Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.
-
147
-
@dr1flush But by the Definition seen there, Fascism would be Socialism.
The definition does not state what the people are made up of. If say the nation was literally one "Race" they would be the people, so regardless it would still be a form of Socialism. Maybe not the form many would like.
TIK has made it quite clear, the National Socialism, is not Fascism, nor is it not Marxism, nor is it Classical Socialism like that of the Social Democrats, but it is National Socialism, which is a FORM of Socialism, not the same, but still Socialism. Socialism is the State control of the means of production which all those definitions make quite clear.
126
-
119
-
110
-
@dr1flush Socialism is more of a tree than a box with branches that can be radically different as they spread farther from eachother. Similar to Christianity and Islam believing in the same god, there is no written rule that states a Racial Socialist isn't a Socialist vs a Class Socialist, or Nationality Socialist (Fascism), or a Sexist Socialist. etc etc.
Socialism is the common core that links them together, some of them are worse than others, while some are vary mild. A Libertarian Socialist believe in Free Market Capitalism, private property, limited state control over people, etc etc but are very supportive of socialist style state welfare programs as just one example, they're Socialist, but no where near as extreme Socialist like Marxist, Fascist, or Nazis.
103
-
88
-
@andreialexandrunichiforel Personally for how bad the USSR was terminally wounded by Nazi Germany, in a fashion they never recovered according to TIK's video on the post WWII Soviet Economy, when taken into consideration how little resources the Nazis had at their disposable. Even if Hitler became a painter, honestly the USSR was always doomed to fail, just like Nazi Germany.
So a RA Hell March Scenario is a technical impossibility. If WWII didn't start and say the USSR decided to start WWII, imagine Finland, but on a larger scale, on a larger front, against more countries, the red army likely would of been obliterated, maybe not everywhere, but everywhere in which the country had competent armies/officers, even if small, as they didn't get that Finland experience to realize how F***ed up their military was. If Finland was a disaster, a larger scale version of it could of ruined the USSR.
70
-
57
-
54
-
52
-
46
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
28
-
26
-
24
-
@jrenjrapiro817
"I know the first desire of an ideologue like yourself is to leap to insults when called out on it, but I have quoted the definition back to you. You seem unable to address that."
^ sorry but yours are not dictionary definitions, so to me meaningless. They're likely ideological definitions, but they're not OFFICIAL definitions. Yet you're accusing me of being the ideologue. Project very often?
" And again - the community. not "one community of many, picked out at random, based only on one or two traits held in common" '
^ Ironic that you're able to accidently admit there can be separate communities. That being said what you typed, that sounds a lot like Fascism. One of it's primary goals was to bring all the different social groups in society into one greater National Community. However, that still doesn't disprove a nation can make a Racial Community. Your definition of Community is not an official definition of community at least one I've ever seen.
"You're stretching the definition of socialism now, to really mean any community. So, let's bring up a fact I brought up previously. Everyone, socialists, anti-socialists, historians, ect, agree that socialism is an ideology that finds its most prevalent and important roots in at earliest the 17th century. You do, however, realize that ownership of the means of production by exclusive groups existed long before then, right? I mean, why use NK as an example, why not go whole hog and use medival england? the roman empire? hell, ancient egypt?"
I'm not stretching the definition of Socialism. Did the Roman Emperor own the Farms? The Shops? The Senate? Even in Feudalism, the Kings didn't own the blacksmiths, artisans who built the castles and cathedrals were paid and contracted to do so. A lot of people seem to have a weird view of the middle ages, Serfdoms perhaps but those were primarily exclusive to the farms. North Korea is a great example, because it is a Socialist country. Yet it's ruled by a dictatorship that morphed into a Monarchy.
And referring to that there is little difference between a Dictatorship and an Absolute Monarchy outside of one being Hereditary and the other not. But a dictatorship can become a Monarchy. So I guess Stalin isn't a Socialist. Lenin wasn't a Socialist, Mao wasn't a Socialist. Because they were all dictators. Only difference is they didn't pass their power onto their children. That being said, did Lenin have children? Stalin and Mao did but... irrelevant. Kim did pass it on.
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
@jrenjrapiro817 General and TIK are correct on the definition of Socialism however. It's the same definition I was taught in school. It's the definition literally found in all offiical English Dictionaries. HECK even Google's definition.
Google Definition: Socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Websters: Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Being General already posted the Oxford definition I'm not going to.
However both Google, Oxford and Websters state the Public Ownership of the Means of Production, and being the Public Sector is the State, hence why the state is referred to as the Public Sector, it is LITERALLY State ownership of the Means of Production.
When a definition states Common, Society, Government, State, they all relatively mean exactly the same thing. Public Control of the Means of Production. Capitalism is the Private Control of the Means of Production. That is literally the fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Private Ownership vs State Ownership.
Private Police = Capitalism (Security Guards)
Public Police = Socialism (Local, State and Federal Law enforcement)
Private Hospitals = Capitalism
Public Hospitals = Socialism
Private Farm = Capitalism
Public Farm = Socialism (Collective Farm, State owned Farms etc etc etc)
Over and Over again. Fundamental Difference. How much your nation is one or the other defines how much of a Capitalist country you are vs a Socialist Country. So it's why you can argue there has never been a truly Capitalist country, as it would require a VERY weak central state. Were has Socialism has been tried and failed many times over. USSR being one of the best examples, were the state literally owned almost everything.
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
As a former Fascist myself, dropped it years ago, he even understands Fascism considerably better than most people including most history tubers.
I mean I ran into one history tuber that said Fascism was how did he put it, a Ideology of Contradictions and Redundancy? Basically saying it had no core economic and social foundation, and was entirely a nationalist military totalitarians reactionary movement that is whatever it wants to be at the time to react to some other form of social revolution. Which seems to be the common impression of Fascism. Which means Fascism has no definition, to to them but a Nationalist Reactionary Movement.
Mean while they link ideologies to Fascism that are not Fascist, so they can claim Fascism is an ideology that has no core foundation, as all Fascist movements are TOO radically different from each other. Where I would say that shows a serious flaw in their definition of Fascism and would question whether many of those regimes are even Fascist, something Orwell seemed to notice, and even questioned, which TIK presented in the video "What is Fascism?" Which Orwell openly admitted most people's view on Fascism is well idiocy not his own words.
In short when you read between the lines of what they're saying, any social movement which is counter to the glorious Marxist Revolution is Fascist. Which you know is incorrect, but that view, that foundation of what Fascism "is" (Isn't) is what most people use to build their foundation of Fascism in their head, so in turn few including those making YouTube videos understand what Fascism even is.
Of course historians who are not socialist who use those sources as sources, even if they're not socialist themselves may or may not catch the falsehood in their statements which is why so many youtube videos get this wrong, even if the youtuber making the video may not be a socialist.
TIK actually tried, and did very good in his Mussolini and Fascism Defined video, he actually cared to figure out what Fascism was, at a fundamental level. He used sources with are sympathetic (not supportive but uses Fascist sources directly) but are willing to actually use sources that went to the mouth of Fascist themselves for their information/understanding of the movement. Fascism was, and has always been a Socialist ideology, even back when Fascist didn't want to openly admit it. Fascist did not want to be associated with Socialism 'directly' but the entire reason they called themselves a 3rd way was so many people were terrified of Marxism, and tried to disassociate themselves from the Marxist Socialist movement. It was almost required at the time. As so many throughout society were terrified of Marxism. This is why Nationalist Focused Socialist movements dominated much of Central Europe, and the Balkan States. Why countries like Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Greece, among others all leaned toward Fascism, and some of them turning directly Fascist even before the start of WWII.
Why? People wanted Socialism, they just didn't want Marxism. Fascist brought a new option to them, and the Fascist knew they were Socialist. Which is why Orwell listed them among the parties which needed to make admissions in his article "What is Fascism?" at the time when Orwell wrote that, most Fascist didn't like openly admitting they were Socialist, and Socialist didn't like openly admitting Fascism was Socialist, Fascist today openly admit being Socialist today, and it's only none Fascist Socialist who are in denial still. Orwell seemed to of figured it out. He just didn't openly admit it, I figure to keep many of his socialist readers from "running away" from his writings.
Basically Fascism was a nationalistic centered rebranding of Socialism, if you want a super simple explanation why it exist.
19
-
19
-
@On_The_Piss To be honest he made that point in earlier videos, yet people didn't care to accept them. I'd say between 1 hour to 2 hour 30 minutes if you watch that, it is almost undeniable, the Nazis were Socialist. It's an argument I often try to make with people. You have to view Fascism, Marxism, and National Socialism like Religions. They're Socialist or at the very least were born from the Socialist movement, and hold many Socialist elements, and ideologies within their own ideology. It is like comparing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam of which themselves have multiple different splinters, and sects. Yet they all worship the same "God." That is how Marxist Socialism doesn't look the same as Fascism, or National Socialism. Leninism, or Maoism. All created by 'men' who had different ideas on how to reach Utopia of Socialism. That being said though. TIK's comparisons between Marxist Socialism of the USSR and National Socialism of Nazi Germany do make the Nazis look more like the Soviets than they do Mussolini's Fascist. Which is a breath of fresh air for me, as I would often compare the regimes, but I never knew it went so deep.
18
-
17
-
@dr1flush Personally I care more about describing what they were in context beyond where they fall on a political chart.
Hitler was anti capitalist, anti marxist, anti conservative and at the same time anti liberal. His movement went against traditional German conservativism. Yet they were also not progressive, quite anti progressive in many areas. It's why it's difficult in my opinion to place them on a chart involving left/right. TIK described it well, Nazi ideology was held together with glue and silly tape and filled with contradictions.
Good example, they claimed they were pro family a very conservative thing to say. Yet used the Hitler youth to brainwash/condition kids, and even have them spy on their families.
Soviet Union and Communist China did the exact same thing with their youth programs as well, but they're not associated with the right.
Mean while Hitler was very pro animal rights, against eating meat, and a few other things, some things which you could accuse him of being a hippy for. Yet was anti homosexual, believed women belong at home, among other conservative values.
So yes, I think it's far more complicated than Liberalism vs Conservativism or Left vs Right. It's why I don't like accusing one as being one or the other. Try avoiding adding that label onto anything if I can. People are too complicated.
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
@jrenjrapiro817 I'm curious how thick you can be still no able to grasp, that there is no rule to state that you can not have a Racial Community! If the Nazis removed everyone else from Society by Default there would only be the Racial Community. THEY WOULD BE THE COMMUNITY, the only COMMUNITY. There would no singular, or separate communities without the community as they would be THEE Community. Seriously, that isn't a hard concept to grasp. As I said before, a Community doesn't have to be inclusive to be a Community, putting "THE" at the beginning doesn't make it any different. It is a Community. But as I already explained, a Racial Community would be literally that, a Racial Community, it wouldn't have separate communities because they'd be all gone. There is a reason the Nazis planned for mass depurations. Which ended up becoming something far worse.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, not True Socialist? I guess no one was a Socialist then if the USSR, and Communist China were not Socialist nations. I guess the Weimar Republic were the true Socialist? Oh, how about the Fascist? Oh oh, wait no I forgot, they're not TRUE SOCIALIST. Sorry but the USSR was THEE Socialist nation of history. Lenin was a Socialist, Stalin was a Socialist. Sorry but State collectivized Farms which helped lead to the Holodomor is an example of Socialism..... oh wait... I FORGOT, you don't think State control is Socialism. Golly... sighs
It's like talking to a Brick wall.
15
-
14
-
@dr1flush For obvious reasons. Republican support of the US Constitution insures rights/freedoms that would allow them to exist in the first place, and the Democratic party has been increasingly against the US Constitution, if those rights vanish their very existence might be put at risk. That's not even including how the constitution allows them to operate their own armed militias, which makes themselves feel more legit. Let alone immigration, for racist reasons, and the Democrat's increasing association with Marxist, why wouldn't they?
However, if you asked a Neo Nazi in the 1950/60s who they voted for and they likely would of claimed the Democrats because of it's association with ethnic segregation at the time, among other things. That being said, it isn't so black/white.
That and a lot of Neo Nazis are not even really Nazis. They don't even understand the rhetoric they seem to preach often made darn apparent when they try to use stupid Nazi slogans and can not even pronounce them correctly in spite plenty of audio speeches of Hitler being widely available to do so. Honestly miss when they had videos on youtube, as you were able to see how utterly stupid most of them really were. I mean that was made quite apparent when they tried to march with tiki torches, that is how LAZY they are to mimic the people they claim to praise/follow.
14
-
13
-
@jrenjrapiro817 To be frank, I've never seen a single comment you've made which actually disproven anything I said outside of conjecture. All my replies have only been trying to really find out how you have some twisted views on words like Socialism, Community, and oddly apparently even Communism.
Honestly, I think any ounce of credibility which you didn't really show much sign of prior anyways, was thrown out the moment you claimed Communism wasn't a form of Socialism, even though from time to time in history they were synonyms of each other often used by some of the same people meaning relatively same thing. You can argue against Fascism, or Nazism not being forms of Socialism, but seriously Communism? I've never seen someone make that claim.
There is a reason the definitions of Socialism often includes "Common" Control. Because Socialism's Association with Communism.
It's literally in the name of Communism ie straight from Wikipedia "Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal' is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."
Key phrase: common ownership of the means of production < Strange, didn't some of the definitions I posted earlier from the dictionary for Socialism use common ownership? Almost as if they're often synonyms.
Wiki Socialism:
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production.
Social Ownership: Social ownership is the appropriation of the surplus product produced by the means of production by a society or community as a whole, and is the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system.[1] It can take the form of state ownership, common ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, and citizen ownership of equity.
Oh, look it includes State ownership, and omg seriously? Common Ownership!? As if I acutally knew what I was talking about when I said Community and Society can equal State Ownership, yet you were in denial of it. In spite Social Ownership can include state ownership, and yes this is all cited. =D
I'm sorry but, you utterly failed when you said Communism isn't a form of Socialism.
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@elijahrivera2858 To be honest, I don't like using left or right. The concept oversimplifies things.
If Liberalism is the Freedom to Life (Choice), Liberty (Freedom from the State) and Property (Owning Stuff). Wouldn't that make Capitalism Liberal?
Only reason it's Conservative in the USA in particular is because those core Liberal principles are part of the core of American Law. Which makes old world liberalism today's American Conservatism.
This isn't interchangeable either. What is conservative in one part of the world isn't the same in the other either.
A far right Conservative in say Europe might be pro Monarchist, and yes they still exist. Some still want to bring back specific monarchies. But in the USA a far right Conservative are normally Anarcho Capitalist, pro Constitutionist, and anti State. Very very far from being the same thing. These Conservatives have a lot in common with Libertarians even, yet they're call Conservatives and Right wing.
And core American values have also been adopted by some Socialist, like the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence modeling itself off the US Declaration of Independence. BTW Property isn't in the US Declaration of Independence it was replaced with Pursuit of Happiness, where in Classic Liberalism by John Locke, it was actually Property.
This in particular is why I dislike using Left or Right wing in particular. Most political charts are broken because you can not just place something to the left or right of something, definitely when the center may be very hard to define.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Gvjrapiro
For one. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Barack Obama both his terms. Heck I voted for him when he was running for the Illinois Senate.
You. "Is a neighborhood watch a state? Is a company a state? Is a club, o even an international organization a state?"
You. "That would be like saying rich people both run the government and the companies, ergo amazon is actually a separate country"
Equivocation Logic Fallacy: A Neighborhood Watch can not be compared to a Trade Union council which is what the USSR had when compared to say the US Senator or UK Parliament. Apple does not have direct Representation in the US Senate or Congress. Apple is not the State, even though they can lobby/bribe officials the best they can. They're not the State. Compare that to the Soviet Union in which the Local Factories and Trade Unions elected representatives to be on the Soviet Council, which in turn chose the Premier. That is a significant difference. Apple can not choose a politician to represent Apple in the US Senate or Congress, Apple can not do this at a National or Local Level. If a politician gets caught, being bought even in the USA it's illegal and they can go to prison for it as that is Called Corruption. Private Business or Public Corporations are not allowed to be part of the State which however, does not mean they do not try to influence it and they do try and succeed but legally they're not part of the State. That is not the same in the USSR, or the PRC, in which the State owns the business, either by way of direct representation like that of the USSR or by general ownership like the PRC.
"But again, it's very telling that you define socialism as "government control" or "anything besides perfect capitalism" because even the first socialists, and the most influential, would spend decades advocating against government control."
Definition of Socialism. Right out of Webster.
Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@dr1flush There is nothing ahistorical about it.
Why I brought Black Nationalism because it's a complicated subject. Counting which particular group within the wider movement, you have Marxist, Black Nazis, Liberals, and Conservatives, and often very strong roots of antisemitism as well.
Would you consider them right wing or left wing? They're inherently the enemies of White Supremist, and today are found supporting the left for defacto reasons. In spite often being just as horrible and racist as their white counter parts.
Then you also have National Communism. A pro Nationalist version of Communism, also built around similar white only racist nationalism often associated with Nazism, but wanting to bring back Communism within Ukraine and Russia, making them what I often like to use Communazis. They literally walk around with a Nazi style flag but with the Hammer/Sickle of the USSR, instead of that famous cross of theirs.
6
-
6
-
@peterainsworth4841 Better than a Communazi who thinks the USSR was the greatest thing that happened to the world. "USSR Had the best quality of life for it's citizen, they had the most advanced technologies in the world." And other Wehraboo like Soviet Supremacy nonsense, hence why I use the term Communazi to describe such people. God, if I did this vs the Germans I'd get the same response but from someone other than you. And no, it's not Russia bashing, it's Communist Bashing. The reason they had to steal so much technology is because the system was so inflexible, innovation was almost non existent. I mean, why do you think a Soviet Soldier in the 1980s look almost identical to one from the late 1940s? Uniform/Kit wise.
To push this home. When NATO switched to the 5.56mm Cartridge the USSR was troubled, they had no idea why, so guess that they did? Monkey see Monkey do. They switched to a similar cartridges the 5.45mm which is why the AK-74 exist with almost no changes but the ammunition it fires, over the AK-47. This is what they did. They saw something we did, or had and they had to have it to to the PROVE they could make them as well, or assuming we adopted something for a GOOD reason and that they should as well. They had no real understanding why much of the time. But because we did it, they believed they had to also. That's not bashing, that is actually a fact.
They did it literally everywhere. I already mentioned many examples in aircraft, and now I just mentioned a small arms example.
And if you believe the USSR was so great, I can easily ask "Why did it fail?" "Why did it collapse?" Because I can point you to a channel hosted by a Former Soviet Citizen who can easily answer those questions in a fashion you would not like. Including that the USSR lied about figures/statics.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"In communism, the aim is to create a classless society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the community, and resources are distributed based on need"
Translation. Communism aims to create a Classist Society by Removing all elements of Society which are a threat to the Proletariat, by means which the Party deems necessary, including mass murder, enslavement, amongst other things. The means of Production are owned by the "Community" cuckles by Extension "THE STATE" and resources are Distributed Unfairly to Party Big Wigs, while the common man Starves.
Sorry but get over yourself. Marxism is scam and always has been, the greedy capitalist Marxist hate so much just end up being the Party Officials instead who exploit the workers for their own benefit but now have absolute authority/power over them, ie they successfully enslaved the Working Class by pretending to be the Heroes of the Working Class. If you're going to define Communism by the Fantasy Communist hopefuls believe it is then DEFINE FASCISM the way FASCIST fantasy dreamers believe Fascism to be as well. You only made yourself look like the biggest hypocrite on the planet by taking one heck of a bias position on the subject.
Btw you totally failed horrible on describing Fascism. But being you seemed to be one of those Communist hopefuls otherwise you wouldn't of painted an unrealistic view of Communism, it's not a surprise you have no idea what you're actually talking about.
I'd highly suggest ignoring the Fantasy and accepting the Fact that Marxism and Fascism are literal siblings born from the same mother. The only fundamental thing is Fascist are more honest than Marxist. Marxist pretend they're not Totalitarians, while Fascist Embrace Totalitarianisms.
The thing that bugs me the most about Marxist? They claim their movement is inclusive, but it's far from it. They will either murder, imprison and or forcefully enslave/reeducate ie condition/brainwash their enemies. That's not inclusiveness. Those enemies are not just political rivals, but entire families, religious groups, social classes, etc. Anything and anyone who doesn't fit the modal Socialist is a target. Marxist need to take a long look in a mirror next time they call Nazis and Fascist not true Socialist because they are providing socialism only to one "In Group."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@peterainsworth4841 Also BTW Soviet Aircraft designs were Rubbish. Pretty much from the 1960s and on they were more often than not around 10 years behind the western powers. Even by the late 1980s the MiG-29 just wasn't comparable to say the American F-16. Let alone the Su-27 which was meant to be the Soviet Union's counter to the American F-15 Eagle, just didn't compare. Then the Soviet Union collapsed. Why do you think no one wants Russian aircraft unless they're broke?
Russia is even farther behind now days because of the USSR collapse and how Broke Russia has been over the past 30 years. Just about the only thing they can do now is produce prototypes and at least try to keep their RND up to par as best as possible even if the Russian airforce itself doesn't get those aircraft. This is why Russia produces some interesting aircraft, but yet they never see service.
But that being said. If I had to chose between an F-5 and a MiG-21, I'd take the F-5. If I had to choose between a F-16 and a MiG-29, I'd definitely choose the F-16. Same goes for the F-15. Same goes for the A-10 vs say Su-25. Though honestly I have a soft spot for many Russian aircraft, I do like the Su-25, Su-30M, and the MiG-29 despite my criticism, is still a beautiful looking aircraft. Similar to say owning a Tiger Tank, I would love to own say an Su-30M just for how beautiful of aircraft they are, not because of say superiority. A Tiger II is a beautiful looking tank but it has serious issues.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1. You defined Marxist Socialism, not Socialism itself. Being you don't realize that, I highly doubt you know what Socialism is, and that it's a 200+ year ideology with so many fractures that defining it universally to please all socialist is impossible. Because there are so many different version so it. Class Socialism is Marxism. Utopian Socialist didn't care much about class, and Conservative Socialism both pre-date Marxism is also not Class focused either. There is no rule that socialism is about class, only people who do not understand the history of socialism think it's about class. This is why Prussian Socialism doesn't sound like Marxism, because Prussian Socialism is a Nationalist Utopian Style of Socialism, influenced by Utopian Socialism which pre-dates Marxism.
2. Totalitarian Regimes including those Admitted to be Socialist have a blatant history of mass murder, so your second point is invalid as well. Stalin conducted the largest ethnic cleansing in European history, even larger than Hitler if you include the deportations along side those sent to labor camps, or flat out murdered.
3. Socialist claim to be anti war, but they really love their revolutions which almost always resort in war. Ask Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Mongolia, Tibet, among so many others, how peaceful and anti war socialist regimes like the USSR, China, Cambodia have been in the past. All invaded and attacked by these "Anti War Revolutionaries" externally, not internally, and that is just in Europe and Asia and I'm sure I missed a few. South America and poor Africa have been ripped to shreds by Socialist. Heck they even attack eachother, like the USSR vs China, or China vs Vietnam and Vietnam vs Cambodia.
4. "socialists seek to promote both positive and negative freedoms while fascists want people to be a cog in the machine fighting for the state" You obviously never read the Communist Manifesto then. As many outside observers including Bakunin, in a Marxist State no man is free, and are slaves of the state. Doesn't sound too dissimilar to Fascism does it? But being Fascism was founded by former Marxist it isn't a surprise.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro
"policies that brought it back to a mixed economy..."
But Fascist proclaim they're the half way point between Communism and Capitalism. Wouldn't that bring them closer to the same ideology?
"Which is not socialist, because if the state is not representative of the people, either by being democratic/populist government structures, or by giving the workers at large democratic control over their respective industries/workplaces, it is not socialism." Yet every single Socialist State has either turned into a Totalitarian Regime, or a Autocratic regime. Which do not represent the people, even when they claim to. I can even point to modern day France, and Germany as great examples, in which France has turned into a Plutocracy, and Germany an Autocracy. Despite claiming to be very Socialist nations. USSR, China, North Korea, and Cube all become Totalitarian. If Fascism and National Socialism are also Socialist as TIK Claims, well, the cycle continues. Venezuela is sadly also ruled by a Military Dictator now as well. So all these self proclaimed Socialist movements are not Socialist?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@walkerh.7851
Judaism, Christianity, Islam. All the fractured splinters of those Religions. All have one thing in common. They believe in the same God. Replace god with Socialism, and it sums up what TIK is trying to get across.
Fascism isn't Marxism. National Socialism, isn't Fascism. None of these are Traditional Socialism either he states Marx wasn't a Socialist quite bluntly in his Shrinking Markets video, yet Socialism lies at the heart of all of them. They're splinters of Socialism, and in some respects Fascism and National Socialism are Splinters of Marxism. TIK himself is pretty direct on that point. They're not the same, they were never the same. Yet they're born from the same mother. I use the Religious example because there are few other ideological examples in the world that can be used to compare.
It's why Fascist and Marxist can support a lot of the same Social programs and yet be hostile with each other. It's why it's wrong to call the Nazis Fascist, when some of there beliefs are not shared by other Fascist, like Austrian, Hungarian, Spanish or Italian Fascist. TIK points out that even Orwell noticed that their are distinct differences even between Mussolini's Fascism, and Francos Fascism, let alone the Nazis in his video George Orwell's "What is Fascism?" It is why phrases like Stalinism and Leninism also exist as like other ideologues they had different ideas. It's why Hitler Murdered Socialist he didn't agree with on the same context why Stalin and Lenin murdered communist they didn't agree with. Even Trotsky's followers splintered into different ideological groups, including Posadist. It is how an Anarchist like Mussolini some how becomes the Father of Fascism. =P
2
-
2
-
@walkerh.7851
Video 1. I'm a Subscriber to all the Time Ghost Channels, and I have been since 2014. I saw that video before this was ever uploaded, their conclusions were pretty inconclusive. As they defined the Nazis as thieves, using the State to Empower themselves, steal from the people, etc. But, that isn't really that much different than the Gold Gilded palaces of Soviet Republics like Ukraine, and Belarus in which the leaders of those countries of which are part of the Soviet Block stole from the people on behalf of the USSR and were rewarded quite handsomely for doing so. But the programs/methods used by the Nazis to gain all that power and control, including collectivization of major business and corporations into the hands of party officials, and what were not, were watched like a hawk for the sake of exploitation if not drowned by state regulation and price controls/fixes. Again, does not help the Time Ghost crew's decision not to call the Nazis Socialist. But even they openly admit that they're definitely not Capitalist either. I remember the definition of Socialism under Marxism as being somewhere between Capitalism and Communism. If they're not Capitalist, nor Communist (Marxist) they like the Fascist themselves claim to be somewhere between which wouldn't that by Marxist theory be Socialism? If the Nazis are neither, and themselves like the Fascist Claim they're an in between?
For that, I will post the Webster Point 3 definition of Socialism, ie the Official Definition of Socialism under Marxism.
Socialism : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
The 3rd video I would like to dismiss entirely, I watched it along ago, around the same time I actually found TIK's channel, and sorry to say taking it seriously by a self proclaimed communist, as it would be like taking a video uploaded by a self proclaimed fascist seriously.
The 2nd video the first 15 minutes of it are well comical. Because Communist didn't murder other communist? (Stalin vs Trotsky comes into mind) Let alone anyone who disagreed with Lenin when they first took control of Russia were purged in the same fashion. Referring to Hitler's distaste and disagreement with other Socialist who had different ideas than himself means he is automatically not a Socialist? But his primary argument on the Industrial aspect of the German economy under pre WWII is dismiss able when you take into consideration how much the Party had control over the major corporations of Germany at the time. He falls into the trap of thinking that there was a Free Market in Germany. I've often compared Nazi Germany's "FREE" market to what is currently seen in China today. Nearly all major Corporations in China, though having relatively free hand away from the control of the state ie the state doesn't govern them directly, are however, under the ownership and control of individuals who are either members of the Communist Party, or family members of Communist Party Officials. This means that despite, you can argue that in China, there is Capitalism, free market, in turn there technically isn't. TIK talks about this completely separate in a few of his videos on how the party controls business in Germany, and likely oblivious to the fact that there is a regime out there right now that operates in a similar fashion that he could use as an example but is likely ignorant of it so does not, sadly.
PS this also doesn't take into consideration that TIK does point out that the Nazis didn't want to Implement full Socialism until they had all the land/resources they wanted, and he cites sources for that as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yewhannes "hell, even in your very first reply to my initial comment you stated how "most socialists today have a Marxonian understanding of socialism," so idk why you're backpedalling on that point so hard all of a sudden."
Marxonian in the context of common/social control of the means of production, trade unions, Syndicalism, corporations, etc. None of which is restricted to Classism. Many Socialist movements have tried to remove the concept of Class from their programs, though keep much of the social/economic principles passed down by Marx. Including Social Democracy and Keynesianism. Heck even Hitler believed in much of Marx's economic theorems. Would you call Keynes a Marxist? He definitely didn't want Communism, but he didn't want unrestricted Capitalism either. Basically most Socialist are anti-Capitalist but not exactly fighting for the Worker's Revolution either. Dumbing society down into classes just doesn't work, and has historically caused more harm than good. Which is why many socialist have either discarded it, or sidelined it. USA in particular and comically so the left has literally abandoned the working class entirely, and pretty much has so since roughly the 1970s with each consecutive generation less interested in the concept of Working Class, and more interested in Racial, or Gender based Social Groups. It's so bad for traditional Marxist that Bernie Sanders literally said the left has all but abandoned the working class when criticizing the Democratic party. I'd think he would of realized because they're looking at different sheep now.
"Saying Marx was one of the founders of social democracy is pretty naive and honestly a non-sequiter in regards to the conversation, so again, idk what you're trying to prove with that.
are you talking about the revolution that resulted in the Weimar Republic and the absolution of the German monarchy? or the extremely shortscale one in 1919? if you're on about the latter, the downfall of the Spartacists was moreso a product of the SPD allying with the established powers, i.e. landowners, military leaders, etc., not that they were ousted by popular demand."
1. The SPD was founded by the leaders of the two largest Marxist parties in Germany when they merged together as one party in 1875. So the Social Democrats were the Marxist.
2. They were not ousted from power. The Revolutionary Socialist left the party because they were the minority within the party, basically they had no direct influence over the party anymore. So they left the party shortly after the SPD took power in Germany and formed their own parties. Basically the SPD Splintered into multiple factions.
3. You're getting your dates wrong. The revolution of 1918/1919 lasted for months, this whole period was known as the German Revolution, basically a small civil war. Between late 1918 to the beginning of summer the following year. First it was the Independent Socialist and Communist in Berlin who tried to launch a counter revolution in the capital., They failed Meanwhile the formation of the People's State of Bavaria also happened in late 1918. In fact the Bavarian Communist had ties with Moscow and it was one of the fundamental reasons for the Red Army's invasion of Poland February of 1919 basically trying to merge with Bavaria and Hungary which was also run by a fledgling Communist government. This counter revolution didn't really end until the summer of 1919.
"if you speak to the layperson about the socio-economic state of things, you'll find the majority of the time their beliefs are scarily aligned with Marxist belief in all but name (public education, public ownership of the means of production and graduated income tax "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"), especially so in the UK that has historically had strong ties to Marxist beliefs."
And none of that has to do with "Classism.
You don't need Classism for Public Schools, Public Ownership of the means of Production or Graduated Income Taxes.
Don't need it for collectively owned business either. The concept of Working Class really just doesn't exist where I live. It's been phased out of our vocabulary. We have two collectively owned business, and even they went so far to say F*** the term, and use the words Employee Owned instead. Mainly because saying someone is a specific class is about as dehumanizing as claiming someone is a specific race. It's dumb, and a left over from a bygone era in human history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Implying you didn't watch the video. His premise is a premise, but the details on why he made that premise is deeper in the video. So trying to counter his "Premise" without knowing why he made that premise isn't a good way of counter arguing his video. Also your example of "Oh they said they would never invade the USSR but invaded the USSR anyways." Implying you can not take their word for it is nuts. There are a lot of reasons why they made that None Aggression Pact, and never had any plans of honoring it, and that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with whether Nazi Germany was Socialist or not anyways, in turn, your example is irrelevant to the debate.
From your link. TIK address and completely debunks this in Section 6 of his video, with a sludge hammer at that, it's hard to find your source even remotely convincing, definitely when your source was published from a Academic back in the USA in 1944, who had no direct access to information and it was all 3rd hand information. v this below is from your source and it's just laughable... it's an economics who does not seem to understand how Nazi Germany's economy operates hence why he describes it in a "Puzzling" manner ie he is having a hard time trying to find a way of how to define it.
" It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous
market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two
centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the
government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production,
and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or
communism: private property and private profit still existed. The
Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics
of capitalism and a highly planned economy"
PS this part from above "the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them" He is literally taking the Nazis Word for "Privatization" seriously. So even you're own attempt to say you can not take the Nazi's word for it, well this man is taking their word for it. So your source is by an economist from outside Germany, taking Nazi Propaganda, seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight A lot of people have been pointing that out over the past few months, and I'm glad more people are noticing it. It's been a problem in the USA in particular since the Occupy Wall Street movement. In which black clad violent agitators first started appearing on American streets pretty much every time a major protest movement starts up, they always show up and hijack the protest, and often resort to violence. They're often self proclaimed Marxist, Anarchist, and since morphed into Antifia which I think they just adopted the name because it was the name of an anti fascist organization dating back to the 1920s.
Then again you can go father back to the Malcolm X period of the Civil Rights Movement. If you look up the ideological beliefs for example of the Black Panthers, it includes Anti-Zionism (Almost all groups that are Anti-Zionist are also Antisemitic as it's often a core part that leads to Anti Zionism), Black Nationalism, Marxism, and they would go around yelling "Black Power." Mean while Malcolm X who gave birth to that radical branch of the Civil Rights movement even went so far to make peace with the KKK and Neo Nazis because he also supported Segregation, and found common grounds with Racist groups because his movement was also Racist. These movements gave birth to what is known today as Critical Race Theory which is pretty much an African lead version of Nazism. Which is why I believe understanding Nazism in general and what it actually is is so important as we see a similar ideology growing in strength today coming right out of left field and few really notice it because they don't know history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Die-Sophie That isn't a fair assessment even from someone like myself who used to be a leftist. Heck my username is still a leftover from that time. Red Army Choir was my math homework tune.
Woodrow Wilson is a good example. Democrat, pro Democracy Advocate, yet Nationalist, Racist, authoritarian. Despite implementing many offices and foundations like the FTC, Federal Reserve ie State control of importation and regulation of commerce and Federal Centralized banking, he was also a tyrannt. He even arrested a political rival for not wanting to pledge Allegiance to the USA something he put into practice. Despite being a leftist he was nonthing about equality. It why when he is talked about in American schools his domestic policies are often omitted and only his international ones like World Nation Equal rights for all and other hog wash is highlighted.
Even beyond that equality is a pipe dream. You will never have a system were everyone in society are equal trying to create it often requires oppression. Stalin didn't starve, nor did Lenin, Mao, Goering (joke), Po, omg the Kims.... even today, leftist politicians live like kings.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Die-Sophie "If the NSDAP had been "left-wing" or even "socialist," it would certainly have sought a coalition with one of the first two parties. On the one hand, there would have been close proximity in terms of content (after all, the SPD and KPD are undoubtedly left-wing), and on the other hand, the majority would have been particularly large, at around 60 %. But the NSDAP ultimately formed a coalition with the right-wing "battle front. This clearly speaks against a "left-wing" orientation."
Yet they terrorized/harrassed those Coalition Allies. Forcing them all to close their doors within a few months after the Enabling Act. So the NS were not exactly Friendly to the Right Wing. Also one of the Parties that was part of the Coalition was a Liberal Party if I recall. So it wasn't entirely what you'd call Right Wing.
The reason they couldn't side with the SPD or KPD is quite obvious. They spent most of the 20s/30s damning the Weimar Republic which was literally run by the SPD for much of it's history, and the KPD were their primary rivals. It had nothing really to do with socialism.
Good examples being. Stalin murdered thousands of Socialist, doesn't mean he wasn't a Socialist. Lenin even removed the Moderate Socialist from any positions of power during his Revolution, so Lenin must not be a Socialist?
The KPD originally tried to over throw the SPD during the 1918/19 Revolution, conducting a Coup ie a Revolution against the Revolution. Yet I guess that means the KPD were not Socialist?
Being Rivals doesn't make someone anti Socialist.
Also when it comes to left/right wing, it's irrelevant. Being the National Socialist considered themselves somewhere between officially of course they'd refer to the Left when referring to the Communist and Social Democrats. So you're entire attempt to bring left/right into this discussion holds no real water in my opinion as the NS themselves didn't really consider themselves one or the other, which is ironically why it circles back to what I said about how they crushed every Coalition Party post Enabling Act. They all ceased to exist, most of them against their will post. So I guess by your own logic that means the NS were not Right Wing? Of course they were not Right Wing, they claimed to be neither. ie their "Glorious" 3rd Way as they would try to say.
TIK also presents evidence in this video and another one that shows many Communist Considered the Fascist to be to the Left of themselves which included Josef Stalin. Which heavily implies that maybe Leftism today wasn't what leftism was back then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508 lol Well in a way yes, Monarchy would be Socialism if the State owned everything. I mean.. where do you think the idea of Socialism came from? Ever heard of Conservative Socialism or Bourgeois Socialism? The ORIGINAL Socialist. Monarchist, Nobles and Aristocrats who despised the new rising Middle Class who were becoming wealthy because of industry, and owning business, luring farmers to the cities to work for them instead of the Noble's Farm/Plantation. Where do you think Bourgeois comes from? It's French for Middle Class. The Original Socialist targeted the Middle Class because they were a threat to their "POWER" and they wanted to convince the lower class that Society needs their Wisdom to Rule, and these Middle Classers were only their to exploit them. ie it was a Scam thought up by the extremely powerful ruling class back in the 18th Century/early19th Century.
Marx came along and kind of changed the ball game. But that doesn't change what Socialism is, it just a rebranding of Socialism, ie Marxism.
You can believe in your "fake" ideology / "Religion" all you want but it's built on a Scam. You are only empowering the wealthy ruling class, and it happens again and again.
Capitalist don't even disappear in Socialism, they just become Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini and all those who serve under them, becoming a new exploiting ruling class, ie Capitalist under the banner of Socialism. Despite how much wishful thinking you throw into it, Socialism will always be that way. Without some central power you can not twist people's arms to be good LOYAL socialist without Authority. With that Authority you have exploitation, and oppression.
2
-
@myopeius5765 TIK hasn't talked about Liberal or Progressives, at least not in a dedicated fashion.
But I can put it bluntly, when Stalin considered Fascism to be to the LEFT of Communism. You know the concept of the Leftism is likely not Liberal.
When Gentile one of the founders of Fascism considered the Capitalist Free Market State a Liberal State. It makes it quite clear that Socialist States are not Liberal States.
So TIK didn't have to talk about it, but it's quite clear based on rhetoric that many Leftist in the past were definitely not Liberal, at least not in the proper sense.
TIK's position on Leftism is that Leftist are Statist. Being Statist are not Liberal, rarely if ever being they want to take power away from individuals which is by nature anti liberal, then all Leftist and Socialist by association can not be Liberal, even if they think they are, they're pushing for anti liberal policies and reverting society back to Pre-Classic Liberal economies, ie pre-capitalist economies.
Were the economy is in the hands of the social hierarchy that rules society.
Hence why I used Feudalism as an example. Land was owned by the King, leased to Nobles in turn Nobles managed that land on behalf of the King in turn everyone below the nobility were by default working for the nobility, and by extension the King. You didn't own land, didn't own property, you had no real economic freedom, you were a slave to the "State."
Socialism has the same end goal, just remove the king/nobility, replace it with the State, and Trade Unions run by Commissions. The workers do not own their own property, nor their own land, because of this are entirely depended on the Commissions that decide their fate. The Trade Unions, and Commissioners pretty much replaced the nobility, and you're once again just a Serf.
Now not saying TIK would agree with what I just said. But it's a realization that I came to which caused me to stop being a Socialist years ago. Socialism is just Feudalism and Serfdoms with a new name. ie "Work for the state and the state will take care of you." That is pretty much Socialism in it's most ideal form..
2
-
2
-
Wulf Well technically the USSR and Nazi Germany were not against Unions. They both Nationalized Unions. The Nazis Nationalized Labor into the Reich's Labor Service, creating pretty much a State owned Monopoly on Labor. ie the RLS was a Worker's Union, but one that spread across the entire Nation for all Workers. Ironically being, by Monopolizing Labor, the Nazis fundamentally made Capitalism impossible, as Business Owners had no choice but to go to the State to hire new employees, and the State decided who'd they get much of the time. So Business no longer had any real control over their own internal hiring practices.
ie, they just didn't believe in Private Unions which is Oxymoronic because a Union can not be Private but... Unionist are not always logical. Better phrase would be Independent Trade Unions which are a Union for their particular trade or even a specific factory/facility itself. ie not part of a larger say nation wide trade union.
So in this context they were not against Trade Unions. So anyone who brings up the Trade Union argument either doesn't know what they're talking aboutin the slightest or just do not understand how Trade Unions work in a Socialist society. I mean the Soviet Union was literally called the Soviet Union, ie Union of Worker's Consuls. Those Consuls were Trade Unions. Soviet Union was ironically a State down bureaucratic system built around Worker's Unions. Doesn't sound too different from Italian Fascism does it?
Also when you're referring to slave labor. Most countries in WWII utilized Concentration Camp and POWs as laborers during the war. Even FORCED Labor post war. I mean most German POWs in post war reconstruction were not given a choice, POWs were traded back/forth between Western Powers to work on Work Projects, they were not volunteers but forced labor. So even in this context even the Allies were guilty of it.
2
-
@hobbso8508 "Wrong. Not only is market socialism a form of anarchistic socialism, but at its core communism is an anarchistic ideology. TIK even accepts this in this very video." I love to see where TIK Accepts this in this video, outside of maybe a criticism/mocking it.
That being said, Market Socialism is a Synonym for State Capitalism, at least many Socialist academics can not decide. With them still arguing whether China is State Capitalism or Market Socialism. If they're having that argument then the similarities are so close that they can not decide. Capitalist on the other hand are united, they know State Capitalism isn't Capitalism. Market Socialism is literally a way of describing a "Not" Completely Socialist Economy in a Socialist regime because Socialism fails at economics so requires some capitalist elements to survive. In the past they explained it as State Capitalism, and hated it, shunned it. But since China in the 1990s changed their tune but can not call it State Capitalism, otherwise they'd be hypocrites, and it would be admitting the Nazis were Socialist as they branded them as State Capitalist for generations.
"Socialism has always been about individual rights." Not really, Socialism places the rights of the Group/Community above individuals. Which is why Libertarian Socialist are looking at it backwards. It's the same issue with Anarchist who claim to be Socialist. Socialism is the oppression of the Majority over the rights of the individuals in the long run.
"So you admit that these ideologies exist, but you reject them on the basis that you don't understand them." You understand the propaganda behind them but not the reality of them. The fact you called Socialism an ideology which upholds the rights of Individuals is proof of that.
"Right, but not the state. A workers union is not a state." A Worker's Union that Governs is the State. A Politically Organized Community which Governs a Territory, like a Collective Farm, or a Union of Worker's Councils would be a State.
This is why Anarcho Syndicalist are Oxymoronic. They advocate abolishing the State, but in turn themselves become the State. They are that Politically Organized Community. Even if they were not part of the State, if they raise up and abolish the existing State all they do is Replace the old State with their own State. It's the same contradiction between Nationalism/Internationalism actually. At first it may be "Anti-State" or in this context "Anti-National ie International" but the end road is "Power to the State" and "Nationalism" as if you have one world Nation you still have a Nation, so Internationalism ends with nationalism just like when the Unions overthrow the State, they become the State.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@personaa422
"I had my reasons to delete comments. I've told you those reasons. None of them have anything to do with me not feeling the points are valid given i've said the same things I put in those comments elsewhere, and even to you. "
Irrelevant though. As I said, it has nothing to do with why you did it, but how people will perceive why you did it. Your reasons are irrelevant. Honestly, they were piss poor reasons to boot. As proven by your actions post deletion.
As I already said. You said you didn't want to waste time on commenting/replying to people that would never listen. Yet here you are doing the same, in defense for deleting comments against someone who isn't going to listen to your excuses, because they're bad excuses. You proved one of them wrong already just through your actions. All this time, spent defending that action, and trying to steer the conversation away from those actions using projecting as a defense mechanism, accusing me of projecting myself?
As I already said, it isn't about you. It's about how everyone else sees you for deleting those comments. They do not know the reasons, and never will, maybe unless they magically find their way into this subthread. Which I highly doubt it. Those who may, may not even believe your excuses, similar to how I do not.
Either way. Those who do know, get to smile over it. I know I have. I'm pretty sure TIK and General have. And someone already made a fun joke about the situation.
1
-
@personaa422 You clearly do not know what Projecting is.
Projecting is when you attribute something you're going through with someone else, and I already explained that. Someone who is angry, accuses someone else of being angry. Someone who has a failed marriage, making jokes about people having failed marriages to make themselves feel better. Someone who is Gay who bullies other people who are Gay, or accuses other people of being gay because it gives them some boost in personal morale. Literally the definition of Projecting. You do not project your world views onto other things, that isn't what projecting is.
Because if you're projecting, you would be say in theory, a communist who bullies other communist for being communist while denying you're a communist. That is projecting, you're ashamed of being a communist so you bully other communist for being communist. That is Projecting. It's a very simple concept.
It's a hypocritical action by someone who suffers from major insecurities and projects that insecurity onto others. It's a defense mechanism, and has nothing to do with perception. You proved quite clearly that you seem not to understand this, or perhaps, you're projecting, and accusing me of projecting because you're already insecure with your arguments, proven again by the fact you deleted your comments.
Perception is completely based on how someone views things, and events. It has nothing to do with Projecting. Projecting is a behavior, not a belief, or view of things. It's a negative attribute attributed to mentally unstable people.
1
-
@personaa422 It has nothing to do with projection. It's perception. Seriously, how insane are you? Yet you keep throwing projection around.
Perception, is how a person perceives your behavior. One person shoots another person, one person saw the action and believed it to be self defense, a second person saw their action and believed it to be murder. In individuals interpretation, and general perception of what they saw can literally change the outcome of a story, it's actually why witness testimony's are not normally reliable.
Projection, is when a person inserts their own personal feelings upon another's behavior. I'm AAANNGRRRY so I treat other people as if they're being AAANNNNGRRRY back at me. Stop yelling at me!!!! (Other person was talking quietly and not even yelling). I actually see this behavior between friends/couples a lot after they have a bad day. One will yell at the other even if the other didn't do anything wrong, accusing the other of being hostile to them, while it's entirely the person who is accusing the other who is the one being hostile. Projection in a nutshell.
There is a clear difference between the two.
I would have hated to have gone to whatever school you went to if you can not tell the difference between Perception, and Projection. It's literally in the names. I'm not projecting my own feelings upon your behavior, but discussing the perception people will have on your actions There is a clear difference. It is YOU'RE fault for not seeing that difference. Which sadly doesn't help you in the slightest. I mean if you can not tell the difference between Perception and Projection, my god, what other words do you not know but throw around like candy? Socialism? Fascism? hehe
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 You deleted those comments, so there is no proof that they lied about you. That is a problem, you created.
"I don't care." Obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't be in this video's comments for nearly a year. Stop trying to deflect. Your actions contradict what you're saying.
Also no, you didn't address it to a satisfactory way. Outside of making a whiny excuse that isn't an excuse. As my argument has always been there is no excuse to delete your own comments. Your answers have not been satisfactory, and come off entirely as nothing but petty excuses. Because you contradict many of those excuses, including "I don't want to waste my time." yet here you are doing the same on me, so obviously, you do not care whether you're wasting your time or not, similar to myself. GOLLY what a strong, powerful, and glorious excuse, which you contradict every time you reply. lol
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 Maybe because someone isn't logic minded? It's quite obvious from my end.
It's not about what you intended, it's about how people perceive. Someone sees that you deleted those comments, they will look at you negatively on every other comment they see you make. I remembered you, others will as well, so when they see that you deleted those comments, they will think you're hiding something, or realized you were wrong, maybe even embarrassed yourself so badly that you twitter style started hitting the delete button, but being the comments are not there, you have NO WAY to prove your case, or to defend yourself on why you deleted those comments.
In conclusion, anyone that sees that you deleted those comments, will have little faith in anything you post ever again. So I guess it's fortunate that that comment was Pinned. Because I'm smiling, I'm pretty sure TIK and the General fellow are as well.
You don't get it, well that is why you have already failed.
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 Simple logic. If they were true, you'd have no reason to delete them. If you want to be left alone you still have no reason to delete them. If you do not want your time wasted, you still have no reason to delete them.
Ignoring a little red 1 in the corner is an option, not replying to a little red 1 in the corner is also an option.
The only reason you would delete them would be you were ashamed you lost. I would never delete a comment, regardless what I wrote, even if I regretted what I wrote. You sir, have no integrity.
The only people I see who delete comments are people who absolutely fail to win any argument and make themselves look like a fool. It's a knee jerk reaction people learned from social media platforms, and one I'm glad I didn't learn.
So by deleting those comments, you're admitting you were wrong, maybe not in words, but by your own actions/behavior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Arno2022 Sounds a lot like the DAP's principles before Hitler joined the party.
A lot of people don't realize how much Socialist thought had on Nationalist, and Nationalism itself. Critics often saying they're Nationalist so they can not be Socialist despite National Socialist (Not the Nazis) had existed almost as long as Socialist thought itself has existed.
So much so that in my opinion Nationalism itself is a branch of Socialism. One built around the "Nation" and I mean Nation not State. If people understand what Nation is, it means Common people, or people of the same blood/culture. So it's the collectivization of a Community that shares a culture in short. It's why the phrase Nation State exist, it describes a specific kind of State built around a Ethnicity/Culture. As the term Nation and State are technically different.
Instead of being about something as arbitrary as Social Class, Nationalist won out in the end because Nationality had more appeal to the masses. Mussolini adopted Nationalism for that reason as well, it was a far stronger glue than Classism adopted by the Marxist. Today we live in a world absolutely dominated by Nation States as a result, which is living proof that Marxist class theory nonsense just doesn't work. It's also why regimes like the USSR resorted to Nationalism in the end. Why China despite trying to destroy it's National Identity is now trying to rebuild it. Why North Korea even has Race based Marriage laws. Even the Communist couldn't ignore how useful nationality is to collectivization. I'd even argue the legacy of the USSR is now an Ultra Nationalist Russia who dreams of it's Communist Past, their National Identity is the USSR, it's that culture they dream of.
Even if the Class Socialist dream of a one world International Community, they're just creating a new National Community that just encompasses the world so the end result is still Nationalism. They will resort to common relatable aspects we all share, like we are all human, or there is no race but the human race and create their culture of their own to identify as, that is how culture is created it wasn't just "THEIR" it evolves into existence.
1
-
@yewhannes But that implies that Marxist had already redefined Socialism for themselves, as they're the origin of Class Socialism. Prior to Marxism socialist didn't even consider Class an important factor in the ideology. All that Socialism was then was Collectivism vs Individualism as they stated it was the Polar Opposite of Individualism. All socialist primarily wanted was for people to collectivize and put the community above themselves. Class Socialist do not have the right, nor ever will have the right to hold a monopoly on the term. There are too many variations of Socialism and ones that many still follow for that to be possible. This is why the definition is often so vague, ie common/social ownership, and the Community/Society can vary wildly.
You already admitted Marxist changed the meaning of Socialism. Which is funny because Hitler accused them of doing such. The reason he wanted to steal the word Socialism was to steal it back, and wanted to create his own socialism based on what he believed REAL Socialism should be. Which is exactly what Marx already did. He created his Socialism and accused all prior Socialist as not being Real Socialist going so far of accusing them of being Bourgeois Socialist. So basically you're being a hypocrite by accepting that reality, because you're mocking Hitler despite Marx did the same thing.
However, this also means the rise of Nationalism in the 19th Century also had a lot to do with the rise of Socialist thought in the 18th/19th Centuries. As Society stepped away from the feudal system gave way to mercantilism, and the rise of Industrialization changed the social landscape dramatically that collectivist movements everywhere struggled for control of what this new world would turn into as a result. In the end by the dawn of the 20th Century, the Nationalist had won, with the concept of the Nation State which would dominate the 20th Century in particular. In most respect have still won in spite of all the Marxist Socialist rhetoric. The Nationalist adopted the Collectivist thinking of Pre-Marxist Socialism, and many even adopted many economic principles championed by Marxist. Including the State intervention in the Free Market for the benefit of the Community, their Community their National Community.
You see this actually with how Nationalist view the Community. They don't care about Marx's Public Ownership of the means of production as much, and only really care about the National Ownership, ie National as in Nationality of the means of Production. Which is why nationalist are completely happy with steal business from resident aliens, and international corporations etc. Actually we saw this with Trumps threats to Nationalize then Re-privatize TikToK into the hands of an American Company, or two years ago when China nationalized then Corporatized a lot foreign owned factories owned by 3M during the C19 pandemic so the the State could prioritize distribution of medical supplies to China vs international markets driving where that supplies goes. The Nation is the Collectivized Community.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 I don't need to publish. It's widely available just about everywhere, that the definition of Socialism is the Social Control of the Means of Production, and Social Control is widely available for ease of reference. Social Control control can mean anything, it isn't exclusive to a Worker's State, or Worker's Society. Social Control = almost any Society. This is why TIK is actually correct when he says State Control, Public Control. Racial Control, Worker Control, National Control. Just about the only one that you don't find on Social Control is Racial Control which is something TIK made up to best fit the National Socialist as likely no one else thought of it yet, but when you look at it critically, it's no different than National or Worker Control. All Social Control means is Societal Control, what kind of Society it may be, may be different.
So it's a fallacy claiming something isn't socialism because it isn't built around labor. Socialism isn't about labor, nor the workers, that is Marxism. Marxism is a Class version of Socialism and is built around the concept of the Working Class. Which is why they're both wrong. Yes. MARXISM is Socialism, but Marxism isn't the Definition of Socialism, nor is it the only kind of Socialism, nor is it the ROOT of Socialism. So it's a fallacy calling something "NOT" socialism because it isn't Marxist Socialisms.
It doesn't matter how good of a historian Richard Evans is if his final conclusions are still wrong. Landa seems to have the same issue. If you recall I specifically said when you first posted quotes from Landa that it doesn't help your argument. Why? Because it doesn't take but a few seconds of reading to see his idea of Socialism is Marxist Socialism. Which means his entire view critical or not is flawed. He has legitimate criticisms, but only if said person he is criticizing is claiming to be a Marxist Socialist, or Socialist built off Marxism, like a Social Democrat. Issue is Spengler never claimed to be any of that. So... his entire premise is wrong. I mean if you can find where Spengler tries to claim he is a Social Democrat or a Marxist Socialist, or a Bolshevik. Please, present it, because he was always a rival of that. I mean Bukharin was highly critical of German Socialism, Marxist Socialism, yet claimed to also be a Socialist. He was a different kind of socialism.
You gotta remember that the 19th Century was a melting pot of Socialist ideas, socialism even today still isn't a concrete ideology, its a fractured one. Which is why the Definition of Social Control is so WIDE, and VARIED, because it isn't a unified movement. There is no single Definition of Social Control, which means there is no concrete definition of Socialism itself if the core of it Social Control of the Means of Production can mean so many different things. This is why TIK willingly splits these socialist ideologies up, into different grouping as it's literally the only way to make socialism make sense.
Though I've started reading Slaves of the Ring: Tolkien's Political Unconscious, though I'm going to assume its going to be a critique on materialism. Because people with Marxist views will likely say that about a story revolving around people obsessed with a ring. I will not be surprised if that is where that article leads. I was unware of Landa before, so at least I have someone else to commit to memory.
1
-
@nicknolte8671 They are wrong, credentials do not matter.
You can look up the definition of Socialism just about anywhere, and it doesn't include the idea of Labor. It might include worker control but, that isn't the core of it.
Common or Social Control of the Means of Production is the general definition of socialism used just about anywhere you look. This doesn't include labor exclusively, it isn't a requirement.
When you dig into what (Social Control) of the Production means, ie Social Control independently, then yes, it CAN involve labor but not exclusively. I mean Social Control even includes which is State Control one of the possible means of Social Control. This means a USSR like Totalitarian System and a single party dominating the economy like that in Nazi Germany would still fit into the classification of Socialism, regardless of whether labor was involved or not, regardless whether social programs that benefited the people existed or not. Welfare isn't socialism, labor isn't socialism. It's only Socialism when the State has Control over the economy.
In that respect, all Totalitarianism is the Ultimate form of Socialism. Bukharin predicted it, and Orwell also predicted it. Both socialist btw. Bukharin if I recall literally said Marxism would lead to a single Party Dictatorship, an open critic of Marx's ideas on Socialism. Orwell predicted the same after witnessing what happened in the 20/30/40s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 I honestly don't know how any of that helps your argument outside of hurting it. Definitely the writer you quoted about Prussian Socialism. Though thanks for bringing that up, I'm pretty sure many will be delighted to see the concept of Right Wing socialism being brought up for a change, not many know of it, as it's often ignored in general political. Which circles back to what Orwell seemed to believe about Fascism. Most people are unaware of the concept.
Also if you've looked into the Self Help program by the Nazis, it was again a slight of hand. They didn't abolish welfare. They nationalized charity. ie instead of taxing citizens to pay for welfare they wanted people to donate their services. The NSV was the 2nd largest organization within Nazi Germany, 2nd only to their Labor Services. It had millions of members, hundreds of thousands of volunteers annually. Welfare didn't disappear, people were encouraged to offer their services to help people instead... but it was still organized by the central State.
Issue was in the long haul the Nazis resorted to property confiscation to make up for the lack of charity, definitely as times got harder during specific periods of the year.
So to say welfare didn't exist in Nazi Germany and that they were against the idea of it, was only on the surface, a veneer. Similar to other methods they used to make themselves sound apart from the Marxist, or Social Democrats, it was something they used to make themselves SOUND different but in the end, they still resorted to it. Kind of like when they used the term Privatization to make Consolidation and Nationalization sound less scary.
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 Actually you're wrong about All being Right wing Conservatives.
Civic Nationalism is Liberalism
National liberalism is Liberalism
Economic Liberalism is well not surprisingly Liberalism.
All three fall under the Liberal side of social spheres. Civic Nationalism is in fact one of the corner stones of Liberal Democracy.
You can argue National Liberalism but honestly it's still Liberalism. Though I do like you brought them up as an example. As it's a good example on how the concept of Conservatism and Liberalism are not bound to left or right wing. Something many people don't get. So when Orwell claimed that "Conservatives and Socialist need to make admissions." ie he was hinting he considered Fascism to be a conservative form of Socialism in his "What is Fascism?" Article, he wasn't lying. It's quite obvious the Nazis were not Liberals, but liberalism isn't bound to the left or the right of the political spectrum.
You're also ignoring the Elephant in the room. They voted for the Enabling Act with the promise of a Coalition. Something the National Socialist ignored after the fact. Most of the parties were forced to disband, many of them forcefully, ie the SS and SA used terror to convince their leaders to disband their party. Not exactly how you handle allies right?
Again circles back to the Privatization program being nothing more than Consolidation. It's a slight of hand, a magic trick, a lie used to gain more power within the Party itself, a road to Totalitarianism. There was no room for other political parties within the Reich. The National Socialism are renown for breaking promises, to everyone. Including their supposed Capitalist allies socialism claim they were so friendly with.
Best part being many members of some of these parties joined the resistance, including a number of the assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. Again, great allies right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 "It is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party." Bel Germa
Contradiction in Bel's Statement wonder if you can catch it which is Ironically a crux that ruins the entire Privatization argument causing it to lean in favor of Socialism. Also you're ignoring Gleichschaltung. 🙂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
False:
Socialism pre-dates the Marx's Class Theory of history. If you go back to the Utopian Socialist, and Conservative Socialist of whom Marx hated who were the original Socialist, it has nothing to do with the Working Class. In fact many of those original Socialist literally considered Socialism to be the Polar Opposite of Individualism. Which means Socialism is by it's very core Anti-Liberal, and can not be libertarian either in spite of what some socialist claim including Bakunin. As to have a Collective the Individual must pay the price of their liberty. So all Collectivism is against the very core of Liberalism which is Individualism.
TiK's definition of Socialism is spot on. Common Control, Social Control, Public Control, State Control, National Control, Worker Controlled they all mean the same thing, the hierarchy that rules society has control of the means of production. In the case of Marxism, a Worker's State.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gilmaris You're just digging it deeper aren't you? You didn't have to mention those other killings. You mentioned killings which was Night of the Long Knives, ie political killings. You contradicted yourself when you said you never mentioned killings, yet you did. You didn't have to mention the killings " I " mentioned, because I used them as a comparison to the ones you mentioned. Hence why "THOSE" Killings were something " I " mentioned, not you.
Like I said, are you really that Blunt? I'm actually dumbfounded you'd rant so much about something that simple.
You should watch TIKs video, he does present quite a lot of policies Hitler's regime implemented that were Socialist in Creed, and presented many future plans they had which was Socialist in Creed, including their failed attempt to collectivize German Farms. Puts left hand to mouth Golly.
Again, this is coming off as yet another person trying to refute the video by not actually watching the video.
Maybe you should watch it, and timestamp things you can prove that are wrong. =P
1
-
1
-
1
-
@12from121 Socialism can not exist without a State, as Society can not exist without a State.
Even the most ideal example, Viking Era Iceland which was literal Anarcho Capitalism, still had some form of governance, which was through a Absolute Democratic vote for all serious issues were leaders of all families would get together to vote on issues for the greater good of the entire Island. However, it didn't last forever. Because of the arnarcho aspects of their community, feuds, and fighting between the families of the Island left them so weak that Denmark had no problem conquering them.
Issue is, society is so complex today, that a State is necessary, it will never not exist. Even if you create an absolute democracy like Athens Greece, there will still be political officials who rise to positions of power, TIK described that quite well in his Public vs Private video actually.
Many Trotskyist realized this and this is why we ended up with a branch of Trotskyist called Posadist who wanted nuclear war to reset the world, they knew society was too complex that Anarcho Socialism would be impossible. So best destroy the entire world and start over.
Issue being. Socialism has everything to do with the state, because to gain the social control Socialist want would require the State, when compared to the complexity of the world that exist today. There would be no way to dismantling that Complexity without killing millions through failure/neglect/murder. The world without the state system would see a massive human die off.
1
-
@12from121 All definitions are simplistic unless people have intentionally made them none simplistic for a reason, or themselves have no idea what it is so a wide range of different interpretations of it were created.
Issue being people who are against Socialism have a common definition, but it seems socialist themselves are the ones who can not come to a conclusion to what Socialism is, and trust me I've argued with plenty and so gosh darn many have such wide different views on what Socialism actually is.
I was taught in the late 90s that Socialism, and that was part of the education system is when the State owns/runs the economy. State owned medicine, state owned utilities. etc That hasn't changed. TIK explains quite well how the Nazis did this as well. State Ownership of the Means of Production. He goes into depth in the Public vs Private video that Common, Social, and Community Ownership relatively all mean the same thing, State ownership. He isn't wrong by saying that either.
Even the Ushanka Show another youtuber who was born and raised in the USSR who is a Libertarian Socialist himself said Socialism it is State ownership, so TIK's definition of Socialism is correct. He grew up in THE Socialist State of the 20th Century as well, so he was raised under Marxist Socialist principles.
The fact he goes off course in the video is to explain why his critics views on Socialism are incorrect. He addressed it in his Public vs Private video but people seemed to ignore that, so much of those earlier parts of the video are to help people understand what Socialism actually is, because people don't know what Socialism actually is.
You're counter point about Krupp and IG Farben are irrelevant, he addresses them in the video. He also addressed why he went to war with the Soviet Union, and how you're claim it's a War against Socialism is incorrect. You should perhaps watch the entire video.
He wouldn't have to go off course in the video if people actually watched his earlier videos, he addresses this in a later video. Because if people actually watched his earlier videos, and didn't keep bringing up the same arguments he has already addressed, he wouldn't of had to include them in this video. But he did, because people don't watch the gosh darn videos. =P
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Garfield's Minion Interesting enough, how often the USSR stole technology or lazily copied western designs as well. Remember the T-144? The Soviet Concord, which literally was so badly built it had to be completely overhauled after every flight.
The MiG-27 which they copied the F-4 Phantom's variable intake, without knowing exactly why specific features on it even existed to begin with. So they added features to the MiG-27's intake for carrier landings for a ground based aircraft. They even went right down to the exact number of holes used to let airflow that gets stuck behind the intake to pass through, same size/number.
Lets not forget the MiG-31 when they tried to copy the American F-15. Monkey see monkey do scenario. Americans have that, we gotta have that!!! Just like the T-144, it wasn't as good as the F-15, not by a landslide but gotta show the Russian people we can build something that looks just as impressive.
Then you have the Buran space shuttle, enough said, just google a picture of it. It's literally visually identical to the US Space Shuttles. As if they copied it from whatever pictures they could find. Again, Monkey See Monkey Do. It flew once, and never flew again. They say it cost too much to operate, but it was likely just too dangerous to operate.
USSR was an absolute joke when you start looking into it. I mean at least we paid for the rights from the Russian company that designed the VTOL used in the F-35, the Soviets would just flat out try to copy it if not steal it.
1
-
@freedomordeath89 As I've been saying for years, and is primarily why I stopped calling myself a National Socialist, and no longer even a Socialist is primarily because irregardless what someone wants to Call National Socialism, one can not deny that National Socialism and Marxism were born from the same mother, or sown from the same cloth but into two different dresses. Either way, the core that created them are the same. I stepped away from either, as Socialism itself is doomed to fail, and National Socialism will if you remove it's Racist elements, isn't much different than Fascism, or Communism. I always believed if you could remove the Racism from National Socialism, it would be amazing, but well when you talk to a lot of "Self" proclaimed Nazis, well I don't think it's possible to separate at the very least, the Antisemitism.
1
-
1
-
IT's quite true. Amazon doesn't even provide good services anymore. Sellers have far more rights than Amazon's customers. And Customer Support almost doesn't exist anymore. Amazon helps a semi Monopoly, they have no competition that has any chance of competing, and even has the power to ruin people because they're the largest and sadly pretty much the only relevant online trade market. Try to get in contact with customer service on Amazon's website anymore. You're forced to communicate with them by phone anymore, all other methods are utterly terrible if not grabs your hand and takes you down a pathetic path that gives you no support.
For example, recently I bought some air filters being none of our local stores sell this particular size/make of air filter. I bought it off one Seller, said it shipped on the 12th. Tracking showed it never shipped until the 19th, the VERY DAY it was supposed to arrive, on top of that I noticed the Seller shipping it was a different Seller than the one I purchased from. However, when I tried to get into contact with Amazon there was literally no option whatsoever for me to actually ask them about this confusing mess, and why the Seller I bought it from a 99% approval rating Seller ended up getting replaced by a 66^ approval rated Seller? Why it said it shipped on the 12th but UPS never picked up the package until the 19th.
There is a serious lack of transparency. When I tried, they told me to get in contact with the Seller, a Seller that some how wasn't the one shipping the product, so I had to get in contact with the Seller Shipping the product a full week after they claimed they shipped it? Why was the Seller different? No option whatsoever to ask Amazon these questions even exist anymore. They give you a fake text chat with a robot that isn't even a robot but a pre-program button clicking game.
What happened to Amazon's good customer service? It's literally gone, there is no customer service at least online anyways. I literally had to call them directly, and fought through pre-recordings just to get an answer which was more frustrating than having to deal with our Local Cable/Internet Provider.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944
Temba A Nolutshungu
"The term “capitalism” was almost unknown in the English world until first popularised by English translations of Das Kapital in 1867.
This was the work of the father of communism, Karl Marx. The title was translated into English variously as The Capital or simply, Capital. Both these translations are wholly inadequate.
They do not convey the pejorative manner in which Marx used the term.
Like Clinton’s “that woman” or commonly “that scoundrel”, That Capital, or better still, That Accursed Thing called Capital, might more accurately have translated the true intention of Marx’s demeaning and stigmatising language.
Not even Adam Smith had ever heard of or used that term when attempting to describe the free enterprise system in his “Wealth of Nations” a century earlier in 1776.
For him later to be “known” as the “father of capitalism”, is a 20th-century accolade of which he knew nothing, nor deserved.
This is nothing more than a glaring example of how modern notions get mischievously projected onto the past."
The very concept of a Capitalist in the eyes of society didn't exist until Marx. Even if the word itself might have existed it only existed in small intellectual circles. But the Concept of it, at least MARX's Concept of it, didn't exist until the mid 19th Century, and he built this entire concept of the Capitalist on antisemitism.
Even today Capitalism itself just doesn't exist. It's more accurately described as Economic Liberalism, or as many people who defend the idea Free Enterprise which was the phrase used before Marx created Capitalism at least his notion of it. Even by the early 20th Century the concept of a Capitalist just didn't exist in western society, yet some how that society was Capitalist? As Marxionian theory wasn't very popular yet.
Interesting enough Nolutshungu got pretty close when referring to Das Captial being titled in an antagonistic fashion, hateful rhetoric. "Like Clinton’s “that woman” or commonly “that scoundrel”, That Capital, or better still, That Accursed Thing called Capital, might more accurately have translated the true intention of Marx’s demeaning and stigmatising language."
TIK has better translated it as "The J word" singular. Because once you replace Marx's use of Capitalism with small hat people, it becomes terrifying. As the same exact rhetoric is there that is used by antisemites but because he masked it with the word Capitalist people do not see it. Similar to when people use phrases like "money changers" to hide their antisemitism.
Basically to sum it up. Das Capital is literally a work of Fiction, built entirely off Marx's own prejudicious. By extension, the entire Socialist idea of a Capitalist is as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BJ-lq6js Honestly, I don't see your point, as the term Capitalist is a relatively modern term in a historic sense. It dates back only a few hundred years ago well after J**s were associated with being the money changers which dates back almost to the foundation of Christianity itself. It's actually the main reason the Church banned gambling, and loaning money as it was considered a J**ish trait.
If you're literally trying to describe the concept of "money" that's irrelevant, as all forms of capital is money. Even a bag of rice is capital. Also in Feudal times Surfs actually didn't have to be that productive. Lords were by law not allowed to kick surfs off their land. So again you're example doesn't work that well. They were part of the land, as important as the farms they worked on. So were protected from their own masters by higher law, say the King. So a random lord couldn't just murder his Surfs, or throw them into the street as without them, there would be no wheat or potatoes so the whole kingdom's interest was keeping their surfs safe/alive. Which is actually why during wars often attacking armies would murder the surfs and burn down those farms as it hurt the nobles the most.
It was the Town Folk, which the word Bourgeoisie originates from whom are often associated with the accumulation of capital/wealth because they lived outside the feudal system and were technically Free Men. They could own shops, earn money, while having to pay taxes to those who ruled the towns that they worked. Surfs/Farmers were not normally part of that system, they were separate. In fact many Free Men chose to become surfs as life was often easier, the nobles would give you land to farm, provide you seed/protection, and you didn't have to worry too much about actually surviving. Meanwhile Free Men had to struggle/flight for every scrap they could get, as they were outside that feudal system. It's these free men who became the middle class because they could accumulate wealth. People who chose the Town Life, and became a Free Man paid for it, with money, tears and blood. They did it because they were free, they ddin't have to get a lord's permission to travel, could own land for themselves, produce for themselves, and earn wealth for themselves. All the hallmarks Marxist hate.
It's actually an interesting history the word Bourqeoisie came from the old French word Borgeis which literally means town folk. The word has since evolved to mean Middle Class. Marx used it to describe the middle class/landowners but he was technically talking about shop owners, book stories, smiths, factory owners, people who owned land/property inside of towns, which now the relatively newly freed surfs were moving into cities to work for as a result of the industrial revolution and the more liberalization of much of European society as Feudalism started going out the door. So ironically when Marx is talking about the Bourqeoisie he is basically verbally attacking the middle class. So the corner shop is the biggest threat to man kind apparently.
Btw I self Censor because youtube has a nasty habit of deleting comments. I'd rather not have to retype something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS Most arguments against Hitler being a socialist often fall into what I call "history meme" territory. ie Urban Legends, Myths, often propped up by lazy historians who either do not do their homework, or worse, intentionally use it knowing their readers already know it and would rather resonate with them by presenting false information they already believe rather than trying to counter it. For example Richard Evans uses much of Mein Kampfy Chair for his pre National Socialist history. Even though Mr H used to book to warp his early life and hide his past. But the version of his early life in his 1st Book helps support he wasn't a socialist, but of course it does, because he wanted to distance himself from the Marxist. So historians like Evans who have a Marxonian idea on Socialism are more than happy to help Hitler whitewash his past ie doing exactly what Hitler wanted.
I mean you see this with Wehrabooism. 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger. P-51 Mustang best fighter ever! etc etc etc, where many historians even back this nonsense.
Which is interestingly and rightfully so why TIK Challenges many authors, and even displays when they're blatantly wrong, or contradict themselves, or when he catches them committing plagiary.
Like in his Weirmar Inflation video #2 where he catches an author intentionally falsifying a quote by Rosa Luxemburg, which is Plagiary btw, by removing aspects of a quote without citing that you left something out you are committing plagiary. The man did it because the part he left out of the quote makes Rosa Luxemburg look bad. TIK of course calls him out on it. Reason why it's plagiary is because by quoting it with quotation marks, and changing said quote.. you're lying or claiming said person said or wrote that in those exact words, if you change the quote you're basically falsifying what they said, which is well considered plagiary, not in that you copied someone but you falsified their words. If he paraphrased and didn't do a direct quote he could of gotten away with it, if he cited but he did a direct quote. Basically the man did exactly what someone like David Irving would do, and he is a historian who has lost almost all creditability since the 1990s.
My favorite part is when they try to claim them as Far Right, and even created something like the Horseshoe Theory which was created specifically to explain the similarities between Fascism and Marxism. The Term Far Right honestly today is starting to fall in deaf ears as it's so heavily over used, but it's a century old tactic, call something far right, and ignorant people will be more likely to believe it's TOTALLY different than the other ideology similar to it which you're trying to distant it from. Just about every socialist regime has been called Far Right from one time to another. Including the Soviet Union. So even by their own logic that would mean socialist is neither left or right if the USSR can be right wing. Either that or their concept of Left and Right is so fundamentally bankrupt that when they use the phrases left or right it holds on actual meaning, which is honestly an accurate assessment in my opinion.
I'm under the belief most people including Conservatives don't have any idea what Left and Right wing even mean. Which is why you have so many people on both sides of the Ilse who have similar beliefs, supporting radicals who have opposing beliefs. Basically because of bad sociological studies, a total misrepresentation in the past 100 years on what Left/Right Wing even is politically we have entire generations of people who don't know what it means to be on the Left or Right of the political spectrum. Which is why you have Libertarians on the same side as Neo Nazis two groups who are in absolute opposition to each other why? Because Individualism is considered a Right Wing belief, and Nationalism is Considered a Right Wing Belief.... so you have two polar opposite belief systems one being Pro Anti State, and Pro Individualism, and the other being Pro State and Pro Collectivism. Basically the political camps today are a fractured mess of whom don't even really know what they are and I think many in positions of power in society including academics prefer it that way because a fractured society is much easier to manipulate and control.
The Horseshoe Theory btw argues pretty much that opposites attract. So go far enough left or far enough right and you end up with the same thing, it's where that comes from. It's a Fallacy, as it relies on sociology to be magnetic or sphere, and I didn't know Physics and Geometry were part of sociology study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 Centre Party
The passing of the Enabling Act did not, as Kaas had suggested, prevent the Centre Party's demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas was supposed to inform about further legislative measures. However, it met only three times (31 March 2 and 7 April) without any major impact. At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.[20][21]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikechelsa3256
1. Like I said, socialist don't know what socialism is, or even the history of socialism.
Utopian Socialism which is one of the oldest forms of socialism and considered the first modern socialism.
"One key difference between utopian socialists and other socialists such as most anarchists and Marxists is that utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or social revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. Utopian socialists believe that people of all classes can voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it is presented convincingly.[3] They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society and that their small communities can demonstrate the feasibility of their plan for society.[3] Because of this tendency, utopian socialism was also related to radicalism, a left-wing liberal ideology." PS Marx is the man who created the term Utopian, it was used to describe the late 18th Century and early 19th (edit, I was off on my centuries)Century socialist, who of course didn't consider class struggle to be a tenant of Socialism. So...
2. You're missing the elephant in the room, as the State will never fade away once a Socialist State is established, that whole part is lie, I mean you guys say you can not take Nazi writings at face value but you take Marxist ones at face value? What do you think happens when you give all power to a state? It isn't going away, which means the Stateless Aspect of Socialism is not going to happen never will, as people who institute it set themselves up for enslavement without realizing it. And I find it funny that since roughly the 1980s so many socialist want to consider the USSR Fascist. When it was hailed as the poster child for roughly two-three generations for Socialism. I mean I understand the similarities, but that's because I view fascism as a form of Socialism as well. Orwell seemed to realize this in the late 40s as well that Socialism, becomes Fascism.
3. There are two school!? hehe it's considerably bigger than that.
4. What Bakunin is, is irrelevant. Libertarian Socialism is Oxymoronic as Libertarianism (ie Liberal Activism) is Liberty for Individuals and the earliest Socialist called Socialism the Opposite of Individualism which we consider now as Collectivism, people banding together as a group or one body, which is to be frank, in opposition to Liberalism which champions the individual above groups... so ya... Libertarian Socialist don't even know what it means to be Liberal. Bakunin is in the camp of socialist who believed you can combine Liberalism with Socialism in spite of the contradiction that it implies. However, because of this, he is a good source to use when it comes to Liberal Criticism of Marxism, and other 19th Century Socialisms the reason he didn't become a Marxist was because he held many liberal values which were in direct opposition to Marxism. You're pulling at straws if you think using another self proclaimed socialist to criticize another self proclaimed socialist is a bad thing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 You fail to understand what a Representative Democracy means then. Technically everyone is the state. If the State does not represent the people, then the people failed to elect people who properly represent them in such a system. At least ideally that is how it's meant to work. By that logic though all people in a democratic society are the State to extent but the power is so widely dispersed that as individuals they hold little power, but collectively they hold immense power above even those who are elected into office. If you're referring to an absolute democracy then the people are truly the state by the standards of Athens in which the people were the governing body.
That being said, counting on the Society what defines as the State can very. That is why it's definition can swing quite wildly. For example, in the case of an Absolute Monarchy the state works it's way down, not up, and the center of power is utterly in control of the people at the top so the people, the average citizen in no fashion what so ever can be considered part of the state. However, in a Representative Democracy it goes from the bottom up, the people are the highest authority within the State, and any harm the state forces upon it's citizens is done so unintentionally at the consent of it's citizens who chose the officials who are in positions of power.
That is why Webster defines state as, these are the most relevant ones.
"the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body"
"a person of high rank"
" a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory
especially : one that is sovereign"
"the political organization of such a body of people"
"a government or politically organized society having a particular character"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wannabchomsky Took you an entire day to basically repeat the same strawman argument again? You keep bring up Burden of Proof, yet fail to bring up any examples of that 'proof.' I only did exactly what you asked, and "MOCKED" the results that came out for doing what you asked, out of some hope that perhaps there was something special about "Googling" Burden of Proof. But there wasn't, it was just another Strawman argument which is all you've done. You've never presented any proof. Which is all I've asked. If you fail to do so, then you have no argument, outside of faceless accusations. So again, I will ask. PLEASE present some proof that TIK's claims are wrong, I want to see that proof, it would make me happy, as I would have something to read that would counter his views. Yet you've not done that, you've claimed to have done that, and if you did it is not in this string of comments. So I have no proof You've ever done that. So please, PLEASE present some proof. If you do not, stop commenting. Stop insulting people, stop calling others idiots. Because you're only making yourself look like the idiot. Because everyone in these comment sections or more so a vast majority of, are supports of TIK and only laugh at your comments because you do not present proof.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodrigodepierola He isn't the only one. A lot of the sources he uses in many of his videos are people who believe relatively the same as TIK. I can think of a few channels including at least one other History Channel which the Host has similar beliefs as well, but doesn't make political videos, just history ones. TIK does both, history, political and economic videos.
If you want an accurate representation of the USSR during the Cold War, and during it's dying days you should look up USHANKA SHOW's channel. He has made many videos addressing many Socialist lies about how Great the USSR was, including false statistics and fake GDP, GNP. Let alone a video on how the USSR masked it's real Birth Deaths Rates, which was in reality 14-15x higher than the USA and Western Europe at the time, but the USSR masked it by not recording a birth as "Officially born" until two weeks after they were actually born, as most children die within the first few weeks of life, this helped the USSR hide it's real death rates of new borns. Among many other Pro Soviet lies. This channel is run by a former Soviet Citizen as well.
History Hustle is another great channel, and has referred to TIK's channel a few times in his own videos. He has openly discussed topics like Socialist fighting with the Nazis in some of his German/Nazi foreign Legion videos as well, something a lot of Socialist deny, as why would any Socialist fight for the Nazis?
Economic Explained is also a good channel.
1
-
This Machine Kills Fascists It isn't an argument. Just a strawman so you don't have to watch the video. A political party is not a private enterprise as it would imply someone in particular owns the political party. Political party is a collective group, which in itself is none private. As I made the jab in a comment earlier "Who owns the Democratic Party?" You didn't even spell Deutschmark right. Heck even his Friedrich Kellner A Social Democrat Living in the Third Reich is filled with examples of Socialism, if you'd watched any of them you wouldn't make such a claim that there are no examples.
Likely don't even understand what Socialism actually is, which is why I literally had to throw the textbook definition of it in your face earlier. From the Webster Dictionary, As I quote from you earlier.
You: "except Nazi "socialism" utterly rejects class consciousness and the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. In which case it's not socialism as commonly" <<<< That is Marxism, which is a version of Socialism. Socialism itself does not include any class descriptions.
Actual Definition: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" <<< Keywords. VARIOUS ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL THEORIES. Which includes many different ideological systems. Which all have one key thing in common, being. "Collective or Governmental ownership of the Means of Production."
So when Mussolini Nationalizes the Railroads in Italy, that is Socialism. When Hitler Nationalizes the Transportation system within Germany, that is Socialism. Oh Golly..... how revolutionary is that.
That being said, even though the Nazis do reject some of the principles you mentioned it's literally because the Nazis choose race over social class. Racism is their Socialist belief. They replace Land vs Workers with Germans vs Others. To them the Proletariat is replaced with the Aryan, and outside of that their collectivization is to make sure that everything is under the control of the German race within the nation. Though despite that they still go farther than that and even conduct Socialist state control, and bureaucracy. Failure to understand this fundamental difference is why people fail to see that National Socialism is Socialism, but not Marxism and Marxism itself isn't even Socialism, just a different version. As I already posted Socialism is the Collective or State control of the Economy, Proletariat has utterly absolutely nothing to do with it. It's as simple as Private vs none Private. State is the Public Sector, ie none Private. Also any program that is Social is a Socialist program. Social Welfare, State funded Education, State Wage Fixes/Minimum Wages. So to say the Nazis conducted no Socialist programs is down right retarded. FDR modeled many of his Socialist programs after the Fascist and Nazi's Socialist programs because pro Fascist Propaganda painted these programs as hugely successful within Germany and Italy. During a time in which everyone was terrified of Communism some how the Fascist and Nazis convinced even the USA to adopt some Socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Cult of Personality seriously? That is a defense? For a Hereditary Regime that literally lives over North Korea like a Monarchy?
Lobbyist are not a defense for "Company" control as it's still not direct representation it's indirect. It's why it's been customary that Politicians in the USA not own/operate any companies while they're in office even if they were prior business men. Because there is a demand for the separation of the private vs non-private sectors. It's indirect, and as I already stated it's corruption, and one that can land a Politician out of a job, or in Jail. I don't really care if you think that is direct control/representation because it isn't. Even through political donations, what your describing is just flat out Corruption, and it's one that people have been very well aware of, and attempts have been made to resolve but again because of corruption likely never will be. But that is what a nation gets for having elected officials. You will never see a nation that has elected officials that will not see some form of corruption. That however does not mean still that a major Corporation has direct representation in congress. There is no Tech Union, or E-Store Coalition (Made up names for fake unions that don't exist) that have direct representation in the US Government.
"We've already addressed the trade unions and how they are not actually prepresentative of the populace, as well as how leaders of industry are appointed to the CCP" -- Point being? The point isn't that these Trade Unions represent the people, but that the Trade Unions Represent the Factories while having direct Representation in the Council (Soviet Union). ie which equals the state has control of the means of production. Which was my entire argument. I never once stated nor would ever believe these Unions gave even a shred of care for the people, as I don't believe the USSR ever cared about the people.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro So answer this. "they created a type of psuedo-religion that prominently featured their leaders and ideology, they called for state control of industry, they were highly nationalistic to the point of fanaticism, the leaders of the movement, much like Nobles, were often rich people and leaders of industry," -- How is this statement of your description of these Monarcho Capitalist (Fascist) any different than Stalinist Era Russia, or Modern Day North Korea?
"First off, governments and economies cannot ever remain truly separate, although the degree of inclusion within each other varies. In america, for example, we claim that our economy (mixed, tending towards capitalism) is separate from our government. (constitutional republic, form of democracy) However, the two work together on many issues, the government outsources and provides contracts to the private market, the government often rules in favor of capitalism and attempts to make laws that benefit the market, it's easiest to run for public office in this country or influence laws through lobbying if you're a rich person, ect. In many issues, they are intertwined." -- Honestly that is irrelevant. As the primary difference is direct control vs indirect. As I already said earlier, Apple does not have direct representation in the US Government. As a company she does not have a Congressmen that directly represents Apple. This is far different from the Trade Unions in the USSR, or how in the PRC CCP members directly own the Major Corporations in China, or how the Nazi Party took direct control by selling companies/business to it's own party members or forced companies to directly Join the Nazi Party if they wanted to do any business with the Government. That isn't Capitalism. But regardless, all governments work within the confines of their economic system. It's all about how much control they have over it. Capitalism is about minimal control, where is Socialism is about maximum control. A nation can fall inbetween either of these to some extent. I already admitted yes in a Capitalist society corruption does exist, Apple can lobby and buy politicians, but as a company she still does not have direct representation, but indirect. If such a company gets caught doing this it can lead to the end of said politician's career.
Good example in the USA Today is Private vs Non-Private. In the USA our Electrical Grid is Private. Our Rail and Air services are Private. But most of our Road and Water is owned by Municipalities. But that primarily comes because who paid to build the infrastructure for these services. The local Government owns the Water, but not the Electricity. If the Government owned the Water, Electrical, and other necessities it would be very Much Socialism. But even TIK openly admitted no Government is Truly Capitalist, but in my Opinion, similar to how Socialist claim no government ever truly reached Socialism. To me both were right because it's mostly about the degree of control. There has never been a true Capitalist state, nor one that was absolutely Socialist. Every state that tried to go all Socialist failed horrifically, so some private control has always been necessary. This is why you see the PRC doing what it is today in China, it's not Pure Socialism, nor is it Pure Capitalism. You can call the fascist Capitalist or Monarchist, but it's just flat out wrong. Because they didn't eliminate Capitalist elements within their society doesn't make them pro Capitalist. Hitler himself was openly Hostile to Capitalism, but that doesn't mean his regime didn't exploit it for their own ends.
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Interesting, I'm pretty sure I said the Fascist claim they're half way between capitalism and communism, not that they are. I didn't say they were, I said that they said they were.
"Some monarchies over the course of history have been non-heredity, as well. In any case" I'm pretty sure we call those Dictatorships by today's standards. Definitely when they were self imposed.
That being said, Monarchism is a form of Government, not an economic system. Great Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary system and with one of the most Capitalist Economies they world had ever seen for many years. But the United States around the same time which was a Representative Democracy, which also had a Capitalist Economy, but was completely devoid of having anything to do with Monarchism. The German Empire was also Capitalist despite being an Absolute Monarchy, though I think it was more of an Aristocracy than a Monarchy but you can argue with Kaiserboos on that one.
That being said, you still didn't provide any proof they were Monarchist, what you described sounds more like Aristocracy. Even then I know in Germany's case in particular it was tolerated not encouraged. The Aristocrats were very opposed to Hitler's regime, as they're superior position in life was compromised. Many of which even plotted against him and were supporters of the 1944 Wolf's Lair Assassination, and wanted to then put in place an Aristocracy in the 3rd Reich's place, with the nobility/upper class civilian and Army as the leaders of the country.
1
-
1
-
1