Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Asianometry" channel.

@reybot5125 Well the word Substitution actually works quite well. Well for the most part. It comes off weird in only one quote. For example On the Jewish Question was a Critique of The Jewish Question. Issue is Marx didn't defend the Jews as some have claimed. He right out accuses Christianity of being just as Jewish as the Jews in On the Jewish Question. Remember Marx was anti Christian, and Antisemitic. So personally I don't see how he took Marx out of context. He rightly points out that Marx's view of a Capitalist is anyone who practices what he deemed the Jewish Faith, Money. Which would according to Marx include ALL Jews who do not renounce their faith. It's why he said the "Social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society of Judaism." That, can not be easily taken out of context.
7
@vincentcleaver1925 Utopian Socialist who are the foundation of Socialism stated Socialism to be the Polar Opposite of Individualism. Which means Socialism is Collectivism, or a variation of it. Also Communist is a variation of Socialism, and for many in Europe Socialism and Communism were synonyms of each other up until roughly the 1920s/30s. So I don't know what you're getting at with European Socialism, because Marxism ie Communism was the dominate form of socialism in Europe in the late 19th Century. Even Social Democracy was a branch of Marxist Socialism, and the Social Democratic Party of Germany included the Revolutionary Marxist Socialist in their ranks up until 1919. When the Independent Socialist and Communist broke from the SPD. I mean the fact you threw capitalist into your comment proves that actually. As Marx was the man who made the concept of a Capitalist the very enemy of Socialism. Guess who wrote the Communist Manifesto? Marx and Engels. So... you're literally damning an enemy that a Communist created.
7
Lets you know how fragile the economy really is, and how just one bad decision can totally wreck it in many ways. The Economy isn't something that can be managed, it's literally billions of people making billions of individual decisions every single day, you can not predict what is going to happen. It's next to impossible. Business assumed the economy would slow down dramatically, but consumers kept consuming.
6
@sava411 " Communism is not a form of socialism. Communism is a moneyless stateless society. Most "communist" parties adopt Marxist Leninist ideology which according to them, aims to bring about communism by means of the state. "The goal of socialism is communism." -Lenin. Obviously didnt work out that way lol but still two different things." That is by far the dumbest thing I've ever read. Marxist Socialism is literally a entire branch of Socialism, and Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. They were the Communist. As I already stated the Marxist Socialist movement of the 19th Century was the dominant Socialist movement by the dawn of the 20th Century. There is no way or form that Communism isn't a form of Socialism as you tried to claim. Marxist Socialism is literally Class Socialism built around Labor. The entire reason Capitalist are viewed as the enemies of Socialism is because of Marxism and that his movement became so dominant within Socialism. Sum it up I will do some copy/pasting. "By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. It was not until 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution, that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution." "According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."" Again as both those quotes suggestion, Socialism and Communism were mostly synonyms of eachother at least throughout mid/late 19th Century and early 20th Century. Only reason they're considered different now is because Some Socialist don't want Communism to be considered Socialism. As the famous meme quote goes "That's not REAL SOCIALISM!"
6
 @oohhboy-funhouse Perhaps because Glantz has done the best job of any historian when it has come to the eastern front. 🤔
3
@juniorleslie4804 I know, it's so odd that Germany suffered Hyperinflation after a Socialist party was in power. 😉
3
@reybot5125 Because Bauer is kind of irrelevant. Marx makes his position on the subject quite clear. Marx reaffirms Bauer's statements about the Jews while painting Christians as relatively speaking just as Jewish as the Jews Bauer is condemning. Basically it's a long Marx accusing his Critic of being a Hypocrite rant. However by doing so Marx does not disprove Bauer nor Defends Jews, but only reaffirms. That's kind of why what Bauer says is not really relevant. It doesn't actually change a thing. That being said TIKhistory's Marx's Antisemitism video personally is one of his weaker videos. Even I someone who views Marx as an Antisemite kind of cringed at it a few times. I don't normally recommend it to anyone. I liked what he was trying to say, I just think he did a terrible job doing it. But I think it is just easier to say To Marx Capitalist are people who Practices the Jewish Faith of Money, rather than being code for "The Jews." TIK does kind of says that eventually but it's buried in so much fluff. Also, Hegel, I'd suggest comparing Hegel, Marx and Gentile's ideas on the Organic Nature of the State. Personally I think Hegel is the root of the Cult of the State that has been the stereotype of Marxism and Fascism.
3
@PainterVierax "Well, socialism includes ideologies that aren't collectivists at all (mutualism, individualist-anarchism). Whereas capitalism includes ideologies that are collectivists (eg. fascism). Although collectivism doesn't negate individualism so you can have both, like in anarcho-communism who reused Proudhon's distinction between propriety and possession." You're fooling yourself here. For example. Anarchism = a Stateless Society, and you can not have a Stateless Society without Individuals fending for themselves, because that is what a Stateless Society will come down to. So any form of Anarchism that states they're not Individualist are either stupid, or lying. For example. Anarcho-Syndicalist, Basically means Stateless Unionism.... but if you have a Union of Trade Unions you technically have a State, as the Unions would be running the show and would be the authority. It is in short an Oxymoronic Term. So say Individualist Anarchism is a double negative similar to the word Irregardless, you're saying pretty much the same thing twice. You can say the same thing about "State Capitalism." It literally means State-None State, or better yet, Public Control of Private Enterprise which is also Oxymoronic as if the Public Controls the Private Enterprises it isn't exactly Private. If the private individual doesn't have control of their property/enterprises/business then it isn't Capitalist. So State-Capitalism is a joke, just another word to describe nationalization of business without sounding socialist. Also Mutualism is literally how all economies work, regardless. Baker makes Bread, you buy bread, baker makes money off bread, and you get something to eat. Both benefit from the exchange/action. Just another word people through out their to make their Socialism sound 'friendlier.' "Whereas capitalism includes ideologies that are collectivists (eg. fascism)." Hate to burst your bubble but, both Mussonlini and Hitler were against the idea of Capitalism. Similar to Lenin the only Capitalist elements that remained in their regimes existed specifically to aid keeping the economies afloat. In fact both regimes adopted State owned Corporations, stripped private property rights, and even appropriated property from large segments of the community. For example the Nazi's Four Year Plan stripped private control of all raw materials/resources into the direct control of the Nazi Party, and no business could operate without those materials. Even companies like I.G. Farben a poster child by Socialist on how Capitalist the Nazis were, well the party forced much of it's board members out of the company and some were even arrested, and the Party made sure Party Loyalist were in charge. Which ironically means, the Capitalist were not Controlling the Nazis, the Nazis were controlling the Capitalist by brute force, and extortion. Basically to say the Fascist are Capitalist is a gross misinterpretation of history. If you understand Fascist and Nazi ideology, how they viewed the world, you'd understand that they were devoutly against the idea of capitalism. Giovanni Gentile (Father of Fascism) in particular called the Capitalist state a Liberal State, because it was entirely Individualistic. Gentile openly stating that Capitalism is not compatible with Collectivism. Being the Italian Fascist forced all business to join state owned Corporations, they were far from being Capitalist. Fascist view is to prevent class conflict, to prevent the collapse of the economy from the "Crisis of Capitalism" (which doesn't exist btw) which both Hitler and Mussolini believed, the State had to take near direct control of the economy.
3
TIKhistory has done both. He even talked about the Hyperinflation under Lenin on his Did the Soviet Union ever Recover from WW2 video.
2
@Gormilein Both Stresemann and Cuno held officer for less than one year each. Secondly, because the economy was in shambles already, Cuno was literally put into office as Hyper Inflation had already started kicking in. You'd think they were put into office to deal with the problem. So, lets say you're only actually proving the point by bringing it up. I mean Hans Luther was literally a Banker, and he followed them. You're presenting a people who ere suddenly voting for business and financiers to run the country as the country was already falling into hyper inflation. Which was caused by the Social Demcorats who proceeded them. I mean the economy was already in a rebound before the Nazis gained power. yet the Nazis would take credit for it, and later absolutely wreck the economy shortly after a 2nd time.
2
@Gormilein Also btw Inflation doesn't hit over night. It can take years to ramp up. For example the USA is suffering from high inflation left over from 2020. Didn't take until 2022 for it to start kicking the US Dollar down hill fast. As a result of massive State spending with a dramatic reduction of State Tax income as a result of the Pandemic. So who's in power at the time isn't that relevant. Who started the State Building projects of the 1920s? Who increased the size of the Welfare State? Who pushed State Subsidiation which lead to a 1920s economic boom in Germany?
2
@reybot5125 About Bauer, I wouldn't say it comes off different when excluding Bauer. I went and read On the Jewish Question specifically because of his video on Marx's Antisemitism. He cites sources for a reason. But Marx said what he said. Honestly I think TIK wanted to press home the fact that the very idea of a Capitalist the stereotype itself is built on the Foundation of antisemitism. Which is why I like what he was doing, but thought he did a terrible job in Marx's Antisemitism. As I said it's one of his worst videos. If he focused on explaining specifically the origins of the idea of the Capitalist. It woulf of made for a better video overall. Instead I really think he just wanted to slap "The Jew" on Das Capital that much.
2
Stories like this make me just go.. "What the h*** happened to South America?"
2
@galdutro Brazil would have to make offers that foreign investors can not refuse. With China going into an economic down turn and possibly recession or worse, collapse. Brazil may get her chance again. I hope so... as South America needs more wins, the past few decades haven't been so great from what I've seen for much of South America with boom/bust cycles coming/going for a number of countries which seemed to throw all their eggs in one basket until demand for said resource well went down or someone came along with a cheaper option. You can not rely on resources alone. The primary financial hubs of the world are in the USA/Europe, so that is where the money is at and that is who Brazil needs. In fact if I recall being a Financial hub is literally the only think keep the UK a Float for example, ie foreign capital flowing in/out of the country at a fee. Similar to Japan the UK is a resource starved country, so it has few options for prosperity, so that's what it's been focusing on. Japan's approach has been different, even after China overtook it Japan focused on importing resources/exporting goods made out of said resources, in spite of China being next door they're still among the largest economies in the world. About the Battery thing. China has that market largely cornered. The quality ones go into vehicles of wealthier countries/companies. The cheaper batteries made in China pretty much stay for domestic production, and China has the largest E-Vehicle manufacturing currently in the world... they also have the largest number of E-Vehicle Explosions in the world as well, so they're definitely batteries no one wants.. and sadly the resources making those Chinese E-Vehicles is likely being wasted. As they were made for the Chinese people and the Chinese people are growing terrified of them.
2
Yes, lets prevent evaporation during draught. Then cry when there is no rain because you refuse to allow water to evaporate into the air. hehe
2
There was no economy. Only arbitrary guess work with spreadsheets data built off the Socialist calculation fallacy. Meaning the data would always be wrong because real value is impossible to calculate so there is no a way to know if they're actually being efficient or not. ie They were guessing. Which is why people were starving in spite data showing a boom. Why they never recovered from WWII. The USSR's economy was NEVER strong and they NEVER saw an actual economic boom. Should watch TIK's video Did the Soviet Union Ever Recover From WWII. It explains why the USSR never saw a boom, was never the 2nd largest economy in the world and why as TIK put it a 70 year Humanitarian disaster. As USSR Citizens joked, "They pretend to pay us we protend to work." It was all fake in short.
2
@PainterVierax How is it not Collectivist. Without the "Group" above the "Individual" mentality of Socialism there isn't a point to it.
2
@sava411 I think you need to learn to read. As you missed the entire context of the quote. "By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. It was not until 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution, that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution." Basically it was stating the difference between the words Communism and Socialism within the Marxist movement were Synonyms up until Lenin. However, it openly states that Lenin ONLY Said they were different in DEFENSE of his own actions. Not that there IS a difference. Basically he lied to explain why his Marxist Revolutionary Loyalist were being Hostile toward the original Marxist Revolutionaries. ie Lenin was a counter revolutionary against the original Marxist Revolutionary Government and he won. He created the Distinction as a smoke screen so he could say like all Socialist love to do "They're not Real Socialist." Similar to when Marx called Utopian Socialist who came before him not, REAL Socialist. It's a stratagem and nothing more, not because what they're saying is actually true. Also you're Stateless Moneyless society nonsense is also a smoke screen. Marx never intended to make such a Society. Unless he himself was stupid. Bakunin literally stated that Marxism is a Cult of the State in direct criticism of Marx's program. Once that state is established those controlling it would never ever let it fade away as Engels said. It's a LIE and people like Engels likely knew it, they just added it into their ideology to lure in gullible people to volunteer themselves to the slavery of the central Totalitarian State, and yes the Communist Manifesto literally advocates the establishment of a Totalitarian state, but with the promise it would fade away. But as Bakunin rightly believed, it would never fade away and that it was nothing but a lie to convince sheep to follow. So the whole scapegoat that Communism = Stateless society with no money is a joke. And for the greater part of 100+ years Socialism and Communism was a Synonym. So in short, you need to learn to read, and comprehend what you're reading. Because you missed what that quote was saying by a landslide.
2
@sava411 His vision? So State Capitalism? Because that is the legacy he left in the Soviet Union upon his death. He opened up Russia's economy to foreign investment, brought back private property. Stalin even took power in Russia promising to continue Lenin's mixed economy approach. Which Stalin lied of course...
2
@trogdor20X6 Because it's not a quote from Lenin, it's from "A Vocabulary of Culture and Society" by Raymond Williams. Which he studies the origins of the words like Socialism, and Communism.
2
@PainterVierax They're not well defined when they're contradictory.
2
@PainterVierax I don't need to, many have already written such books. Even among those who are sympathetic to socialism, like Gunter Reimann who wrote The Vampire Economy, his account of the economy of Nazi Germany is amazing, in spite of being a Communist, he successfully without knowing so disproves the whole Nazis being capitalist lie. Issue is some people don't care to broaden their view of the world. I used to be a moderate socialist in my youth. I believed almost exactly like you have about Fascism, and Capitalism. Issue is the more you read into it, definitely from different angles, well I don't care what the consensus is anymore. Consensus can be wrong definitely if the majority who make up that consensus are bias leaning in one direction. I mean how do you explain this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpuGRO72GbA It's very hard to explain without resorting to extremist left wing views but very easy to explain if you're a moderate who cares about looking at things from different angles. Not only does this video show that there is a lot of misinformation about the 1919 revolution, but that the Nazis themselves had successfully buried much of their past.
2
@steelajax7925 Actually that argument hasn't held much water, and book is considered by the ADL to be Antisemitic. Marx was antisemitic, we know this from personal writings and letters. He was in his youth, and this carried over into On the Jewish Question. On the Jewish Question wasn't written in Defense of Jews. It was written by Marx to compare CHRSITIANS to JEWS. Yes it was a Critique, but defenders of Marx falsely claim it's a Critique of Marx defending Jews, when all you have to do is read the damn thing and he isn't defending Jews in the slightest but damning Christians. This is why many are starting to consider even his idea of a Capitalist being "Built" on a foundation of Antisemitism. If you take the Marxist idea of a Capitalist and put it side by side with Antisemitic stereotypes, it's literally identical. He rebranded Antisemitism in short. But then applied it not to just Jews, but everyone in society who sought wealth. But... that also means when he says The Capitalist he is still referring to The Jews, but The Jews + Others who practice as Marx put it their Faith of Money.
1
@anon_148 The logistics video was a critical analysis of central planning. I know some of his critics claim he was advocating that the military should switch to decentralization of it's logistics but that wasn't the case, no better example than the Truck driver discussion.
1
@Gormilein Always blaming the Reparations. Go sit in the Nazi Apologist Corner please. The Reparations were well within Germany's ability to pay.
1
@warellis The Corporate State. Gentile would be proud. 👏 What I find amusing is a State Monopoly on Labor and State Owned or Controlled Corporations is touted as being the antithesis of Socialism yet a lot of young Socialist view the Nordic Model as the ideal model despite being a Corporate State system. Kind of like when Socialist argue over whethr China is Market Socialism or State Capitalism. If they're having that argument, it means the similarities are enough for them to be undecided. Which makes one question whether State Capitalism only applies to Socialist economies some Socialist don't want associated with Socialism. As if there is a difference they wouldn't argue over China. Hehe
1
@reybot5125 "I've heard recently he argued for the Privatization of the military." You've heard wrong. I'm assuming that comes from the Am I an Ancap? Video where he presents the world view and logic behind how Anarcho-Capitalist view the world. He concluded at the end he's undecided on whether he'd support an Ancap position or not.
1
@reybot5125 I'd love to see an example where he directly refutes his own claim. From my experience it's more of interpretation, and those who see it as something else interpret it differently and that's literally the barrier that some run into. But he does openly tell his viewers not to take his word for it. Again citing the sources properly for readers to look up. Again it's the main reason I went to read On the Jewish Question. I've also picked up a few books since watching his channel. However, everyone's bias including the historians he cites. So saying he's bias, and his biasness effects his work is "DUH." Everyone is like that, it's unavoidable. it's why I don't just watch TIK. I mean why do you think I ended up on this video? I even watch youtubers like Animarchy who openly disagrees with TIK's political views and mentions him by name, but he will still give credit when credit is do and has referenced him a number of times in some of his own videos. My favorite example of bias I often refer to is Ishay Landa's essay on Spengler's Prussian Socialism. Landa only successfully proved Spengler wasn't a Marxist, which such a conclusion is well "DUH" Spengler would agree with that claim. Ignoring that Spengler's ideas on Socialism are based on Conservative Socialism or what Marx called Bourgeois Socialism, which is an older view on Socialism, that doesn't exclude Private Property, nor does it have anything to do with the Working Class, predating Marxism itself. It's a similar issue people like Richard Evans also seem to have. They do a great job proving say Hitler isn't a Marxist, but that's about it. Marxist do not hold a monopoly on the term Socialist. Even Social Democracy is a variation of Marxist Socialism for example, built around Marx's Class Centric Theories.
1
@reybot5125 Keyword "After"
1
@reybot5125 I don't see how he warps definitions. The one example you brought up earlier philistine he did mention Marx was referring to philistine as Ethnic and Racial Antisemites, ie bigots. Which is not really a warping of the definition. Unless your think of the words historically meaning which he brought up before that. Which if I recall someone already clarified in the comments. TIK kind of agreed. Though Unlike Gleichschaltung which was in response to one of his German speaking views ie a revision being it's commonly translated into english as Synchronization. Which according to his German viewers is actually not correct. He hasn't made a revision video on Philistine. But did for Gleichschaltung. Though I'm glad he's moved to Gleichschaltung as claims the Nazis created the term Privatization is itself a fallacy started way back in the 1930s and has become a pseudo truism.
1
@Cheesemonkey2889 Honestly counts where. Also if you've heard the word Commiservative and understand why it exist, calling historians conservatives doesn't change anything. I'd call TIK Liberal not Conservative. Conservativism is a meaningless word that can change wildly counting what country you're from. For example, being Conservative in modern China = Being Communist. Being Conservative in the USA = Being Libertarian or Christian Conservative. Name a country and it will be different in short. Great example Socialism was founded by Conservatives. Bourgeoisie Socialism ie Conservative Socialism which predates Marxism. Yet most don't Associate Socialism with Conservatism today inspite of it's origins. It rose up as a counter to Classic Liberalism and Liberal Economics, and individualism coming out of the Early Industrial Revolution.
1
Mises states you can not calculate human action. There is no planning that can successfully run an economy as the economy is made up of of millions of individual decisions made by millions of people every single day. Trying to control those decisions leads to disaster. Communist, and all Socialism is a technical impossibility. So there was no planning by the Party that could of saved them. Letting farmers, merchants to do their job is all they had to do. But because of the ideals of communism they got in their way.
1
@PainterVierax I'd suggest you read James Gregor's Mussolini's Intellectuals. He does a far better job than people like Umberto Eco at defining and explaining what Fascism actually is. It's far from Capitalist in nature, not by a land slide. James Gregor defined it as National Syndicalism. Meanwhile people like Umberto Eco's definition of Fascism is almost meaningless, basically a Reactionary Movement of Contemporary Extremism which could mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Though I think Eco's definition is a strategy, leave it vague and meaningless on purpose.
1