyantly advertise their anti-Fascist tenets.” “It is a matter of dispute whether, prior
to the middle of the nineteenth century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist
idea – by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary,
the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ.
The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration
of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered
socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as ‘natural’
and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once ‘artificial’ and harmful.
Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division
of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin
to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually,
a world Socialism.” Even Hitler said they were competitors, which
is why he emphasizes their differences over and over and over. “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.” “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 [world view]. 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.” All must be part of the National Socialist
state rather than the Marxist Socialist state. “In its organization the State must be established
on the principle of personality, starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to
the supreme government of the country.” All must submit to the public sector state.
The collective. The People’s State. But of course, once the public sector is in control,
the people don’t really have much of a say. “The People’s State will classify its population
in three groups: Citizens, subjects of the State, and aliens.” The public sector is in total control, so
you – the individual – must bow to the collective. If you happen to be out of favour with the
establishment; if you happen to be a capitalist, a kulak, or a Jew, you’re going to have
a bad time as the full might of the hierarchy of hate weighs heavily upon you, fighting
to eliminate you from existence. Concentration camps or gulags are not a free market. They
are made by one thing, and one thing only: the state. In order to create them, the state
must control the economy. “Both governments [Nazi and Marxist] reorganized
industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity.
The Nazis reorganized industry into 13 administrative groups [in other words, corporations] with
a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. [which means
it’s not privately controlled, Temin, but I digress.] The state therefore could direct
the firms’ activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. [let me read
that again: The state therefore could direct the firms’ activities without acquiring
direct ownership of enterprises. State control does not require ownership.] The pre-existing
tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilize
prices.” “The Soviets had made a similar move in
the 1920s. Faced with a scarcity of administrative personnel, the state encouraged enterprises
to combine into trusts and trusts to combine into syndicates. [corporations] These large
units continued into the 1930s where they were utilized to bridge the gap between overall
plans and actual production.” And this is where people go wrong in their
thinking. People have screamed at me in the comments sections of my videos, telling me
that Hitler was a capitalist. So, in their minds, Hitler was against the public sector
– the state hierarchy – and was all for the little guy – the small, independent private
individuals and families. And this is where their logic breaks down. It makes no sense.
For example, here is a user known as TheFinnishSocialist. He says – “Socialism is and has been defined as social
ownership of the means of production and is opposed to private ownership of the means
of production.” Ok, glad to see we’re in agreement with
that. Socialism is against individuals who want control of their own economy. It doesn’t
want the workers to own their own tools – which is capitalism. It calls for the social – or
public sector – ownership of those tools. State control. “This is not only from a Marxist point of
view either.” True. There are many versions of socialism,
since there are many different types of states. Including Fascist-Socialist Italy and National
Socialist Germany. But then he says – “Why Nazi Germany wasn’t socialist is
fairly obvious. They did mass privatization programs (hell, even the word “privatization”
was invented because of them)…” Except they didn’t mass privatize anything.
The word “privatization” was coined by them but, just like the British media and
government say that ‘Academic’ schools are private, seizing property and businesses
off private owners and selling them to members of the National Socialist party – which was
the state – and retaining control over them by bringing those businesses under syndicate-corporate
control isn’t privatization. “…in practice the Reichsbank and the Reich
Ministry of Economic Affairs had no intention of allowing the radical activists of the SA,
the shopfloor militants of the Nazi party or Gauleiter commissioners to dictate the
course of events. Under the slogan of the ‘strong state’, the ministerial bureaucracy
fashioned a new national structure of economic regulation.” The National Socialist Party walked into the
businesses and took them over from within. They nationalized and socialized the industries
and called that “privatization”. Well, it wasn’t privatization. Everything was
brought under state control. And what’s interesting is that, the inter-National Socialists
are quick to point out that just because “socialism” is in the name of National Socialism, doesn’t
mean it’s socialism. They say: you can’t take the Nazis at their word. True. I 100%
agree. You can’t take the Nazis at their word. So when they say they privatized the
industries, don’t take them at their word. They didn’t. But, continuing to talk about
something he hasn’t done any research on, TheFinnishSocialist goes on. “Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state capitalist
system.” Right, so the public hierarchy had total control
of the economy, which is why it was a totalitarian state, but the economy was private and thus
not under totalitarian control? Again, this is a direct contradiction of reality. It’s
either the state, or it’s not the state. If it’s capitalism (the private sector),
then it is non-state. If it is non-state, then it cannot be a totalitarian state, because
the private citizens are not controlled by the state. The words he used should read – “National
Socialist Germany was a totalitarian state socialist system.” Let’s read on. “The capitalist mode of production was prevalent…” There was lots of small businesses independent
of the state, was there? Well, I guess National Socialist Germany definitely wasn’t a totalitarian
regime then. Also let’s just ignore all the independent ‘capitalist’ Jewish businesses
which got smashed up, stolen and ‘Aryanized’ by the public sector state – yes, let’s
just ignore that completely. “The life of the German businessman is full
of contradictions. He cordially dislikes the gigantic, top-heavy, bureaucratic State machine
which is strangling his economic independence. Yet he needs the aid of these despised bureaucrats
more and more, and is forced to run after them, begging for concessions, privileges,
grants, in fear that his competitor will gain the advantage.” Yes, definitely sounds like a free market
to me. Then he says – “…unions were abolished…” No they weren’t. Private unions were absorbed
into the DAF – the German Labour Front – because all unions had to be brought under control
of the state. In other words, unions were nationalized and socialized – which is exactly
what Marxist-Socialists want. The Soviet Union did the same thing. That’s why the worker’s
trade unions – or councils, or ‘Soviets’ – were the state. That’s why they called
it the Soviet Union – the worker’s council union. But when the Soviet Union does it,
they call it socialism, but when the Third Reich does it, they call it capitalism. No
contradiction there at all. In reality, the private unions were absorbed into the state
union. Therefore, this is an example of how the Third Reich brought the unions into social
ownership, which, as you say, is socialism. But because FinnishSocialist cannot comprehend
this, he just denies it ever happened. To continue – “…and the workers had to succumb to the
state.” Yes! Exactly! The workers have been socialized
or absorbed into the state. Everyone is in the state. Social or public ownership of the
means of production. Everyone is part of the hierarchy. We all must bow down to the collective.
So, you saying this is, by your own words, an admission that the National Socialist regime
was socialist. But because he does not understand the difference between the Public and Private
Sectors of society, he does not see the contradictions in his own words. Also, if the workers are controlled by the
state, they’re no longer part of the private sector, meaning this isn’t capitalism. This
contradicts what he said earlier. The irony is that Mr Finnish Bolshevik here
probably wants the workers to own their own tools in some sort of utopia. He wants the
poor to be better off by owning their own factories. Well, this utopia he is envisioning
where the workers are owning their own tools, is called capitalism. In capitalism, the workers
can own their own tools. In fact, that is exactly what capitalism is – the private individual’s
ownership of his means of production. The individual owns his own tools. But if everything
is owned by the collective, then the workers don’t own their own tools. Instead, the
collective owns the tools. And the collective is the state. But, again, socialists haven’t figured this
out yet. Worse, they come up with nuggets of doublethink, like this one – “Even if Nazi Germany would’ve not had
markets (which they did), that doesn’t mean that the system isn’t capitalist.” So basically, he’s saying that, if the free
market capitalism didn’t exist, it would still be classed as capitalism. Honestly,
sometimes it boggles the mind. I look at these comments and wonder if these people have ever
had an independent thought in their life. The Borg collective has told me to say that
the moon is made of cheese, therefore the moon is made of cheese, herpy derp derp derp. And they get so angry when I point out the
blatant contradictions in their comments, which is what I’m doing here. For starters,
Mr FinnSoc, one of the reasons (perhaps the central reason) Hitler went to war because
he didn’t believe in trade. And he didn’t believe in trade because of the socialist
concept of the Shrinking Markets, which I’ve covered in the Shrinking Markets videos. So
Hitler shut the entire the economy down, preventing trade, in the hope of becoming self-sufficient.
This was his Autarky policy and his Four Year Plan policy of converting the Third Reich
into a vampire barter economy, as Gunter Reimann makes clear. They implemented import and export
controls, reverted to barter, had wage controls, price controls, heavy taxes, regulations,
quotas, so on and so forth. So no, they didn’t have markets – the entire economy was controlled
by the central state. And such an economy is called a ‘socialist economy’. But,
just like Mises said, it’s impossible to calculate prices under such conditions, and
the entire economy was so inefficient it ground to a halt, as shown throughout Aly’s “Hitler’s
Beneficiaries”. I could literally quote the entire book because it shows exactly how
the Third Reich’s public hierarchy state had to go to war before its economy devoured
itself, and it only managed to stave off economic collapse by resorting to a barter-like economy
and exporting inflation to the conquered territories of Europe. It’s a brilliant read. Please
read that book, I highly recommend it. But, we’re still not done with Big-Bol-shevik
here – “It may not be Laissez-Faire, sure…” So, to explain: Laissez-Faire means “leave
alone”. It means that the government will leave the economy alone, letting the market
do its thing, and allowing free trade with other countries, without tariffs and things
like that. So here, he’s saying it wasn’t a Laissez-Fair, or leave alone economy. Which
means, he’s admitting it wasn’t capitalism because, in his own words, the economy is
controlled by the state. Again, the doublethink is just insane. But let’s read the full
quote. “It may not be [a leave alone economy],
sure, but that doesn’t mean that the state itself cannot capitalized on other people’s
labor and that products are not chiefly sold for profit.” Ok, so the problem here is that FinnSoc is
relying on the Marxist mis-interpretation of capitalism. 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. The criticism
that FinnSoc here is trying to deliver is that the National Socialist state exploited
people, thus it cannot be socialist. Except, that’s a meaningless statement, since exploitation
cannot happen in a free market. If you agree to work for someone else, you have not been
exploited. You may have made a bad deal, but that’s your own daft fault. You’re not
being exploited, you can always leave, or go live in the woods or whatever. But if
you want to be a part of society, you need to contribute to society. And the way you
contribute to society is by getting some bloody work done. Real exploitation is when you don’t have
a choice. Like, being forced to bow to the whims of the public state regardless of whether or not you want to. Being forced into collective farms, or forced to join your trade union,
or forced to hand over part of you, or all of your, wages, or forced to give up your home and
possessions, or forced into the ghettos, Gulags or Concentration Camps. The public sector
can decree by law that you must comply with the public sector slave masters – and it can
do that democratically as well as by dictatorship. If the majority of society votes and decides
to take away all your possessions, that’s exploitation. You having the freedom to work
for someone else and choosing to do so is not exploitation because you can always leave.
It’s a free market and free society – you are free to leave it. So Mr FinnSoc thinks that exploitation only
occurs when it’s capitalism, without knowing what capitalism actually is, and thinking
that under socialism there would be no exploitation. This is not an argument. Profit is irrelevant.
Nothing says that under socialism the public sector state cannot generate a profit. The
reality is that it can’t generate a profit by itself, since it gets its wealth by stealing
it from the private sector, but that doesn’t mean that, if it did generate a profit, it
suddenly wouldn’t be socialist. That’s just a bad argument. And there’s tons of arguments just like
this as “proof” that National Socialism and Fascism weren’t public sector control
of society, and thus not Leftist. Most of these are made by doublethinkers who haven’t
studied history, or don’t know the difference between the public sector and the private
sector, or have no idea what the definitions of capitalism and socialism actually are,
or ignore the contradictions in their own statements, or resort to smear and slander
campaigns in order to shame their enemies and mass-downvote videos with multiple bogus
accounts in the hope that people will stop listening to them. The fact that their insults
are about as paper-thin as their arguments should be an indication that they’ve lost
the debate. But we’ll see what they say to this video. So, going back to the original question from
John Hargreaves. Hitler definitely reaped the benefits of having total control of the
economy. His goons also benefited from the ownership of the state. But the State is the
Public Sector, not the Private Sector. It’s private in the sense that Joe Bloggs couldn’t
just walk into Hitler’s mountain retreat. But the State is not private, it’s Public.
If it’s under state control, it’s under Public control. Hope that answers you question. Now, a few people have pointed out that there’s
a contradiction in the ‘Hitler Weltanschauung’ quote that I’ve given a few times now. That
is true, and I’ve been meaning to explain it, but I’ve had to tackle this and other
topics first. Turns out that there’s an inherent contradiction within all socialist
ideologies, but in National Socialism it is blatantly obvious. So I will be covering that
in the near future. If you’re interested in learning more about the ancient world and
the way the concept of ‘individuals’ became a thing, check out the book “Inventing the
Individual”. And no, this isn’t a sponsored video, I just think it’s a great book. Thanks
for watching, bye for now.

100 Comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *