Youtube comments of Kameraden (@Alte.Kameraden).
-
5300
-
5100
-
3400
-
3300
-
3200
-
2700
-
2600
-
1000
-
859
-
780
-
731
-
600
-
588
-
571
-
545
-
542
-
507
-
490
-
431
-
340
-
284
-
262
-
259
-
255
-
249
-
222
-
217
-
204
-
188
-
168
-
163
-
161
-
151
-
147
-
146
-
146
-
133
-
132
-
130
-
@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
-
124
-
121
-
119
-
115
-
110
-
109
-
107
-
106
-
104
-
104
-
Racism is judging a person by their skin, language, hair, eyes or physical appearance. Fun example of how subtle this can be you can literally look at the character nicknamed The "Swede" from Hell on Wheels. He was Norwegian, but because of his name/accent everyone called him The Swede. He was given a false label because of his voice/appearance. The Generalization of the Mongoloids from Eastern Europe which I still see some racist state today is the best example of it in Europe itself toward other Europeans.
Classism is the same thing relatively. No better example than the film Titanic, when Jack is treated like dirt by some of the upper class, though not surprisingly, not all of them. Those who treat him like dirt look down on poorer people, while some of them did treat him like a human being. It's a clear distinction on what it means to be a Classist.
Issue is, we are all individuals, and treating people based on pre-ordained notion of social class, skin color, language, nationality are actually quite harmful. Are in the long run just stupid.
104
-
@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
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
88
-
82
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
74
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
@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
-
69
-
68
-
66
-
66
-
@cmichaelshea Honestly don't really need to. Historical record makes it so blatantly obvious that I'm shocked people don't realize it.
Good example, everyone knows of Hitler's HJ, but few seem to know Lenin and Stalin had the same organization within the USSR. Basically in both regimes the central State or the Party (Same thing really being the Party was the State but tell that to people who consider the Nazis State Capitalist saying Hitler privately owned the Party by extension the State) but.... the State Nationalized all Youth Organizations into the direct control of the Party itself. Lenin did this a full decade before the Nazis gained power. It didn't end in the USSR until it's collapse as well. But youth were to be brought up with a Political Education and taught to be Good Followers of the New Faith.
Being they were both state take overs of the Scout like Organizations, they also had similar uniforms. Which makes for some fun comparisons when you play Soviet and Nazi Youth Propaganda films side by side.
Btw the Soviet Union's Youth Group, Girl's Dress uniforms were Maid Uniforms. How Progressive of the Soviets. Literally and young girls were taught to be proper wives. Of course, officially the State held a Progressive Stance on women but in practice they were no more progressive than the rest of the world at the time. Which is why post WWII women were forced out of the military on mass, they were no longer needed, they kept some around, and a few organizations around for News Paper Articles. but women were used as political tools, similar to how the Nazis promoted how great they were by having the First Women to Fly a Helicopter, Jet and Rocket Aircraft. I mean the Soviets got the first women into space but that was only because they were afraid the Americans would beat them after seeing the USA was training some women pilots. Felt sorry for her as well, as the USSR turned her into a Hungers Game style political pawn for years afterwards sending her around the world, and wasn't free to make her own career decisions until after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Sorry a love shitting on some far left women's belief that the USSR as kind to women, it wasn't... I even question how successful some of their women soldiers actually were on the battlefield because it is the Soviet Union we are talking about. A regime renown for putting an extra 0 behind figures to make them look better at least under the Stalin era, and this was the Stalin era.
65
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
1. They're not actually sorry. Nothing in that entire post they made hints at them actually being sorry. Otherwise they'd admit they made a major mistake or were wrong. But instead tried to explain how they were 'not' wrong. Even justifying their actions. That is not an apology.
2. The whole reason they chose Yasuke was to use him as a shield for politics. If they say made up a character, they would have gotten more flak for not making the main character Japanese. But using Yasuke they could well have someone who isn't Japanese, so they could push their beliefs and use 'history' as a shield ie a standard motte and bailey fallacy. Which is a common fallacy used by activist, so much so it's standard doctrine, push something extreme and use the motte and bailey fallacy a less extreme position to fall back on. They hoped Yasuke would be that less extreme position, but they didn't know their actual history. So they got caught, and caught hard.
Remember they do this on almost every historical subject as well. I'd highly suggest questioning their entire narrative on every single subject they've ever talked about throughout the whole 20th/21st century, heck I'd argue even 19th Century. Activism has always taken the stage over actual facts, facts must = their truth, if they don't they will twist facts so they sound like what they want them to be. There is no better example of this than 1918/19 Germany which was a socialist civil war, that they try to paint as a revolutionary vs reactionary movement conflict, and ironically the reactionaries are painted as the revolutionaries and revolutionaries as the reactionaries, completely twisting history on it's head on that particular subject, and that twisting works, sadly. The Communist are portrayed as the revolutionaries even though they tried to overthrow the Social Democratic Party which had already overthrown the monarchy. So a revolution to topple another revolution? yet the Communist under Rosa Luxemburg are treated as innocent, and the SPD reactionaries.. Ya it was the other way around.
They've done this with almost all historical subject matter. People should question it all and the evidence is there, you just have to pay attention to what they write/say, they contradict all the time, when they do you know they're lying.
62
-
4:23 sadly reminds me of the Sinking of MV Sewol disaster back in 2014. The South Korean government was trying to lie to it's citizens directly in their faces, but the South Korean government hadn't caught up to modern technology, how fast information travels because of cellphones and the internet/social media. Every attempt to lie was shown in the face of the public as a lie, because people were seeing in real time what was actually happening with the disaster. The State didn't even realize what was happening until it was too late, they literally believed they had everything under control, and could deliberately lie to people's faces. Parents were on the phone with their kids, who were trapped in a sinking ferry telling them things different than what the "State" was telling them. The level of corruption, the level of the lies. It was made bare to the public. It lead in South Korea to what can be called a Social Revolution, politicians in the next few years were forced to retire, or deposed, people well died/offed themselves supposedly. A number of suits went to prison. Hundreds had died in real time, and the State only cared bout the image of them trying to help, but not actually helping, as people were dying. To be blunt cellphones have been a huge game changer, and people should resist all efforts by governments from getting their fingers on social media and mobile devices.
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
I think it fits better in the context that "Ignorance is Bliss" it isn't so much how smart someone is, than that smart people accumulate a lot more information, knowledge and understanding. When you understand how the world works, how society works, how people work, how politics work. Well you become either cynical, or just more paranoid when it comes to just about everything. To a point that even something that most people would just shrug off, can rub you the wrong way. You will also find it harder to make friends because few people will also understand your feelings, because those feelings can likely come from places they don't understand. Like your understanding of society, politics, or even just your personal passions of say science, history, mathematics.
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
Nathan M Honestly, there was nothing wrong with that. Look at the end result. France came out of the war with hardly any infrastructure damage when compared to a lot of countries which fought in the war. French Civilian deaths are very mild as well, I think the estimate the Nazis were directly responsible for only around 30,000 French Civilian deaths, when in Russia it is many many times that time. France suffered most of the damage it suffered during the war when the Allies tried to liberate it. Sometimes cooperation isn't as horrible as you may think. It was obvious the Nazis didn't plan on indefinite occupation of France so cooperation was a safer, and likely better option than fighting to the death and seeing their nation BURN. Also, if you look at the invasion of France, and the fighting that went on, the French did literally all the fighting, and all the dying when the Germans invaded in 1940. While the British honestly, ran around like headless chickens when their battle plan fell a part, with no back up, or any real idea how to deal with the German Breakthrough. By the dawn of 1942 the British literally retreated from almost every major campaign. France, Norway, Greece, North Africa and Indonesia literally in most of those cases hardly firing a shot. If anyone from WWII should be embarrassed, treated like cowards running away all the time personally should be the British. They suffered some major humiliations in those early years often because of Incompetent military leadership, something Britain is renowned for.
When compared to the British for example, the French Fought... and died. Some of the hardest fighting on the western front, from the entire war on the west were fought in 1940 by desperate French forces trying to halt the German break through while the French/British Army tried to reorganize and come up with a way to counter it. The French town of Stonne for example the Germans and French traded hands 17 time as the French Desperately tried to stall the German advance. Scenes comparable to Micheal Wittmann's attack on Villers Bocage with attacks lead by Char 1B Heavy Tanks are just heart breakingly desperate and earns the French so much respect by me. I shred too many tears reading about the Battle of France, and even the later Betrayal by the British which only ensured France's capitulation.
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
It's sad honestly. Back in like 2001 I had high hopes for Russia. That it would become the USA of Europe, with a large economy, agriculture, natural gas/oil, and grow and become wealthy, and see the Russian people finally get a proper life without having to deal with an over burdening totalitarian ruler, something they've not really had for centuries. Boy, was I wrong. I had similar hopes for China when China opened her economy up, that being exposed to the outside world would slowly change China for the better, but sadly, the CCP is not trying to turn back the freedoms it allowed during that economic boom times..
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
A Rock and Hard plate is a good description of the civilians trapped between the USSR and National Socialist Germany. I've often described it as being stuck between an anvil and a hammer. For example one description I often describe about Ukraine. You had pro Communist Partisans, Pro Nationalist Partisans, Pro German Partisans, AntiSemites among all their ranks. If you helped the Germans you were likely going to get murdered by Nationalist, or Communist Partisans. If you helped the Nationalist Partisans the Communist, Pro German and German forces would likely kill you. If you helped the Communist, the Nationalist, Pro German and Germans would likely kill you. If you refused to help anyone and tried to be neutral they'd likely accuse of you treason still and likely kill you. So I ask, if you were a farmer, and someone came by asking for food, what are your options? There are reasons why German patrols would come across farm villages completely empty of life after a ruckus was made by the partisans, and there are reasons why many fled with the Germans when the Germans retreated as well. These people were not given many options, and often punished for actions beyond their control. You can imagine a German Patrol forcefully taking food/livestock from your farm, then the partisans come by and find out your live stock is gone, and much of your food when they themselves came by wanting the same, imagine their reaction when you say the Germans took them, some of them would likely accuse you of treason. Imagine if the Germans came by and found out you allowed partisans to do the same, they would accuse you of aiding the enemy.
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
@certifiedlb3451 Well Democracy isn't what you think it is. Majority Rule always equals someone is going to be unfairly represented so the only way to maintain power is to maintain sway over the majority. Either by changing demographics or by literally brainwashing the people. US was never founded on the concept of a Democracy and is literally built governmentally in a way to limit majority rule because of that vary issue. For pro Democratic folk those limitations are a pain in the butt and in the way of "Progress." However, the Democratic Party specifically was founded on the principle of bringing Democracy to the USA which is one of the primary reasons since the late 19th Century til today the Republican Party ie Pro Republic Party and Democratic Party, ie Pro Democratic Party have been mortal enemies.
The Republican Party exist to preserve (Conservatism literally means to Conserve) the Republic that is what an American Conservative is, unless you're talking about Christian Conservatives but that's a different camp entirely really. Being Pro Republic, and Pro Liberal is America's Conservatism as that is what it was founded on, Liberal ideals. Preserving Individual Rights over "Group" Rights. The Democratic Party has evolved into the Opposite. It's "Group" Power ie Democratic Power above Individual Rights. Which is an absolute affront to the very idea of the United States.
That is how they brainwashed people into thinking Democracy is "Good." Also in the end most Democracy normally achieves is a top down State Rule system. Marxist love Democracy, Fascist love Democracy and Nazis also loved Democracy. But they actually understand what Democracy is, and not the lies that Pro Democratic in say the USA say it is. Voting is not a Democracy for example, voting exist in a lot of systems, including a Constitutional Monarchy like the UK or a Federal Republic like the USA. Again blurring the lines is how Pro Democratic convince people to surrender their political power into the hands of demagogues to rule over them. It's also majority rule systems that surrender power to tyrants as pro Democratic believe in a strong central state that does the bidding of the majority, however as a result such systems are easily, and easily taken over by demagogues who manipulate/control the people like a puppet. Without those protections that the old US Republic promised the USA could easily become modern day Russia, or something similar to Fascist Italy.
So protecting/conserving those Republican values are actually very important. Like preventing the Democrats from increasing the number of Court Justices because they don't like not being in control of the Supreme Court. That for example is a great example of the Democrats trying to dismantle one of the checks/balances that exist to prevent majority rule in the USA. Another is when they try to mess with the electoral vote for president, saying it's not fair when a president gets elected without majority vote.. again that exist for a reason. If it was up to me I'd limit each State to 1 electoral vote so no state can have more political power over the country than the other when it comes to presidential elections.
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
I think one of the biggest issues people often have is they fail to understand what Nationalism even is. A Nation is an Identity, not lines on a map. It can mean almost anything under the sun when you break it down. Why do you think almost every Community thrives to make flags to represent themselves? Because they've created a Nation. They've not created the Nation State that they live under, they're often hostile toward the Nation State. But they've created their own nation within an already existing Larger Nation. The Nation State system has been confused with Nationalism, and many people actually think Nationalism is exclusively racist or Statist. Which isn't really true. A lot of Nations have no "State." But the Nation exist. Many Nations existed as slaves of other larger States, and throughout most of European history there were no Nation States, the Nation existed under the surface ruled by Monarchs and Lords who often had little in common with the people's they ruled. Why today is the era of the Nation State is because most of those Communities formed their own "States" often built around some kind of similar Identity, ie Nations, Nation States. But this happened after the fall of Monarchism, so their National Identity was the glue used and at times failed when forming their new "States" again hence Nation States.
In this context, the Working Class is an Identity, it is a Nation. As TIK has explained many times, it actually makes Marxist Nationalist who mascaraed as Internationalist. Because Marxist don't understand what a Nation even is. You see this with a lot of Leftist today who are obsessed with Pride Flags, they literally created their own Nations, their own Identities, and proudly go around parading it in front of other people's faces. They're Nationalist even if they refuse to admit it.
Nationalism in short is a very gray, murky word when you really break down what it means to be a "Nation." The American Nation for example wasn't built around Ethnic or Racial Lines. American Nationalism as little to do with Race, though some white supremacist, and black supremacist will argue otherwise from opposing camps. Nationalism doesn't = Racism in short, but Nationalism can equal Racism. Today many consider Nationalism and Racism to be the same thing which is just so blatantly wrong that it openly shows those who think that, literally fail to comprehend what a Nation even is.
35
-
34
-
Corporatism is a version of Syndicalism, and Syndicalism is a version of Socialism. So Corporatism is a form of Socialism. Let that sink in. 19th Century Corporatism was created by Syndicalist who abandoned Marx's Class Theory of history, and dropped the idea of the Worker's Revolution, for a more reasonable form of Syndicalism, and Syndicalism was already created by people who abandoned Marx, as they believed his revolution was foolish so opted to push for bringing about change by creating Worker Trade Unions.
Corporatism creates a Union of owner/workers, ideally, even Amazon has been known to give shares of the company to workers as bonuses, so... offering employees part ownership to the company.
Collective Ownership of companies, removing Private Ownership, in turn ending Capitalism. Corporatism is a Collective Ownership movement and it's dominating modern economies today. This is why it's always wrong to call Corporations Capitalism. They're actually the opposite. They literally are TRADE UNIONS under a different name, just not Worker's Unions like say a Welding Union. As Capitalism is the Private Ownership of the means of Production, when a Company goes Public, makes itself available for purchase by millions of people through stocks/bonds, it's no longer privately owned, it's why it's call GOING PUBLIC. As it's pushing away from the private sector, and turning into a public entity. Corporations are Publicly owned companies. They're not owned by the Central State, but they're also not privately owned, and a singled Corporation can be owned by a few hundred to a few million people counting how widely spread out the stocks are across the globe.
So yes, it's wrong calling Corporations Capitalist in any way. Even if you try to whine about profits, only Marx advocated such a thing as evil, and MARX didn't invent socialism, nor was socialism EVER about the workers. Socialism has always been the collective, or public ownership of the means of production. The question still argued by Socialist movements today is HOW and WHO that collective ownership will come about. It's why the definition of Socialism is so FUZZY as you have dozens, hundreds of splinter ideologies that sprouted from the movement since the 18th century. In the minds of Fascist it's the Nation, in the mind of Nazis it's the Race, in the mind of Marxist it's the workers. They're all Socialist, with different ideas of Socialism. Syndicalist it was about Unions, and Corporatism it's about creating large public Corporations. They're all Socialist in creed.
Why do you think so many of these ideologies pushed for State Totalitarianism? Totalitarianism requires State Ownership, or at least State Control to exist. It's why socialist are still crazy about, State Healthcare, State Price Fixes, State forced minimum wages, state this, state that, yet then claim their Glorious Socialist revolution has nothing to do with the State yet they always advocate the State to "Do Stuff" as the Private individual isn't responsible enough. In spite this still cry "SOCIALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE." When anyone looking at them from the outside sees the hypocrisy of their idiotic statements.
34
-
33
-
33
-
I'm glad that I'm one of those few gamers that would of jumped out as I've avoided the PS4 and XBox One entirely, I avoid most AAA titles so I've not really been exposed much to these practices. Most of which I have been have only been on games like PangYa, Mabinogi, War Thunder, and World of Tanks. Which are all free games, of which have all become progressively worse, being I play them casually, I may disappear for a few months maybe even a few years on some of them before returning, the shocking shift/changes is barbaric. PangYa I retired early Season 3, came back late Season 4 and what I saw was depressing, and made me not enjoy the game anymore. Same thing happened to Mabinogi and World of Tanks for me. I went away even Mabinogi starting a new account because well my old one was hacked, and poof gone for good. Well lets say they have Loot Boxes, and Gachas, etc. All new content on Mabinogi is in the form of loot box like gachas, which ruins any fun of actually playing as you're never going to get anything new unless you pay pay pay pay and pay a lot to boot. I was deeply saddened to come back to World of Tanks and see the same practice. I avoided Company of Heroes 2 because of Day 1 DLC/Micro Transactions on a $60 Dollar game.
I never fell for it, never bought into it. If people did what I did, well we wouldn't be having this problem. But sadly.
Over all because of my own purchasing practice, and gaming habits, I've been exposed, but not consumed. When I get exposed to a new game doing this I shake my head. I've been playing games since the original NES.
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
@the_Kutonarch When you get past the Polarization of WWII that most people are taught and grow up with, it becomes very difficult to look at any faction or nation in the war with a gaze of 'evil.' It's the primary reason I mentioned Youjo Senki. Even modern documentaries in some countries still try to paint the Kaiser of Germany almost as if he was Adolf Hitler as a war Hungary crazed mad man. So in that respect it's quite similar. Anti German WWI Propaganda like the Rape of Belgium with news paper articles claiming they were throwing babies in the war to land on bayonets were common in Britain and America.
That being said, I long since stopped looking at WWII in a Polarized fashion. Even before I made it out of high school I already came to the conclusion that WWII was not fought against "Evil." To make that claim would require not siding with Stalin. I've often quoted myself something I used to say to people back when I was still in school. "It didn't matter whether the Germans committed any Crimes or Not, that wasn't the reason the war was fought, but it was convenient for the victors."
That being said, a few cookies for the brain.
1. Allied and Soviet Response to German Resistance Fighters was brutal. 5000 people were executed and murdered, two entire towns were raised to the ground. And German Resistance Fighters were "minor" when compared to the Partisan War in the eastern Front. It doesn't take much imagination to see the Americans & British being just as brutal as the Germans when it came to dealing with Partisans if they had to deal with such resistance of occupation at the same scale.
2. Allied Soldiers killed an unknown number of POWs in cold blood. Sadly a subject not looked into because of the "White Knight" Mentality of The Greatest Generation, it's taboo to say they did anything wrong. This article does a good job explaining the whitewashing of the western front in WWII. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-horror-of-d-day-a-new-openness-to-discussing-allied-war-crimes-in-wwii-a-692037.html The numbers of POWs that just 'vanished' in Normandy is kind of shocking, around 50% of the Germans captured on Omaha beach never made to a POW camp just as one example.
3. When I first read about the Warsaw Uprising I lost all Respect for the Red Army during WWII. I need not explain how evil the Communist and Partisan forces on the Eastern Front are, but if you read up on how the Soviet Union stood by and let the city of Warsaw die, you will have zero respect for them what so ever. They were not heroes or liberators.
4. Ethnic Cleansing of Eastern Europe post war saw the uprooting of between 8-14 million Germans, of which 800,000-2,000,000 died because of it, an unknown number were flat out rounded up and murdered. You can youtube Czech Partisans murdering German Civilians, a renown film clip does exist of it. This is known as the largest Ethnic Cleansing in European history, puts the Nazis efforts to shame. Doesn't make Poland, Czechoslovakia look very civil/heroic does it?
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
I'd argue the Canadians are not overlooked. It's just they're often heavily incorporated into the British Army. For example the 1st Canadian Army was made up of mostly Canadians but it also had a large number of British, Scottish, and a few Polish, Czech, Belgium, and Dutch units within it, so despite being called the 1st Canadian Army it was technically the "Mixed" army where the British sent much of the foreign elements fighting along with the British Army to. That being said Canadian infantry also made up a good number of Infantry divisions in other British Armies as well, do to manpower issues.
So as a result of all this, most common people likely mistake Canadians for the British. But most historians know better, and will normally say ## Canadian Division when referring to a specific Division involved in a specific battle etc. TIK History's videos on North Africa, and Western Europe never ignore none British Divisions in his videos.
28
-
@certifiedlb3451 Not really, you likely don't understand Fascist principles. I've read Gentile, and Mussolini. What most people think of as "Fascism" is fascism ie generic fascism which is more of a stereotype attributed to the word "Fascism." Not Fascism itself as a social economic ideology. James Gregor did the best job at defining Fascism when when he called it "National Syndicalism with a Philosophy of Actualism." Actual Realism is what "Actualism" in the Fascist sense is called today, people like to change terms to hide what Fascist actually believe sadly. So if you want to know what Gentile thought when it came to Actualism you will likely have to resort to Actual Realism. Basically National because they were for the Nation, Syndicalism because they believed in Trade Unionism like the USSR dividing the economy into large chunks controlled by the State and Actualism which well a whole can of warms that is hard to explain. Similarities between the USSR and Fascist economies is kind of striking, which always bugs me why people call Fascist Capitalist, Fascist were just less extreme when it came to how they appropriated land/property.
Gentiles opinions of Democracy for example can be summed up as A State that Consist of the People is Democratic. So Totalitarianism is the Highest Form of Democracy because that State that represents the people has total control over everything in society. It's a similar principle to Rosa Luxurmburgs ideas of "Dictatorships of the Proletariat is Democracy in the Socialist sense." ie a single party dictatorship is Socialist Democracy. Though Marxist don't like to admit they're Totalitarian because Fascist made up the term Totalitarian and are proud of it.
Issue is, Trump is far from being Fascist, he isn't advocating dividing the American economy into large state run Syndicates or Corporations, nor is he advocating totalitarianism ie State Control over every aspect of Society. ie see that Golf Club it would also be part of the State, that is Totalitarianism everything inside the state nothing outside the State.
There has never been a politician in American history who has advocated Fascism, well one that has been in office anyways. Being Trump wants to dismantle many aspects of the State he's far from Totalitarians, so he isn't Fascist. As the Totalitarian State is at the very Core of Fascist ideology.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
2:34 joke is on the fact people still believe in the concept of right/left politics. Nazis were Racial Socialist, they were opposed to Marxist Class Socialism. But they had a common enemy which was Capitalism. If you know your history on the concept of "The Capitalist" it's deeply rooted in antisemitism. The concept of The Capitalism has it's origins with "The Jew." The Nazis viewed the "Jew" as the source of the Selfishness that rots society, the concept of the Self Seeker and Money Changer, Capitalist etc wouldn't be possible if the "Jews" were removed from Society. That was the Nazi's solution to Capitalism's evils. Marxism is built on Class Socialism, which came after the Conservative/Utopian Socialist views on how a Socialist society should be.
So like Marx before him Hitler came along and redefined his own variation of Socialism built around Races instead of Classes, just like how Marx redefined Socialism with his Class theories. The elephant in the room is, they all believe in the same enemy, the Capitalist. The Nazis just viewed the Jews as the source of the Capitalist, something Marx also claimed at times. Which is ironically why "Das Kapital" The Capital is titled with a "The" it's a derogatory dehumanizing way of saying it, and it's exactly how antisemites refer to Jews as "The Jews."
To be blunt, even if you used the Right/Left of the political spectrum which is broken entirely anyways, the Nazis DIDN'T consider themselves right wing, they viewed themselves as 3rd Positionist. They rejected the Right and left entirely. They saw the Right as Capitalist, and the Left as Communist. So anyone who says the Nazis are right wing are either lying or know nothing of what they're talking about.
So to sum it up. The Nazis are not right or left. They're something different. They took what they liked about Socialism and threw out the rest and created their own ideas built around a Racial Community instead of a Class (Working Class) Community. That is the fundamental difference between Marxism and Nazism, as a result it has a pretty big impact on society. As in Marxism all Private Property is Bad because owning property means you're not the working class apparently... Nazism however owning property was tolerated as long as it's owned by the "Race" and wasn't being used to exploit the community, which is why F.G. Farben's Swiss Cofounder was forced off the board by the Nazi Party. The Race is the Community so the concept of Social Ownership is a bit different as a result.
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
+Riki Hearts_Trotsky
1. North Korea had T-34 and T-34-85 Tanks vs American M4A3E8 Shermans and Patton Tanks all WWII vehicles.
2. North Korea used surplus Soviet Fire Arms, as well as some left over Japanese Arms. USA used Surplus American Fire Arms from WWII while the South Koreans used a mix of American supplied arms as well as left over weapons the Japanese abandoned when they pulled out of Korea.
3. North Korea & China used MiG15's supplied by Russia, again, pretty much top of the line for their day, what am I saying, they were top of the line for their day.
4. North Korea was losing until China joined the war. The North Korean military was literally days away from being forced out of Korea itself.
Put it this way. When the war first started the North Korean military had almost state of the art equipment/weapons vs the South Korean Army using mostly obsolete surplus Japanese arms. Most of the North Korean advance came during this time period against militia and Former Korean Japanese soldiers now fighting in the South Korean Military, but again, they were using surplus arms already obsolete before WWII started let alone the 1950s. South Korea had no tanks, no air force, no navy. North Korea did, in bulk. United States rushed reinforcements from it's garrison in Japan, which were able to delay and slow down the North Korean advance long enough for large conscripted Army to arrive of not Just American, but British and Australian troops as well. North Korea's invasion halted, but the Allies could not advance either. North Korea still had more man power, and arms than the allied forces had.
USA launched a naval invasion to out flank the North Korean Front Lines, which ended up breaking the defenses, and North Korea was never able to redeploy and build a stable front line after that and were falling back faster than they advanced when they invaded South Korea. Up until China joined the war.
Over all, I wouldn't say North Korea did well using low technology, when they used relatively similar technology as that of the allies. This was the 1950s most Armies including the USA/Russia used surplus WWII Arms with some new toys dotted here and there, the whole cold war Arms race didn't kick in yet, that would become a big thing actually as a result of the Korean War itself. USA for example were using Shooting Star Jet Fighters, and P51 Mustangs, as well as F4U Corsairs in Korea, all WWII Era Aircraft just as an example. North Korea as I said earlier were using mostly Soviet WWII Era Tanks, while the US Military was using mostly American WWII era Tanks. Both sides were using Surplus WWII Fire Arms for infantry as well, let alone artillery, and guns.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
I don't think they had any hope of winning the war. Their goal was not to force American surrender, but to force the Americans to seek peace. Remember at the time, the Allies wanted Unconditional Surrender. Their goal was to ironically push the Allied forces away from the idea of Unconditional Surrender, and possibly in the best of terms, a negotiated end to war, similar to the Russo-Japanese War, despite Russia's defeat in on the sea, the Tsar was intent to continue the war, but foreign intervention wanted it to end, and brought Russia to the negotiation table.
The Japanese government, well those in charge of it really only hoped they could get some kind of negotiated end to war with possibly keeping some of her colonial assets like Korea. A flat out, unconditional surrender was well, a hard pill to swallow.
24
-
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
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
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
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
@larsrons7937 It's why I'm not surprised that Ukrainian soldiers have no food or ammo, or that Russian soldiers run out of gas.
It isn't a video game with supply points that you retreat to and they will always have fuel/ammo. There is a long complicated process filled with bureaucracy and possibly even corruption. Something as simple as an officer trying to sound good on a phone saying "Ya we can hold out!" can deny an entire division food/ammo for weeks, even if they don't, nothing stopping another unit from stealing the supplies off the trucks as they're parked in the town they're stationed/resting in before being deployed somewhere else before it reaches the unit it was assigned to supply.
As I said, it's a mess, and likely always will be a mess.
I remember during the American Civil War, many Americans soldiers bought their own guns, and had would buy ammunition themselves, as it was often more reliable than relying on the Army, as getting letters in the mail, boxes from home was often more reliable than a wagon train having shoes/socks.
21
-
21
-
To be honest, in a round about way I'd say "YES" Regardless. Similar to the effect Prussia's defeats against Napoleon reshaped the Prussian Military, and helped introduce German Nationalism. The Franco-Prussian war had a similar effect on the French. I'd say of course losing, and given cruel terms would do the same to post WWI Germany. Though, to defend the British/French post WWI, the Franco-Prussian war saw some pretty harsh terms and even reparations forced upon the French by the Prussians. So what you see with Versailles was more common than people think, and should of been expected, though I still think the terms were too harsh. I just don't believe an entire nation should be punished for the decisions of it's leaders. All you do is give ammunition for political extremist to use.
Now is the Treaty of Versailles responsible for Hyper Inflation? I'd highly doubt it, as it's mostly caused by internal economic decisions not external. I mean, without all the military spending, you'd think Germany could afford the reparations? So the Versailles treaty kind of gave Germany the ability to pay those reparations, even if they were high reparations.
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
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
-
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
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Reminds me of when a historian tried to debunk TIKhistory when TIKhistory argued the German Army wasn't outnumbered 5-10 to 1 as some historians have tried to portray. TIK argued those historians will often look at the number of Army Divisions involved, but not the strength of those divisions.
Often a Russian Rifle Division was 1/3rd the size of a German Infantry Division even latein the war, so a Russian Rifle Division was more like a Battalion. In turn say a single German Infantry division of 4-12 thousand men were facing off against 5-6 Russian Rifle Divisions of 900-2000 men each.. the German Division wasn't outnumbered 6 to 1. Yet many German generals post war wrote their memoirs that way, counting division numbers not actual numbers of soldiers involved. The German Generals assumed they were badly outnumbered because they often accurately guessed the number of Russian divisions but then used how they structured a division as an estimate on numbers. So the Germans were grossly overestimating the forces they often faced, and stuck with that belief well after the war when writing books on the subject.
Of course the historian tried to use "Math" saying the Germans couldn't be defeated unless they were heavily outnumbered at least 3 to 1 or MORE, ignoring all the human elements, supply elements, confusion, moral, among many other things. Rather than addressing TIKhistory's actual arguments. You'd think Wehraboos who argue the Germans were so great and could fight and win battles offensively against larger forces, wouldn't stoop to the level of you have to outnumber the enemy to win that is basic logic! When that isn't the case at all. Army with the most men isn't always the army that wins.
17
-
17
-
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
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Interesting thing many surprisingly do not know. But the USSR conducted the largest and most successful ethnic cleansing in European history. To a degree it would likely of made even Hitler proud if he was the one that achieved it. I know a few million Baltic peoples, somewhere between 8-14 million ethnic Germans. I have no idea the number of Cossacks, Tatars and other minorities, but I know many Cossacks preferred to commit suicide than fall into the hands of the Soviets. But even before WWII many of them were also targeted, but the biggest happened after the war with massive border shifts, new occupied lands, and new enemies to cleanse their soil from. Basically most ethnic Germans from as far east as Stalingrad were forcefully migrated back to Germany or to labor colonies back east, even if they didn't speak a word of German just because of the war I think they estimated about 10% of which died, so that would be like 800,000 to 1.4million. Baltic States suffered the Great Terror, not once but twice, in 1939-41, and post war as well, hundreds of thousands from each country were forcefully migrated east to labor colonies as they were deemed to be too troublesome and against the ideals of the Worker Class.
Honestly don't know about Poland but honestly the Poles had it bad enough under the Germans, that there wasn't much worse the Soviets could do to Poland, but I have heard some people say the Soviet occupation was worse than the Germans, which coming from a Pole, sounds almost unbelievable as lets be frank the Nazis hated the poles and treated them like dirt, so I'm not that keen to agree with that opinion but I'm not an expert on what happened to Poland under Soviet Occupation.
But just from what I've read, it's very likely the USSR ethnically cleansed Eastern Europe of 20-30 million people since the 1920s up to the 1950s, and I'm not talking about murder, though that definitely took place I mean just flat out forced migrations, imprisonment, and Russification.
15
-
It's all just lines on a map, that often stand for nothing but what public figures want it to stand for. The concept of the modern Nation State is a 19th Century creation, prior to that most states were monarchies, empires, etc, with only a few notable exceptions. With the Nation State however came a whole new can of warms often far worse than Empires, Imperialism and what not. The concept of nationality, ethnicity, genocide, cleansing, and many other phrases that have been synonymous with the rise of Nation States. Even today, in our Democratic World we are still divided by those fictional boundaries. In many respects we are even prisoners. Like having to have a passport to travel, your Nation State doesn't want you to leave or enter without IT'S permission. It wants to make sure important or dangerous people can not just freely travel at the Nation State's risk.
15
-
15
-
15
-
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
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
14
-
14
-
@MrMilkman29 We wouldn't have inflation if the Government wouldn't needlessly print more money. Inflation is caused by the Inflation of Currency. ie Devaluing of currency by increasing the supply of currency. It makes everyone more poor, every dollar you own becomes less valuable all because the State doesn't want to find money honestly to pay it's bills, so it just uses the State central Bank to print more money, at the cost of everyone else. It's why Inflation is often referred to as the Silent Tax. It wrecks economies, ruins people's lives, and they do it knowing it makes every single citizen in the nation worse off. Imagine if there was no inflation? That Ten Cents was still worth something, the only reason it isn't is because of inflation.
Being the US Government increased the currency supply by 30% in 2020 which means soon that inflation will catch up within the market, that is the primary reason prices of goods has gone up 10% on average within the last year, the largest hike in nearly two decades, and that's just the beginning. Inflation is going to suck because of 2020/21.
On average it's 4% a year. So say making $5 30 years ago would be equal to $11 today. Knowing it's often much higher than 4% some years. It's technically far worse than that. So how does the State fix the problem? They just increase minimum wages, a band aid so they don't have to be responsible.
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
It's self inflicted Injustice. That's technically the problem. Palestine never really existed, and was a Colonial State created by the British after the force dissolvement of the Ottoman Empire. It doesn't even exist as a province within the Ottoman Empire before it's Dissolvement. Palestine was never really a State, it was a Colonial State, it wasn't independent, nor is it an ethnic group either. Being Palestine when it was a Colonial State was a multi ethnic state.
So Palestinian Nationalism is a sham and always has been.
It's a self induced Prison, within their own minds. Israel today makes up almost half of what was once Palestine, and it's multi ethnic, multi religious as well. Though it's considered the Jewish State, it has millions of none Jews in it's borders. If Palestinian nationalist didn't do what they do, these self induced prisons of Gaza and the West Bank wouldn't exist. They wouldn't be in a prison, they'd be just living. What the country is called whether Israel or Palestinian is irrelevant. They could of been part of it all, but chose not to be.
Basically it's their own fault. Refusing to accept the fact they lost that civil war, and refused to be part of the new State that came out of that civil war has created their prisons.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@BiharyGabor Every Marxist I've argued with has always fallen back to declaring that a Capitalist is someone who accumulates wealth. Capitalism plural is an economy built around the free market and individuals being allowed to accumulating wealth. ie a economy built around selfish money grubbers. Sarcasm
It's why Lenin was able to get away with declaring a farmer who had too many cows as a Capitalist, Class Traitor and a kulak, equal that to a factory owner or nobleman, in spite being quite poor, because to afford too many cows, ie not the proper amount of cows, would imply they are accumulating wealth so they can afford said extra cows. Ironic that my definition of a dirty money grubbing Capitalist I can present practical evidence of it in practice, quite easily. It's why such a regime was able to ethically steal whatever it wanted from it's people whom they believed earned it unfairly to begin with because they were practicing Capitalism. Poor farmer doesn't deserve his tractor, doesn't deserve having more than 10 cows, doesn't deserve having a surplus of grain. In the eyes of the USSR under Lenin wealth didn't just equal money but property to boot, but property is a form of material wealth so it still circles back to "Money."
You dared to declare it untrue, but insist on refusing to presenting real proof that it isn't. Going so far to declare it's too complicated to be defined in such a simple manor. However, no philosophy is too complicated to be defined into a singular definition, unless said philosophy is filled with contradictions. If it's filled with contradictions, then it's either built upon broken logic, or worse, intentionally done so to make it easy to switch what it means at a whim when it's necessary, then it's built upon untruths, and dishonestly. Then again TIK has already pointed out a few times where Marx was most definitely lying to his readers, and moments in which he did love Contradictions. So he was either an idiot or a liar.
However, in spite of that, there still has to be a core clearly defined definition, otherwise, such a ideology could never be instituted in practice to counter it.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
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
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Honestly, I think one of the biggest issues for the Red Army Early war was, numbers. Not in men. But planes/tanks. I actually think, and I wish there was evidence to prove it, that out of fears of Stalin, everyone wanted to make positive reports back to Moscow. This is how you end up with scenarios in which the Red Airforce as a HUGE number of planes, but hardly any trained pilots to fly them. How they have more tanks than the next three nations combined but no logistics to support them. Why it all literally fell a part over night almost, despite on paper the Red Army was one of the strongest in the world, and attacking them should of been suicide. Yet they got steamrolled.
I know people blame this on Stalin's purges often, but that doesn't explain why you'd have an entire tank divisions without any logistical support in my opinion, or issue new planes to air fields without pilots trained to fly them. It's like they had their priorities backwards. ie get the equipment to the front line before the personnel to operate them or support them even existed. I honestly think this was Spreadsheet warriors at a State/Military level all wanting to report back positive figures to the top man, not really expecting they'd actually have to have those personnel fight.
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@g00gleisgayerthanaids56 They are quite fictional. Culture and even language is regional. There are more differences between someone in Hanover and Bavaria than Hanover and Denmark as a good example. The spoken language difference is that dramatic from each other. You see this in the USA as well, the stereotypical Canadian accident is also shared by Americans in Minnesota, yet I know people in Canada who sound as if they're from Ohio. Meanwhile people in Southern Illinois sound like they're from Tennessee.
This was also never more evident than after the Great War. When the German/Russia/Austsro-Hungarian Empires were dismantled. People say there was peace when the Great War ended but tell that to Poland, Lithuania, Greece, Turkey, Serbia and many others who were in a constant state of war for years even after the Treaty of Versailles, as they all fought over the scraps of Empires that were never built on Ethnic lines, and those lines were impossible to define. So you had Poles fighting over land that could easily be considered Lithuanian or Polish because the populations were quite mixed, same for Poland vs Ukraine, Greece vs Turkey, etc etc etc. This is actually a catalyst for the war in Ukraine currently as well, you have an ethnically mixed region with borders that do not actually reflect any ethnicity specifically, and really has been so since before the end of the Great War. Took a Ethnic Nationalist like Putin to rip those issues open bare and why Nation States really make no sense and often lead to bloodshed when you have people who focus on Nationality as being important.
12
-
12
-
1:29 actually goes beyond that. Russia and China even after WWII had a number of border conflicts, of course almost wiped from history by both sides because "We are friends!" Sino-Soviet border conflict is a good example. Issue is the Soviet Union and Communist China didn't exactly have a rosie happy, and positive history toward each other. It's actually one of the reasons the USA pushed to improve relations with China knowing of the hostility that actually existed between it and the Soviet Union. Hoping to split the two biggest Communist countries away from each other, can leave it to historians to find out if that effort was successful or not.
This hostility dates back to WWII as well. USSR wanted to make China a puppet, backed a number of pro Communist factions during it's civil war era. When the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria she also stripped the region of just about everything of use, railroad ties, trains, plumping, etc similar to what the USSR did in Eastern Europe, pretty much looted/pillaged not the soldiers but the state itself, it ironically isn't too different to how the Nazis stole everything that wasn't nailed down, anything to boost their failing economy, in the USSR it was because well the USSR was absolutely devastated by the War and Stalin's policies before the war were not exactly well good for the economy either which the USSR was literally on the verge of utter collapse, so stealing even if it has to be a bath tub was pretty much necessary to give some semblance of growth on the civilian level otherwise civil unrest was a possibility.
Issue is when the USSR eventually gave Manchuria to the Communist Chinese and handed over the occupation of the region to them, they left the Chinese pretty much nothing of value. Mao at the time wasn't very happy about this and it wasn't a secret that the USSR pillaged and stole everything in Manchuria as the locals saw them doing it so Mao found out quick, and it was a start a long history of "Yes we shake hands!" But behind the scenes the Chinese had little trust toward the USSR.
Then again just about every former communist country or still didn't have much trust in eachother, it's actually one of those interesting aspects of cold war history. Today for example, Vietnam you'd think would be a good friend of China, but is actually one of China's biggest rivals in Asia, and is more closely allied with the anti Chinese Pacific Faction, the USA, Japan, India and the Philippines. North Korea is pretty much a Chinese Puppet State, and most of the rest of the Communist regimes have collapsed, or been replaced. Laos for example the Vietnamese technically liberated from a regime that was pretty much as brutal as the one that existed in Cambodia, a regime the Vietnamese and Chinese originally helped into power in Laos, Vietnam moved it to remove that regime because of the horrific crimes it was committing on it's people, and China who viewed Laos as a puppet attacked Vietnam for trying to conduct a Communist regime change against another Communist country. So ya, nothing is exactly Peachy under the glorious red Sun of Socialist World Unity? Is it? Seems they hate eachother, and fear eachother about as much as the west.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
I like community part, where strangers are not eligible. It actually solves issues like mass migrations, which seek out the best benefits. If aid to the poor worked this way still you wouldn't have the mass migration seen in Europe, or the USA, on top of that you wouldn't see it internally as well. California has serious issues with poor flocking the state because of the benefits the State pays out to the poor. Which puts all that financial burden on a hand full of States who welcome poor aliens with open arms. It would be far more manageable if people from outside the country were not lured in by this method, and those internally didn't flock to specific areas of the countries. Way it works now in the USA leads to massive financial burdens on regions that provide the best benefits, and worse, huge concentrations of poor people in regions that don't have availability of work for all those poor people, so they will stay poor forever.
People should be migrating for work, not social benefits. Social benefits should only help those in hard times within your own communities, because they should be friends/families/neighbors and people are far more likely to help someone in need in that case because they're part of their own community, they may even know the person.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
It wasn't taxes that drove this man to this, but the local town government that did so, because "MONEY." My town has a similar problem. For example they authorized building a speed way truck stop between a Hotel and Pharmacy. Across the road from a community center, and church. Behind the CC and Church are two schools, and the local sports grounds for them schools. Behind the Speed Way Truck Stop are homes and apartments.
So I ask you what "Dumb" Idiotic Stupid Ass Politician thinks that putting a TRUCK STOP there was a good idea? What is worse, the local media was TOTALLY in support of building it there. Despite local citizens were not that happy. Despite this, because the politicians are conservative and it's a 70%+ Conservative Community these Dumb F***s will remain in office. This isn't the first time they did something stupid like this as well. They want to stick business in every little tiny crack they can fit them hoping to generate revenue. Downside with this Truck Stop is it's very close to the center of town, and very well beyond the limitations from the interstate that would put Road Repair in the hands of the State. So this none LOCAL traffic that will be visiting this truck stop are also damaging the local roads, considerably. Since it was built the road leading to it has suffered considerably damage in less than one year. Damage that will be completely at the cost of the local tax payers who are.... were supposed to benefit from it some how?
Basically, lets build a Truck Stop in a part of town meant for the local population, churches, schools, restaurants, pharmacies, homes, etc. Totally a smart idea. It will be fine, taxes we get from the services there will well make up for the cost (I highly doubt it) I wouldn't be surprised if someone was passed some money under the table to support it. Likely from the owner of the land.
So in this respect I can relate. When your local government cares more about money and private interest of a few at the expense of other citizens. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to take a bulldozer to their homes and business? Corruption is Corruption, doesn't matter what your political stance, whether your left or right. Corruption is Corruption. There is no way the city shouldn't of at least sided with this man to build a new road. What they did was idiotic. They gave him no option but to either "Move" or go Broke, if he wasn't already broke from the affair.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@SimonBanes Actually that isn't true. The Nazis had little interest in Occupying lands that they didn't think were part of Germania. Outside of Eastern Europe in which they wanted for resources, they had no interest in annexation of just about anywhere else, even Eastern Europe likely would of been turned into Puppet Regimes instead of being fully integrated into the Reich. Hitler believed for a nation to survive they required specific resources to be self sufficient. Germany lacked Oil and Farm Land. That is why he wanted Eastern Europe, and the Nazis had no plan on taking land beyond the Euro mountains in the East either. So they would of never had a common border, nor would the Nazis ever had a reason to ever go to war with Japan. Hitler was also very serious about honoring Alliances as well, even when they went against their own needs. The only time he ever betrayed any of his Allies is when they pretty much already betrayed him. Heck Romania and Finland in particular literally dropped out of the war and switched sides in most respects, Romanian switched sides, and used German Provided aircraft and Tanks against their former Ally. Finland dropped out of the war and forcefully arrested all German soldiers and military advisers in her territory, also betraying the Germans. If anything it was Germany's Allies who were the ones willing to betray. People use the German invasion of the USSR as how dishonest the Nazis were, but they never made an Alliance, only a none aggression pact. Guess who else made a none aggression pact? The USSR and Japan, in which Stalin broke in 1945 when he invaded Manchuria.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
+Intescy technically The Red Army still had more Tanks and Aircraft in 1941, considerably so actually. Most of their tanks were light tanks however, on par or inferior to most German models. While the Red Airforce was all but destroyed within the first few weeks of the operation, despite having a vast numerical superiority in aircraft. Red Airforce Lacked Experience and most of it's aircraft were obsolete. Even the Germans were surprised how many tanks the Soviets fielding, but in most cases they still pushed them aside. The Germans predicted the Soviets had more tanks, but the numbers they ended up facing just astonished them.
That being said, if you include the Red Army reserves the Red Army wasn't exactly out numbered, and wouldn't of been if the Fronts held without the massive lose in man power do to the large number of early encirclements the Red Army suffered.
So to say the Axis forces had a clear numerical advantage isn't exactly true. Just the Soviets didn't have their entire strength on the front, nor deployed their reserves quick enough to counter German Breakthroughs, in turn would suffer considerably.
It is in my opinion, next to unbelievable that the Red Army survived 1941. Between the summer of 41 to the onset of winter the Soviet Union lost more men than all of the Nations Germany invaded prior combined. No one in their right mind believed the Reds could hold out the following year. When 1942 came along, and the Germans renewed their offensive, that prediction also seemed to be true, as the Germans had a number of fast victories and entire armies were yet again encircled and destroyed.
No other nation could of suffered such humiliating defeats as that Russia faced in 1941/42 and survive, but the Soviet Union did and I'm still amazing when I think about it. But as Neil Halloran's video on WWII casualties, it was at a horrific cost, with a near total disregard of human life by Stalin toward his own citizens to achieve it.
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@googlethis313 @Christina Jackson Sadly it will not ping both of you but... at least I will mention you both. However, a lot of the grunts wore chainmail that wasn't chainmail. It was pretty much a shiny metallic mesh over top of cloth. Even some of the higher ranking characters in close ups will have some of it even with accompanied by real chainmail. Good example in this clip the Noble has Chainmail on his arms but around his neck he has the fake cloth stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvFc_vyAqXU Though you mostly notice it during large battles. It seems they had a limited supply of Chainmail for the film. But the fact they still used it in some close ups shows that they had a VERY limited supply of chainmail. So much so that most solders ran around with weird Brigandine like plates on top of cloth instead of leather or mail. I think they knew if they used the fake mail too much people would notice it more easily. But sadly that one scene which is very early in the film it's quite apparent.
BTW Brigantine is the sexist armor type that has ever existed in Europe. It's almost like segmented Samurai Armor but underneath cloth instead of on the surface. Sadly a lot of fantasy and historic films mistake Studded Leather with Brigantine, Studded Leather didn't exist, it's a Mythos made by Pseudo historians who saw images of Brigantine and thought it was leather with little metal studs on it. The studs are what hold the cloth to the metal plates so it wasn't leather but cloth over top of metal plates, not studded leather. So ironically every time you see Studded leather in a movie or video game, it's fake armor, it never existed. Even the most Recent Mount & Blade Bannerlord got it wrong. Sadly because of the Studded Leather nonesense Brigantine is like never seen in period films, even though it would be idiotically easy to make for Middle Age films, and they were in use for most of the Middle Ages so even Brave Heart should of seen some troops wearing it. It's basically cheaper plate armor, an evolution of the Roman Segmented Armor. So ironically it's older than Chainmail and was still being used/made well into the 17th Century. Only difference is Cloth/Studs hid it from the eyes of a lot of Historians because they based what they wrote off pictures, ya..... lazy bums, pictures.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I find it kind of ironic when I read once that Lenin banned "Striking" in the Soviet Union, and lets say, it never really became "Unbanned" throughout the USSR's history. Even when the Party said it's okay, in actuality it wasn't okay. It is funny because banning worker's right to "Strike" was something people point at Hitler doing as proof he wasn't a Socialist, yet they flat out ignore within the Soviet Union even the Prophet Lenin himself, also banned protest and striking.
This reason for this, if your movement is meant to represent the working man, and yes the Nazis believed they did. If people were protesting/striking against the Party, then it would be proof the Party didn't have the Worker's Interest at heart. Which would undermined the entire movement. So you were banned from even doing so. Since the party had your best interest at heart, striking was no longer necessary. winks
It's a similar issue with why Stalin was obsessed with getting all Soviet citizens returned to the USSR after WWII, regardless whether they wanted to return of not. The US and British governments aided in forceful repatriation of millions of eastern Europeans many of which didn't want to return. Those who didn't want to return were forced, and sometimes violently. Good example are Soviet POWs who were captured in German uniform and were forced by the Nazis to man the Atlantic Wall. A lot were captured, a lot of them preferring to commit self deletion rather than returning, the US Military resorting to drugging them just to get them on a Soviet merchant ship.
Mind you all that happened before Stalin played his hand and made the Cold War happen, and proved to the west he couldn't be trusted as an Ally. At the time the US/UK were trying to appease him. I would state the specific operation as Operation K%%l Haul < and sadly yes that gets comments deleted because the US/UK governments still denied it happened despite being proven to have happened. If you recall 006 from Goldeneye the story is actually brought up in that film with the main villain being a victim of the repatriations. TIKhistory actually has a 3 part video series on this Operation and it's kind of a sad story for a lot of people.
However, the reason for all this, was that all these people knew what it really was like inside the USSR, and many of them didn't want to come back after being Prisoners in central or western europe. According to some even being in a concentration camp was better than living under Stalin, which is a terrifying thought because we know those camps were not good places. Basically to sum it up, allowing these people not to return would of created a permanent voice outside the USSR on how terrible the USSR actually was and the USSR was always obsessed with it's image internationally, and how the outside world viewed it.
It's also why going on Vacation abroad as a Soviet citizen was lets say heavily monitored and scripted. You had to be part of a tour group operated by the Soviet Union or a Cruise ship. Basically attempting to safeguard your pure mind. They didn't want their citizens to see the world as it really was outside the USSR. Otherwise they'd see the USSR for what it really was.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
jassLmhn Well he is kind of right. Even in East German Africa, limb chopping was a form of punishment, and it was administered by the Locals, Toward Locals. Secondly, he is also right about Enslavement. But I think the major problem is Africans had a different concept of Slavery when compared to Europeans, though I think that concept varied from culture to culture. Arab Slavery was similar to European Slavery, European Slavery and Arab are I think what you call Mediterranean Slavery in which Slaves are Property. Central and South African Slavery, Slaves technically were not considered Property, and were not life time servants. When you take African Slavery, and combine it with European colonialism, and European "View" of Slavery, it can be very misleading. Africans who went along with European Slave trades had no idea that European's idea of Slavery was different than their own.
So he is right, but kind of wrong as well. Though I say kind of wrong loosely.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
From my experience dealing with Marxist, and Nazis. You come to find out they're relatively the same thing. For example, Marx believed Jews created Capitalism, and that all Capitalist were practicing their faith of "Money." Hitler believed relatively the same thing. It's actually why the stereotype of a capitalist lines up near perfectly with antisemitic stereotypes of Jews. ie thieves, money hoarders, exploiters, manipulators. etc etc etc. In all do respects, they're the same thing, just one was Classist, and the other Racist. But when you realize Racism is just a form of Classim, you come to realize that there is no real difference outside of what kind of "People's State" they wanted to create. Then ask yourself why it seems the left and right are enemies? Because in my opinion they're relatively the same thing. So this begs the question, "Why is their a left and right?" It feels made up.
9
-
9
-
9
-
@standupaddict94 They had access to outside markets though. Any failure or short coming could easily be made up with trade. Central Europe did not have this option during the Great War. TIK in one of his earlier videos brought up a good example of this when the UK put crop production under national control during WWII, and crop yields and over all production went down instead of up. UK didn't starve during WWII did it? No, she had imports to fill the gaps. Also yes they "DID" Socialism. I brought it up before on other videos in the comment sections, but no nation on this planet is purely Socialist, nor are they Capitalist, they all fall somewhere between the two. Even the USA a nation often pointed at for it's Capitalism is filled with examples of Socialism, even today. Point being though, when the state messes with fields it shouldn't touch, agriculture being a good example, mismanagement, or incompetence can lead to utter disaster, definitely during situations when you're nation is a closed economy, whether forced by outside powers (embargos) or within. Good example recently was Wuhan China. People were starving, and the state refused to allow local farmers to sell produce in the city, and even directly confiscated it by force when they tried. Because despite what some say China isn't Capitalist. Food situations in China are so bad that when the state brought the price of Pork down to 50% in the City of Wuhan the local stores that actually sold Pork didn't have the stock to last even a single morning with such cheap prices as the only people in the city who normally could afford Pork are the middle class/wealth of the city. There is a reason China has Blackmarkets, and ally way food markets that sell rat, dog, bats and just about any meat Poachers just outside the city can get their hands on. Once you get away from the wealthier areas of China's cities, it starts looking like North Korea.
9
-
9
-
@tyrionlannister4920 It wasn't a head of it's time. It was fast/agile, and had long range but only because of it's fiberglass construction and literally zero armor. Technologically it wasn't that impressive of an airplane, and it only took less than a year for the Zero to become pretty much completely obsolete. That being said the Zero gets all the glory, but it was Japanese Army aircraft that were the most feared Japanese planes, the most famous of which was the Ki-43 the best performing aircraft that came out of Japan in WWII during the early years. Nicknamed Oscar by allied pilots. It was agile, and better armored, but because the Japanese lacked self ceasing fuel tanks, it was quickly found that using incendiary rounds insured that Oscars which were agile, fast and durable, would go down just as easily as Zeros in the long run. That being said, most of Japan's top aces flew the Oscar, and it's responsible for the most loses of allied aircraft of any Japanese fighter plane from WWII.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
To be honest, anyone who says Hitler didn't Start WWII is nuts. Most of the arguments I've come across are generally loony. For example: "Well if Poland just gave Germany Danzig none of this would of happened." My reply would be, "Well that still means Hitler waged a war of aggression against Poland, at the VERY LEAST for the Danzig Corridor." Though I honestly believe giving Poland the Danzig Corridor was a huge political mistake by the Western Powers after WWI, as it did give someone like Hitler a major political excuse for war which helped greatly at convincing the masses to fight said war, but even the Danzig Corridor wasn't enough, but it did give him fuel to burn. However that does not mask the fact that Hitler shot first, and I don't care what some of the pro Nazi Wehraboos say when they say "No the Poles shot first." All the examples they often bring up are idiotic, even if the Polish Nationalist wanted a war with Germany, they were still not the ones to start that war. But in my Opinion, even if the Polish Government caved to German demands for Danzig, Hitler would of likely just found another excuse later on for a conflict, it was not beneath the Nazis to conduct False flag operations, we know they did prior to September 1st and they would of likely done so anyways.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
As my college professor would of said "He was a son of a B*tch, but he was our son of a B*tch." That is how he described the leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and South Vietnam. They were all ruled by dictators throughout most of the 20th Century. South Korea didn't migrate over to a true democracy until the 1980s for example, ironically around the same time Taiwan did. Cube was also ruled up until it's civil war by a similar dictator who had close ties to the USA.... ironically the CIA worked to help depose him, to install yet again another puppet, well that puppet Castro betrayed his US Backers and so did the CIA agent assigned to working with him. You'd be surprised how many dictators in the 20th Century were supported, and propped up by the USA, as long as they were against communism or other regimes we didn't like. Including Saddam Hussein. It's tragic as well, because The Communist Vietnamese actually looked up to the USA, even using our Declaration of Independence as a draft for their own when they declared independence from France, but being they were Communist, well tragic story in the end. Not defending Communist, or Communism, but not all Communist Regimes should of been met with such hostility. Vietnam is the best example, as I said their leaders looked up to the USA, at least our 'history' and the rights of man our ideologue provided, they well just didn't support free market principles. USA could of easily made the North Vietnamese an Ally instead of an enemy, as the Communist Vietnamese have never trusted China, or Russia, shortly after the Vietnam war ended China and Vietnam already started being aggressive toward each other, including a Chinese military invasion of North Vietnam which ended badly for China.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@orclover2353 That would make sense if Stateless Nations didn't exist, but Stateless Nations do exist.
Friesians for example have no State, yet are a Nation. Native Americans have Reservations, with some political autonomy, but they're US Government Reserves. Yet Native Americans refer to themselves as Nations, even those that do not live on Reserves.
Prior to Israel, Jews also didn't have land, a border on a map. Yet they viewed themselves as a Nation. The whole Zionist movement was so they could establish a Nation State for their Nation as they were a Nation without territory in a world of rising Nation States, in their eyes, if everyone else is allowed to create a Nation State, they wanted one as well.
Sorry but you're blatantly wrong is the concept of Nations and Nationalism. Tribalism is literally just a synonym. You can find this contradiction literally by just looking up Definitions for "Nation."
Examples below:
"a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status"
" a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"
See how they refer to a Nation can have one or more Nationality and be a Nation. Basically both definitions us Nation, National or Nationality as meaning two different things. Land/Territory when they say Nation and a "People" when they say Nationality. But why do you call a "People" a Nationality? Because they're a Nation. Around the bad logic goes.
This is why people fail to understand what Nation means, because they can not even make a Definition of Nation without even contradicting themselves.
Basically to sum it up Nation and State or two different words. Nation State = a Nation with a State. A Nation without a state, wouldn't have territory, so Nation = Land/territory is stupid. So a Nation must equal "A People."
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@ktheterkuceder6825 Merciful is a bit touchy. 16/17th Century treatment of American Indians was not exactly stellar, though it improved by the 18th century and 19th century, in spite of the frequent wars/hostility. Remember what happened in the Caribbean, South America, Latin American in general and early north American east coast Indians/Natives, and it wasn't pretty, not in the slightest.
As I said, moral standards evolve/change over time. Asia didn't change in the same way as Europe did, but even then WWII showed our capacity for horror even by the 20th Century. But 20th Century Asia is light years different morality wise than 20th Century Europe, when it comes to what is considered acceptable behavior, acceptable methods of torture, executions, etc.
Modern China in particular is still pretty horrible to be honest, definitely how they treat each other, ie city folk vs rural folk, rural Chinese are treated lower than dirt within major cities. Almost like nobles treating peasants like trash for example.
Japan also has it's own social issues, almost like a cast system between specific groups of people I forgot what they're called exactly but it goes back hundreds of years.
9
-
8
-
8
-
P38 didn't perform much better than the Bf110. As an interceptor and escort it performed quite poorly. The Luftwaffe considered the P38 to be the easiest allied fighter to shoot down when it was in service in Europe. In it's nickname The Fork Tailed Devil was entirely allied Propaganda. The Germans called it Double Tail.
The P38 thrived in the Pacific however, but it struggled as a fighter in Europe and was entirely phased out by the end of 1944 after really only one year of real service in the Western Theatre. Even the famed Mosquito was only renowned for it's high speed low altitude raids, not because it was an excellent fighter.
So you guys are giving the P38 way too much credit. It's performance when compared to the Bf110 was actually comparable, Bf110 was actually more agile but the P38 was normally faster. The so called superior dog fighting prowess of the P38 is heavily exaggerated.
Heck it's even noticeable in simulation games like IL-2 and War Thunder, Bf110 being far easier to fly. They both perform well if using identical tactics but I prefer the Bf110s without question in War Thunder because they handle better.
No heavy fighter was a match for a single engine fighter if the skill and training if the pilots were equal however. This is why the P38 made a name for itself in the Pacific not Europe. The Pacific in which kill to lose ratios were off the charts in the latter years. So of course the P38 would get a high kill to lose ratio there, the Hellcat blew it out of the water though.... and it was a single engine fighter... Guess what, P38 pilots in the Pacific didn't dog fight, the hit/ran ie energy fought. Same tactic all allied pilots on the Pacific were taught, to deal with their more agile foes. This means the P38 only needed to fly faster and climb higher, didn't need to be a fighter, in this context the Bf110 would of performed relatively well in that same scenario.
8
-
8
-
8
-
@mortarriding3913 Wasn't the point of the comment entirely. The point of the argument was "The fact that violence can save lives is often ignored or forgotten." in which the original comment quoted. I made an argument against it. It utterly has nothing to do with who shot first, or who was the most dastardly. In fact how the Allies handled the occupation of Germany and Japan are prime examples on how a lack of 'violence' saved lives, not the other way around, while the German occupation of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus in which were very violent only caused violence in response, that violence didn't save lives, but only encouraged further bloodshed. It was a vicious cycle on the Eastern Front.
I guess i can put it bluntly. How many towns, villages were raised to the ground in response to Partisan warfare on the Eastern Front? How many thousands were rounded up and shot in attempts to deny Partisans' access to intelligence, food, and shelter? How many died as a result of these "Violent" agitators? They had reason to fight, but in the end it's easily argued they did nothing but add considerably more fuel to the fire, and more often than not, it wasn't the Partisans or the Germans they fought that paid the price and were burned.
That being said. It's also often not told that there were Communist Partisans, Pro German Partisans, Pro Democratic Partisans as well, and they often didn't work together, nor care for eachother. In Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and much of the Balkans these groups warred with each other about as much they did with the Germans. That same Israeli General I mentioned, whom i wish I could remember his name ended up leaving the Partisan group he was in a Communist one primarily because they didn't care a lick about Poland's Independence. Also I do recall one of the concentration camps was also attacked by Partisans, not to save the inmates but they didn't want the Jews released late in the war, ie an antisemitic band of partisans. Similar to the Frei Korps of Germany post WWI, partisans were little better than armed thugs, who cared about their own personal political beliefs and agendas often more than the nations they claimed to be fighting for.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I often try to convey to people. "Were the Germans really that good or were their opponents really that bad?" You often see a common trend with a horribly unorganized command structure, infighting or flat out inexperienced officers leading to a lot of military disasters in WWII. Having good soldiers and good equipment can only take you so far. Not to defend the Soviets really on this one, not aiming to. But people often point to poor officers and Stalin's purges on why the USSR performed so terribly in the early years of the war. Issue is, so did the French, and British... they also performed poorly early on in the war so what was 'their' excuse? The British however rather than admitting their own failures often, will uplift "German Superiority" as a crutch, an excuse. "We were fighting the very best! So of course we took some licks."
I would argue, that the German Military at this time were not super saiyans. But... were just actually competent. The only real competent military at the time, in spite of all it's shortcomings it was the competency that kept it alive.
When looking back on it from a modern perspective it's honestly hard to see how so many militaries could be so incompetent.
You actually see this in the Pacific theatre as well, British in Indo-China pretty much gave up with barely any resistance the moment their battle plan was compromised ie the moment the Japanese went around their positions through the jungle, instead of trying to reform new lines elsewhere they surrendered the entire garrison! Meanwhile you have the Phillipines and Wake Island where local US Marines, Filipinos, and armed Civilians actually held up really well against the Japanese, in spite of fighting pretty much hopeless battles, losing in the end but giving the Japanese a black eye similar to the Russo-Finnish War. Making the British collapse in Indo-China look that much more embarrassing for well British pride.
That being said the US Military wasn't perfect, but I think that kind of digs that knife a bit deeper when you think about it.
I'm honestly curious how bad the British Officer Corp really was at this time in history. It's obvious they had some good officers who understood their shortcomings and tried to make something good out of the British military early war. But my god... man. It's a mess.
8
-
8
-
@gargravarr2 I'd say YES and NO.
1. A lot of prisons have been corporatized outside the direct control of the Federal Government.
2. These "Business" like Prisons wouldn't get away with Enslavement like the Federal Government could back in the day.
3. Some Federal Prisons still exist, and still use prisoners for labor.
Generally though Labor anymore in the prison system is frowned upon. If it exist it's often voluntary definitely in the Corporate style Correctional Facilities as they nicely call themselves. Which prisoners even get paid for it, though not much. Basically a prisoner can voluntary to work and get paid, being they have no living expenses it's not a bad deal for someone waiting out a prison sentence. Prisons also offer educational routes as well, if you didn't have a GED you can earn a GED while in Prison, and some college courses are also available to prisoners.
It's not like Shawshank Redemption stereotypical days in short. But there was a period in American history starting some time in the late 19th Century which Forcing Prisoners to Work was considered necessary for Rehabilitation. As it was deemed someone who is stealing instead of working to earn their bread must be broken, so they must be fixed, sending them prison, learning how to "WORK" was the cure for their decease.
It's no different than the Gulags in this context which Capitalist and those deemed enemies of the Working Class were enslaved and forced to "WORK" or die in the process, if they learned to work, they could be set free. Though sadly for many that didn't happen. They would often get set free in LABOR colonies so they could be continually exploited by the Soviet Government even after Stalin's death.
So the idea/principle is sadly far more universal than just the Nazis or Communist. But I'd say the Nazis and Communist were the absolute worst as they'd work people to death. American prisons wouldn't get away with that has they would have to contend with the Court of Public Opinion, and worse.... being elected out of office. OH the HORROR.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@jrton1366 The concept of Left vs Right today dates back to the French Revolution. ie even the concept of Liberalism pre-dates the concept of the Political Left or Political Right.
Since then the Revolutionary Left hijacked the word Liberal even though they've rarely ever supported real Liberalism. Even Napoleon's Code of Law which is the foundation for all modern Left wing Dominated countries today in Europe, and one of the champions of the 19th Century Social Revolutionaries himself, was also very antisemitic. Despite created the Napoleon Code of Law, he did exclude J**s from the rights provided by that Code. So... ya. Marx himself who came onto the field many years later also had a nasty tendency to use antisemitism quite a lot. In many respects the very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of Christian stereotypes of J**ish people.
This is FAR removed from Jean Rousseau, and John Locke who are the corner stones to Liberalism in Europe and the Americas. Yet the left who themselves are the ones who defined what Left and Right even is, declare themselves Liberal. In spite of the very fact that Economic Liberalism (Capitalism) can not exist without a Liberal Society, a Liberal Society is required for Capitalism to exist, and is actually ideal for a Liberal Society as private Property is one of the fundamental cornerstones to John Locke in particular as it's required for Individual freedom as that private property protects you from the collective group, which includes the state, at least theoretically.
Leftism is also against Individualism at least has been since the 19th Century. Yet another reason why the Left shouldn't be considered Liberal. The Left is Progressive, not Liberal. Because of this however, Progressivism is a forever changing movement, and as a result everything under the sun has been accused at one time or another as being "FAR RIGHT" why? Because Progressivism has been all over the place so much so that they've been in opposition to just about every political issue throughout history. Even today, modern Libertarianism which is just about the purest form of Liberalism in society today is often called by some on the left a FAR RIGHT ideology... despite that the first generation of Libertarian from the 19th Century were Marxist.
Similar to how Socialist don't know what Socialism is because after 200 years they've still not come to a consensus on what it even is still. Leftist don't even know what Leftism is, nor what Rightism are, as they're social constructs that they've torn, ripped apart and defiled so much that people don't even know what either of them are anymore. So in this respect the concept of Left and Right should in my opinion be thrown out. It's no longer relevant.
So in this respect, Leftism and Rightism should honestly be defined as Collectivism vs Individualism, or Progressivism vs Liberalism, as even Conservatives today are more often than not more Liberal than Progressives.
8
-
8
-
Reminds me of some good old 90s style historic games like Red Baron II/3D in which nearly the entire in game interface was entirely done with chock boards, time tables, journals, books, paper works up the wazoo. Though I think Valkyria Chronicles 1 and 4 hit it out of the ball park. First game is based in a book written by one of the secondary characters a journalist, while the second is the personal journal of the protagonist. Everything including in game menus, music players, glossary, history, cutscenes, missions, everything is access through the fictional book by turning pages, skipping to chapters, it's done so beautifully.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
People scream the tanks, the planes, the ships. I scream the Infantry. I'd say when the war broke out, she was the closest in the world to having what I'd consider modern Infantry when taken down to the squad level, not the battalion, company or division level. The German Rifle Squad which normally had 1-3 SMGs, 1-2 Light Machine Guns and Riflemen filling up the rest is a good example of this. It was light, mobile, and had the potential firepower to be unmatched even by the end of the war. Add in other weapons later in the war like Panzerfaust, Panzershrecks, STG-44s, and German Infantry only became potentially more dangerous. But we all know on paper you'd rarely have these perfectly equipped squads that they had in the field manuals.
But that being said, the Hurtgen Forest to me is a good example on how difficult it would of been trying to handle German Infantry without armored support, only relying on infantry and artillery. Even late in the war the German Infantry were to be feared, and any advantage to defeat them I'd argue was necessary. So I will not call the American's cheaters for having vehicle, artillery and mortar advantages. I wouldn't want to be told to attack a position manned with men using STG44s, MG34s, grenades, Submachineguns among other munitions. Even if the men using them are poorly trained, or half crippled returning veterans.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6:36 to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised someone who understood Lenin so well, would become a turncoat. For a number of plausible reasons. Two best and most likely.
1. He understood Lenin not just at his best, but at his worst and what his ideas did to the Soviet Union and Ukraine. Stalin was basically the worst of Lenin cranked to 11 for example, but it started with Lenin.
2. He was an Opportunist, similar to Lenin. This will take a bit of explaining but... Lenin had a dark side, few seem to care to see definitely his religious followers. Lenin turned on most of the less extreme Socialist in Russia and at times even had many of them killed. Despite all the preaching Lenin did, books he wrote, it's hard to believe he was actually sincere about any of it once he was in a position of power. Best example is when he pretty much officially split the idea of Socialism and Communism. Prior to Lenin they were pretty much synonyms of each other in the Marxist camp. Lenin split the terms, as an excuse on why the USSR was not the Anarchist anti "State" society that Marx promised, but a State heavy Bureaucracy. So he claimed "This is Socialism, not Communism, we haven't reached Communism yet." Very well knowing they'd never not be a State Bureaucracy, ie he lied. Willingly.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
External Capitalist forces kept the internal Socialist forces of the Soviet Union 'alive' which is often a great pun I like to throw at Commiboos and tankies. At least until the Cold War, but even then the USSR actively traded/worked with even many NATO countries. Importing/exporting materials/production goods, etc etc. I know a lot of Commiboos say the west starved the Soviet Union into submission. But when you hear that McDonalds and Pepsi were things in the USSR by the late 1980s I just don't see that being a reality.
Biggest contrast I can think of between life in the USA vs life in the USSR though is my Grandparent's old 100+ year old farm home had running water, and eventually air conditioning. It had running water since the 1930s, and air conditioning since the 1980s. Meanwhile I saw a documentary which showed entire labor colonies in the USSR in which the homes didn't have running water. I mean if a Rural farmer in the USA could afford to install running water in their own home, sourced from a Local Well, I don't see why so many Rural people still have out houses in the Former Soviet States.
It makes TIKhistory's video in which he argued whether the USSR ever recovered from WWII, and came to the conclusion that it's possible the USSR never recovered even from the Revolution itself, when it came to the average quality of life per capta throughout western/central Europe and the USA. Hearing horror stories of how many hospitals in the USSR didn't even have running water, and those that did didn't even all have hot water because they had no access to gas or wood furnaces to heat the water. TIKhistory came to the conclusion mostly based on nutrition, what the average food that was available pre-1914 Russian Empire vs what Russia had available to him for 70/80s USSR.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You should watch TIKhistory's Hitler's Socialism Counting the Denialist Arguments, or his more recent "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming"
Also he wasn't a Fascist. Fascism was built on the foundation of National Syndicalism. National Socialism, well Nazi National Socialism as there are other National Socialist parties much older than the German Worker's Party. However, Nazism is built on the foundation of the People's Community, which dates all the way back to the early 18th Century. Contrary to the common belief Hitler didn't change the German Worker's Party much, outside of Para militarizing it. Nearly every single tenant that the German Worker's Party believed in was adopted by the Nazi party and they stuck to it til the end. So Hitler didn't change the party, the Party Changed Hitler more accurately.
Where as National Syndicalism branched off of Marxist Syndicalism. Nazism's biggest core pre-dates even Marxism itself.
These two ideologies evolved independently of each other in short.
Also there is enough evidence to make it convincing that Hitler was a Marxist prior to the summer of 1919. He was even a common patron to Cafe Central in Vienna a Socialist hot spot that most of the greatest Marxist figures of the early 20th Century had visited.
Wiki quote "The café was opened in 1876, and in the late 19th century it became a key meeting place of the Viennese intellectual scene. Key regulars included: Peter Altenberg, Theodor Herzl, Alfred Adler,[2] Egon Friedell, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Anton Kuh, Adolf Loos, Leo Perutz, Robert Musil, Stefan Zweig, Alfred Polgar, Adolf Hitler, and Leon Trotsky. In January 1913 alone, Josip Broz Tito, Sigmund Freud, and Stalin were patrons of the establishment. Tarot games of the Tarock family were played regularly here and Tapp Tarock was especially popular between the wars.[3]"
A fact that is pretty much never brought up by most historians. I stumble upon this on accident when reading up on Vienna. If people wonder why Hitler learned how to give the conduct speeches in the style which was most known by socialist revolutionaries, this location was likely it. It's also very likely Hitler may of even met people like Lenin or Trotsky something he would NEVER of admitted later in his life being the political stance he took by the 1920s. Though I do vaguely remember someone somewhere saying Stalin claimed he met Hitler before. Though I can not confirm, nor deny that claim to be true. If it was true, it was likely at Cafe Central. Since I can not prove it, take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
6
-
6
-
Gold Inflation is why gamers often know why Printing lots of money is a bad thing. Gold Inflation in an MMO is caused by the fact players can make gold out of thin air, there is no limited supply of gold, so as time goes on more and more gold stacks up in the economy and prices go through the roof. Want to know why prices rise in the real world? Blame your State Centralized banking which makes all the bank notes. It isn't because commodities are going up, it's because the value of the currency is going down.
Best example is the USSR. A country which had State Price Fixes, and High Inflation, the USSR masked Inflation by using Fixed Prices, so the consumer the Soviet people didn't notice the inflation of their currency. However, when the USSR collapsed and entered the free market in the 1990s... well by 1998 it cost you around 300x more rubles to buy anything than it did in 1991. Of course some economist blame CAPITALISM, which is false, capitalism, or the Free Market just exposed post Collapse how Manipulated the Soviet Economy really was, and in turn how Weak it really was. The 1990s just showed how poor Soviet citizens really were as all their money quickly became worthless, as the state had already devalued it years before the nation collapsed. So ironically, it's another one of those cases which people blame capitalism but it was actually socialism which caused inflation in Russia in the 1990s. Russia fixed this issue by introducing a New Ruble, which in turn they've also since heavily inflated in the past twenty years. Because old habits die hard.
I just find it sad that Gamers know more than some economist and understand how introducing more currency into the economy is VERY BAD. No worse example than Last Winter, one economist was telling people to spend all their income, buy stuff now as your money is going to become worth less, which um... was a bad idea because that would PUMP large sums of money into the economy making inflation even worse. It's like these morons don't know what they're doing. I was shocked that Biden announced they will be increasing Interest Rates, which is a correct response to Inflation, issue is though, you need to increase Interest Rates equal to or greater than Inflation to combat it which I doubt he will eventually do. But high interest rates encourages people to save money, put it into banks, rather than pumping it into the economy by buying goods or throwing it on the market, which actually reduces the money supply which in turn causes Deflation, which means the value of the currency goes back up. If it goes back up everyone in society becomes richer.. prices go back down, and only people who have debt will feel the pinch of Deflation.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@orclover2353 Again, many can not properly define nation, as the two examples I presented. I didn't present them as proof of a Proper Definition, as they're definitions that contradict themselves.
Meanwhile you literally just posted a Definition which uses part of the definition of a State, and merged it with the concept of a Nation. They just avoided using Nationality within the definition, likely because whoever wrote it realized that contradiction so they avoided it. But by doing so they failed to even define a Nation. But defined a Nation State but only calling it a Nation.
First paragraph from Wiki on "Nation."
"A nation is a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and/or society. What constitutes a nation can vary widely, as some nations are constructed around ethnicity (see ethnic nationalism) while others are bound by political constitutions (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).[1] A nation is generally more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2][3] A nation has also been defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.[4]"
"Nation State"
"A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent.[1][2][3][4] It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant national or ethnic group."
Ironically what you posted matches Nation State, not Nation.
Again as I said, many dictionaries sadly have been written by people who don't understand what a Nation is, and often mix Nation up with State. They view Nation and State as Synonyms. When Nation isn't a Synonym of State, never really has been. It might be in some circles, but only because they don't understand what Nation means.
6
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 Honestly you're in over your head. The whole argument has been whether Nations REQUIRE Territory to be called a Nation, not that it "CANNOT" occupy territory. So this " "nation" being used to indicate a group of people tied by something that is not a shared language, history, territory, religion and race. " Statement of yours isn't even relevant.
At the very least for god sakes read Jack David's "Ethnicity, Culture, and "The Past" which is an essay. He defines the difference between an Ethnicity and a Nation quite well.
Anthony Smith's The Origin of Nations literally considers a Nation as "..as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests." Which is fun when I hear Marxist say they're Class Conscious.
Again, the reason you think Nation means what you think it means is because you're mixing up Nation with "State." That a Nation requires territory to be a Nation, which it has never required. Otherwise a Nation State would be oxymoronic. A State is a Politically Organized Community which occupies and governs territory. A Nation state is when a "NATION" is that Politically Organized Community that runs the STATE. The last definition you posted LITERALLY says that as plain as day.
For example. If Nation = Ethnicity which it doesn't but "CAN" then the USA wouldn't be a Nation. If Nation = an Ethnicity, which it doesn't, then Russia, wouldn't be a Nation as she is also a massive multi ethnic Empire. Nation CAN mean an Ethnicity but not exclusively. So sharing a Common Language, territory, or what not can mean a Nation but not exclusively.
USA is a Nation built on an Idea, and the Idea, that Identity is the Nation, not a skin color, language, or ethnicity. Hence CIVIC NATIONALISM. I really don't understand how I can pound this concept into your head.
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Failed is a bit of harsh word to be frank. If they failed, everything east of Kiev likely would be occupied, and possibly even Kiev itself. Remember Russia attacked Ukraine from almost all directions, including by air and sea mind you, yes some troops were dropped into Ukraine by landing craft. Yet we are now well over a year later, and Ukraine has actually gained about 40% if not more of there territory they lost since the war started I'm not including the shadow republics or crimea because that was 2014. However, Russia didn't win, Ukraine is still technically there. If they Failed, the war would of been over, Russia would be occupying most of the country.
So to say Ukraine Failed, would also be admitting Russia has also failed. Because if Ukraine Failed, Russia would have already won? But... Russia hasn't won yet have they? So if Russia is failing to defeat a "Failed" Army, so that wouldn't imply Russia is a Double Failure?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sava411 " Communism is not a form of socialism. Communism is a moneyless stateless society. Most "communist" parties adopt Marxist Leninist ideology which according to them, aims to bring about communism by means of the state. "The goal of socialism is communism." -Lenin. Obviously didnt work out that way lol but still two different things."
That is by far the dumbest thing I've ever read. Marxist Socialism is literally a entire branch of Socialism, and Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. They were the Communist. As I already stated the Marxist Socialist movement of the 19th Century was the dominant Socialist movement by the dawn of the 20th Century.
There is no way or form that Communism isn't a form of Socialism as you tried to claim. Marxist Socialism is literally Class Socialism built around Labor. The entire reason Capitalist are viewed as the enemies of Socialism is because of Marxism and that his movement became so dominant within Socialism.
Sum it up I will do some copy/pasting.
"By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. It was not until 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution, that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution."
"According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death.""
Again as both those quotes suggestion, Socialism and Communism were mostly synonyms of eachother at least throughout mid/late 19th Century and early 20th Century. Only reason they're considered different now is because Some Socialist don't want Communism to be considered Socialism. As the famous meme quote goes "That's not REAL SOCIALISM!"
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
To be honest. Erich's performance likely had little to no major impact on the war. A lot of statistics have come out in the past decade showing CAS were actually quite ineffective during the war. Though you can argue the effectiveness and accuracy of dive bombers vs stationary targets as being quite good, only Germany really fielded them in this manner and they were obsolete even before the war started as dive bombers in general were just too slow, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about the Ju87 or the American Dauntless in this regard. Other than the psychological effect of being attacked from the air, no army really field very effective CAS in the war. You can argue the 3.7cm Ju87G was, and so was the Hs129 when it used the 3cm MK103 and 3.7cm Flak as well. Being the only real good tank busters of the war, Hs129 with better engines could of literally been a 1943 A-10A, it's 3cm MK103's HVAP rounds were that effective. But issue being when equipped with these weapons they were not much useful for anything else as they couldn't carry other arms, like bombs, and anti personnel weapons, well the Hs129 did carry two MGs and two 20mm MG151s on top of that, but again it was very underpowered and sadly a wasted piece of technology, they couldn't spare the engines for the program. Even the IL-2 has been grossly overhyped, it's 23mm cannons were not that effective against armor, even after testing a 37mm variant the Red Army opted to just use small anti armor bombs and drop them in mass vs individual targets, kind of like a small mini carpet bomb but with Shaped Charge Armor piercing bombs, and traditional high explosive bombs for other targets on the IL-2 most of the time. Which gave the IL-2 more flexibility vs ground targets than the Ju87G, serving a role similar to the earlier Ju87B&D variants. Erich in turn most of the aircraft he shot down in the war were the famous IL-2. Despite soviet claims, the IL-2 wasn't that effective and in many respects the pure lost ratio makes me question whether it was a waste, when they could of just used the engines on fighters, and more traditional bombers that stood a better chance at surviving fighters. The IL-2 for example traded speed for armor/weapons, and they were cannon fodder vs the Luftwaffe. ie the Suffered the same problem the Ju87 suffered, too slow to save it's life.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Nelson-gs9yv I would emphasis that this has more to do with the German Army not being as "Mythologically" godly as people claim while the Red Army became competent. For example, most of those 'glorious' stats/figures people often throw around came from 1941/42 in which most of the offensive fighting was done by the very best German units, (you know those 10-14 to 1 figures) they also would suffer the brunt of casualties, and loses in return. These were also irreplaceable loses, as it takes years to train crack divisions.
That being said, the quality of German infantry divisions, and reserve divisions wouldn't be up for the challenge to fill those loses. Most of which were conscripted in a hurry prior to the start of the war, to fill in the ranks needed for these "Grand" Campaigns. The causalties between the two leveled out considerably year after year, but always remained in favor of the German Army, save for as you pointed out some local victories for the Red Army, but the same goes for the Germans. But even in the later war period, the Red Army still suffered double the casualties between 44/45 cross the entire theatre, when compared to other theatres fought by other parties, that isn't something to gloat, or praise. Definitely when you take the quality of the vast majority of German divisions the Red Army were facing at this time.
The Allies had a hard time for example, but that was because most of the divisions they faced in the west were well equipped (for 1944 standards) and experienced, hoping to stop the Allies cold with some of the better divisions available at the time. Despite this, the Allies still came out on top with loses in casualties, when the Red Army didn't in the same time period, while not holding the same major numerical advantages either.
Again, I'm not roasting the Red Army intentionally. From what I've read, it's been just as over glorified as the Wehrmacht. If an equal strengthed crack Red Army division faced a German one in the field in 1944, I'd still place my money on the German one. I'd place my money on an American one above either. That being said, to me I consider the British though to be the most over glorified and hyped Army from WWII, despite performing poorly in nearly every campaign, even the ones they won.
5
-
1:00 damn right out of Andrew Carnegie's mouth. Wiki on him "During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away around $350 million (roughly $5.9 billion in 2022),[6] almost 90 percent of his fortune, to charities, foundations and universities" One of the Richest men in American history. In fact his charity allowed a lot of colleges to operate for generations without much funding.
To me he is the ideal Capitalist. Favorite quotes below.
“No man becomes rich unless he enriches others.”
“The man who dies rich, dies disgraced.”
“The Republic may not give wealth or happiness, she has not promised these. It is the freedom to pursue these, not their realization, we can claim.”
Carnegie believed a first half of a man's life was to pursue wealth. Being he believed you couldn't take that wealth with you, he decided by the end of his life he would give most of it away before he died. He left enough behind for his family primarily wife to live a modest life. He didn't believe in giving money to his son either, the believed his son had to earn his own wealth.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@PutasZG No where near as bad as when a historian spits out that the P51 was the best plane of WWII, or that a Tiger Tank could be killed only by being shot in the ass. TIK actually does research instead of vomiting WWII memes like most other channels. Willing Criticizes things he finds odd, or wrong. The only one that seems to really come close is The Time Ghost team but they're an entire group, doing roughly what TIK does alone. TIK also already stated that historians and researchers are bias, which included himself in said statement.
Also honestly, I don't see where the complaint is at. The state manipulated it's agriculture to bad results. While under the control of a Commissariat, or a Commission, whichever you like the call it. Even if either of the two terms were not used, it was a Socialism over reach, which lead to stereotypical state mismanagement, and suffering.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@oscartang4587u3 To be frank most socialist need to go back and redefine what Socialism is because the definition often used can easily be applied to almost any regime with enough power to control the economy. Which ironically makes them look like idiots when they deny the Nazis are socialist.
Which is ironically why I like TIK's definition of Socialism, which is Social Ownership. Social Ownership doesn't exactly exclude private ownership if the private owners are part of the social group that controls the economy. If you've noticed almost all Socialism is about "A" Social "Group" Rising up and taking Control of the Means of Production from the "Other."
For example, Marxism and all variants based off it, it's about the "Working Class" Rising Up and taking Control of the Economy and State from the "Land Owners" if you use plain English instead of their rubbish religious rhetoric. But, if you refuse the accept the concept of the Working Class, or Classes in General, you pull the rug right out of Communism and most Variations of Socialism along with it. As without it, it can not function at all. Which is why Marxism has utterly failed in the USA, with the Adoption of Neo Liberalism or more accurately Classic Liberalism since the 1980s. Where people were raised to view people as individuals vs rather than "Groups" as a result almost all collectivized movements lost power, including trade unions as everyone by the late 90s wanted to take charge of their own lives, and it's hard to do that when you're part of a union of sorts. This is interestingly why the Left as switched to Racial and Gender Politics, they need "New Groups" to fight for Social Control, if they want their Social Revolution. They've lost the war for the Working Class, as those often deemed as the Working Class are in support of their opposition anymore. It's fun seeing how horrific of failures Marxist and Socialist in General have been in the USA.
Feminism it's about giving women more power in the economy, business and short, but doesn't exactly mean total social control, or collective ownership. Feminist use a lot of Marxist rhetoric reworded around gender boundaries. But it's basically Gender Marxism. But all that matters to the radical elements of feminism is Women Dominate Society, that's their goal. Not exactly equality.
Modern CRT, when I literally hear them say "Race Consciousness" it's hard to not refer back to Marxist who say Class Conscious. So you know those who support it are reading off the same hymn sheet yet again. Again it's just Socialism rebranded with a "New" Social Group, this time a Racial. Ironically not that dissimilar to Nazism in that respect.
It's sad when you see Liberalism actually being the enemy of these groups as well. Liberalism is about Individualism and Individual Liberties. This is why the Left has since coined the term Neo Liberalism, because it's hard to argue against Right Wing Liberals, who are actual Liberals when they call themselves Liberals. Because the things they support are Liberalism in it's purist forms. So of course they created Neo Liberalism as a means of demonizing Liberals who are opposed to their "Revolution." Going so far to calling them Far Right, which I find funny, being Far Right means anything they want it to mean anymore, either Anarchy or Totalitarianism? Which is it? lol
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@fnansjy456 Actually they do fit the definition quite well. Social Control of the Means of Production changes radically based on what kind of Social Group or Society you imagine.
For example in Marxism, the Social Group is the "Working Class." To be a Worker implies you do not own the means of production. To Own the Means of Production as an Individual would forfeit you from being considered "Working Class." So the concept of Private Property is Impossible in a Marxonian Socialist world. Most socialist movements today are built on Marxist foundations, including Social Democracy, and Democratic Socialism which branched off of Marxism, or were heavily influenced by it. With their goals being the improvement of the lives of the working Class ie Social Democracy, or the turning of a Capitalism Society into a Marxist Socialist one like Democratic Socialist. Either way they're are all Marxonian.
However, for a Nazi, who is a Racial Socialist, all that really needs to be done for the Socialization of the Means of Production is to insure that The Social Group owns the means of Production, ie the Racial Group. This is why the Nazis were happy to take property from Foreign Nationals and those deemed outside their Social Group. But if you were part of the "German Race" they wouldn't. The concept of Private Property isn't void in a National Socialist world because their movement isn't built around the Working Class. They rejected the Working Class Revolution in short. Which only proves they're not Marxist, but honestly fails to prove they're not Socialist.
Even then the Nazi did legally abolish all Property Rights, so all property was technically owned by the State, and by extension the Party. But as long as you were a good little Nazi you didn't normally have to worry about it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I wouldn't call the US Capitalism that often anymore. It's more of a Corporate Autocracy, or another words a Corporatocracy. Issue is, that isn't that different from how Socialist states also become autocratic in nature, in which a small portion of the population or in particular the socialist Party officials become filthy rich while the common citizens normally starve. I mean name any Socialist nation that has existed, and odds are good they became Totalitarian or an Autocracy. By the way the word Corporation was created in Nazi Germany, and it was the word they used for Fascist Trade Unions, basically their version of the Communist Trade Unions seen in the USSR at the time in which Coal, Power, Manufacturing were centralized into monopolistic style super Unions in which would in turn be represented by the state either in the Kremlin or for Germany, the Reichstag. That being said, I find it odd that nearly every major Socialist backer is either a millionaire or billionaire. Which makes me wonder if they use Socialism, or the promise of it to control stupid people.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+Vendprekurec Wasn't the "whole" of Europe. Not even "Half" of Europe. Out of all the Axis powers in Europe, only one of them had a respectable economy, and industry, but had no resources to back it. Russia on the other hand had no excuse what so ever for it's poor performance early war accept for it's own failures, often thrown on the Shoulders of Stalin alone. Same kind of Fallacy used to blame Hitler for Germany's failures in the war which is untrue as well. Stalin alone wasn't responsible for Russia's failures, and the same can be said about Hitler for Germany.
Now if you want Facts:
USA Provided 400,000 Trucks and Jeeps. 12,000 Armored Fighting Vehicles. 1.7 million Tons of Food (which could feed 400 Divisions for 4 years) 11,000 aircraft (more than the total Luftwaffe on all fronts at any given time, and made up about 1/3 of the total Red Air force at it's peek). Let alone Steel, Chemicals for making Armor, Gunpowder and Explosives. A lot of this Aid in conjunction with each other were instrumental in the Red Army's success in WWII.
I can put it bluntly. Without USA Aid, there would be no 50,000 T-34s. No Kyatusha Rocket Launcher Trucks. The Red Army wouldn't have enough Ammunition, or Artillery Shells for it's Infantry and Tanks. Not enough Food to field the 500 divisions it had by the end of the war. The Trucks it needed to move artillery and men across the vast Eastern Front. Nor the Air Power to gain air superiority. Despite the Red Air Force used Mostly Russian Planes, engineers copied a lot of Features from the German BF109 and American P39 to make their aircraft competitive (even over engineered features like the BF109 Wing slits you see on the LA-5), let alone the tens of thousands of western planes in direct service in the Red Air Force.
Every Early in the War much of the aircraft used to defend Moscow in 1941 were "British and American." Not Russian. Let alone Allied Bombing of Romanian Oil Fields and German Power Plants crippling the German Arms industry. Out of 400 Thousand STG-44's for example fewer than 1/3 of them ever saw the front line they couldn't ship them anywhere imagine all the arms that never even reached the front because of bombed out trains, and no fuel for the trucks to haul them as most fuel was being reserved for air and armor.
Sure the Red Army did most of the dying, but the fires of war were fueled by western Aid. Zhukov himself stated as much that without Western Aid he had doubts that the Red Army could of won the war, and he stated this in his own Biography.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
Honestly it makes sense militarily going from having universal tanks to specialized tanks, vice versa. For example, the British didn't have a lot of success because of combined arms warfare didn't allow the break through tank to work properly, it would just get destroyed. The Germans had great success with their Panzer III and IV tanks, but as the war went on that success faded, combined arms concept collapsed because of material shortages, no more stukas raining from the sky and artillery and armor always being available. Of course this would logically come out in the eyes of someone who isn't always on the front as "Well our old way didn't work, we gotta do something different." Being the Tiger tank was very successful at the break through role, it's kinda obvious why they kept going down that path, after blitzkrieg had already crumbled, and became ineffective on the German end. Without combined arms to back up the tank, the tank itself needs to be strong enough to do the job almost on it's own. So the Germans started getting ridiculous, to make up for the fact they couldn't have the Stuka rescue them anymore. Honestly, if you view it that way the heavy tank obsession starts to make some sense.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I don't believe there is a Left or a Right when it comes to Socialism. I think it is a fallacy to claim that Socialism is a Leftist exclusive ideology, and honestly, I'm not a supporter of the Charts that try to label an economic system as politically right, left or center. Socialism can be championed by anyone, including conservatives and liberals. Marxist Socialist are obviously Liberal Socialist, who believe in Social Class Struggle, want Social reforms that benefit the lower of society. Fascist are National Socialist who want a Socialist economic but with a strong nationalist focus, nationalism in itself is often viewed as Right Wing, but yet these people are also Socialist. Socialism in itself is not limited to just one side of the political spectrum in my opinion because of this. It would be like claiming you can not be a Capitalist if you're a Liberal which is silly. Heck there used to be liberals called Red Dogs, Liberals who were center line, but considered themselves liberal, today this term is kind of being replaced with South Park Republican in the USA in particular.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Based on some witness testimony, including a video interview with one of the former inmates who came to Dachau on the train that was parked outside the camp. The train was transporting prisoners to Dachau from another camp that was evacuated. The train was shot at by allied aircraft and was forced to stop more than once for extended periods of time because of damage to rail lines on the way to Dachau, they were not given food or water combined with the trip being constantly delayed lead to many already weak/sickly person's to die in transit, and many were killed by allied aircraft attacking the train unknowing what was on the train.
When the Train arrived supposedly many who were too sick were flat out killed by the SS and Doctors at the camp, while most who were already dead were just left on the train. They didn't even bother trying to bury the dead, there wasn't much point in trying. I doubt prisoners were well enough, nor did the SS have the men to do it themselves, which is why the rail cars were flat out abandoned there, combined with damage, and bodies not being removed, there was no point in trying to move them. So they were unhitched and left there.
What bothers me is how the attacks on the Dachau death train has been weeded out of the narrative of the camp/liberation even though it wasn't really the allied pilot's fault, nor the allies in general as they didn't force the prisoners onto the train, and who can blame a pilot who can not tell a difference between cattle cars carrying people or supplies. Similar to the Hordhausen air raid which devastated that camp because the RAF still had it marked as a Military camp which it was, before being converted into a concentration camp, it isn't talked about much. I honestly never knew what happened at Nordhausen even when seeing images my brain never noticed the bomb damage in those images until I came across an inmate's account of it, as I never saw it mentioned in documentaries of the camp.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DjJooze The comparing as when comparing works of fiction. This story in this game is a work of fiction. The City used doesn't exist and the characters themselves do not exist. ie, Fiction. Though you can argue it being Historic Fiction, it isn't really based off any real events. Mostly so they could do whatever they wished with the characters and story. It definitely isn't on the same level as Master and Commander which is also a work of fiction, but is so authentic despite that, that it is called Historic Fiction. Issue with The Last Tiger, is that, it isn't very accurate, and no one has been able to pin down who it's loosely based off of. Some have claimed it's based off the story of the Panther Tank defending Cologne, but if that was the case their wouldn't be boys handing on lamp post in the street, nor would the crew behave even remotely like they did in The Last Tiger, also everyone from that Panther survived except for the loader, or gunner, who was badly injured and later mortally after a 2nd round from a Pershing Tank ripped into the center of the hull as he was trying to climb out of the turret.
Also if you're talking about the Americans at the end, well you're forgetting that the Americans asked them to surrender more than once. The utter incompetence shown by the American troops just so the writers could throw in some "Political" points is idiotic. When the Tiger was in the town square for example, the Americans came up almost (Star Wars)Stormtrooper style giving themselves away instead of knocking out the Tiger when the Tiger crew did't know they were there. That is how bad the writing is. This is why I find this entire story so insulting. American soldiers wouldn't be that stupid, and German soldiers didn't behave in this manor as well. They also wouldn't of been abandoned like they were. The Germans were very uptight about not leaving people behind, even when trying to get trapped soldiers out of a bind would likely cost more than it was worth, I can point out many examples of this on the Eastern Front. This Tiger Tank wouldn't of been abandoned in the fashion it was, they wouldn't of just blown the bridge seconds before it arrived. They also wouldn't of been considered cowardly, or stupid for abandoning the tank and escaping either. German Tank crews often abandoned their tanks, so they could flee back to friendly lines. The entire political debate by the crew was just idiotic in this sense, irritating at least. If they were portrayed properly, at the very 'least' they would of abandoned the vehicle to attempt swim across the river back to friendly lines in the cover of darkness. It wouldn't of been considered cowardly, they had options beyond just surrendering.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bluesh0es Yes I've seen the YMS video on this subject. It isn't convincing. It really addresses mostly the post surge of videos posted about 4-5 years ago with cookie cutter arguments, and presenting clips from the Kimba the White Lion film which came out a few years after The Lion King which sadly dominate the Lion King vs Kimba the White Lion YT videos, I miss being able to find the older ones prior to that. Basically YMS addresses nonsense videos and sadly better older videos are harder to find.
1. It ignores the original working title for The Lion King was The King of the Jungle which was very similar to the english translation of Japanese title for Kimba which was The Jungle King. Mind you at the time that wasn't the english title used so if Disney translated the original Japanese title themselves it could very well came out as The King of the Jungle. Again someone can call this a coincidence but there are a lot of coincidences.
2. Disney tried but failed to acquire the localization rights to Kimba the White Lion during production of The Lion King, and since also sued over the Kimba the White Lion movie coming to the states just a few years later. Why would Disney care? If they were not similar, and were unique? Unless they knew, and had reasons to care behind the scenes. Heck when they went after the Kimba the White Lion film, it actually helped fuel the conspiracy more. It was a stupid PR move, but Disney found it necessary.
3. He doesn't address even that some of the Disney staff some of which since redacted their claims (because well Disney), that they believed at one point in production they were working on a Kimba the White Lion adaptation. Even the Co-Producer admitted the similarities are undeniable in recent years but then claims they had no prior knowledge to it even existing. Sadly it's hard to find videos of those interviews all these years later.. I've not been able to find them in recent years. So either they're lost on the platform or they were false claimed and removed.
4. Story differences are irrelevant. I don't even know why this is an argument. Likely something some people tried to claim a few years back. But I don't know anyone at least during the 90s who were claiming Disney ripped off Kimba the White Lion's story. Maybe a few scenes, but not the story itself. Why that became an argument still baffles me.
5. The fact Kimba the White Lion literally had "Scar" in the original production not the same name or character, but visually an identical character right down to the choice of colors and body features. YMS addresses this but there is good enough reason to accept that it isn't just a coincidence.
6. Simba/Kimba the names were both chosen for the same reason because it's tie in to the word lion in Swahili Disney just took it more directly. Again like Scar you can argue the similarities are only a coincidence, but I've seen enough evidence in my opinion that states otherwise. Disney knew, didn't care not after point #2.
Final Statement. I don't think Disney ripped off Kimba the White Lion per se. I'm more annoyed how they've acted/handled the whole situation. it would have been a huge PR win in my opinion if they'd just admitted it at the time, people like when their favorite productions/films/TV/comics are inspiration, and it's actually all Tezuka Productions wanted and honestly why I think they mimicked many scenes from Lion King out of spite in their own film. But I really think they're adamant on preserving that "Original Production" marketing they built around the film. When nothing they've made has been well "Original" they even admit the story is from Hamlet. We know they've also done the same thing with the Theft and the Cobbler, it inspired Aladdin but Disney will never admit it. But being The Theft and the Cobbler was never really a finished film and I think for a time Disney even owned the film. You can easily argue they didn't exactly steal or rip off something they already owned?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RussianThunderrr The Russian Divisions were depleted, that is without question. However, this didn't stop the Red Army from conducting mass forced conscription in liberated/occupied territories as the Germans fell back. This is why despite, the Red Army suffering horrific loses between 1941/42 even in 1944/45 they seemed to have limitless men. Most of these conscripts were giving little to no training, just equipment and uniforms, they were also often squandered in mass to weaken German positions so the more experienced Red Army divisions could mop up, and exploit any successes created by these conscripted liberatees. General Zhukov himself referred to these conscripts as "effectives" and "bayonets." As i said, one of TIK's videos of this particular series mentions this directly, I can not pinpoint it specifically though, I would have to go back and review each one first. This is also why it's a mistake to call the Red Army "Russian." By 1944 most of it's ranks were not Russian. But the same could also be said about the German Army. I remember reading somewhere up to 1/3rd of the soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht throughout the entire war, (which includes the SS/Navy/Luftwaffe) were not Germans. Similar to the Soviets some of these foreign divisons/regimates were also squandered. There is likely a reason you see so many foreign "Legionary" divisions in Estonia Dutch/Belgium/Nordic, and Baltic SS were all present, vs when compared to the German divisions south of Estonia, ie they were considered the most expendable, though saying they were so far north because they were "expendable" in the eyes of the Army, is my personal opinion.
About the Allies situation in the West. Well it was peachy. Allied soldiers had near limitless supplies and equipment, food, and outside of German bullets/artillery didn't even have to worry about being attacked from the air. US and British armies also had a vast superiority in support troops, and rear line units, including field hospitals of the likes not seen anywhere else. Most allied casualties would survive their injuries. Allies performed very well from 1944 and on. Comparing their situation to the Red Army is like comparing a Peasant to noblemen. It's also why I would rate any of the allied armies considerably higher than the Red Army, and still higher than the German Army. At least what existed in 1944/45. If we are talking about the Allies in 1940/41, well....
On the topic of the German Army in the west. The Germans units they faced were better equipped than their Eastern Front counter parts. Mostly because most Divisions redeployed to France prior to D-Day were there recovering, training, and being equipped, ie reequipped. They were rotated in and out of France in this fashion. It was done so specifically to provide a "defense" when an invasion would come, while serving a dual purpose of being a location divisions could train, recover, and reequip. A lot of divisions throughout the war including the infamous Totenkampf 3rd SS Panzer were first equipped for battle in this fashion in France before being deployed East. Strength wise this meant that many of the Divisions in France, were often in better condition than their Eastern Front counter parts. Even some of the newest Divisions like the 12th SS Division were being training in the region. Of course all German divisions at this time suffered short comings. Even the 12th SS did not have all the armor and vehicles required to be a 'full' division, but no Germany division had this luxury anywhere, and was short of officers as well, a short coming often not mentioned, Germany had more divisions than it had officers to lead them.
Here is a Cookie for thought. TIK made it quite clear how often Hitler was used as a scapegoat. Do you think Stalin has been used a lot as a Scapegoat for the USSR's failures in the war? I know for a Fact Rommel is used as an excuse for the British failures in North Africa in the same fashion. Rommel is propped up as the greatest general ever by British Historians, a Dragon to be slain, and an excuse for how badly they were beat in Africa early on, despite the inferiority of the Afrika Korps. I sometimes wonder if Russian historians have done the same with Stalin.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
L Hitler believed the Jews created Capitalism, and were using the Class Warfare created by Capitalism to bring about Marxist Revolution which he believed was lead by the Jews, so the Jews could take over the world. That doesn't mean he wasn't a Socialist.
He actually believed in a lot of Marxist theory, he even claimed he believed he was fighting a war against Judaism because he read Marx. Go read Marx's book "On the Jewish Question" which Marx literally claims the Jews are the Capitalist, and you will understand where Hitler got it from, let alone Hitler believed Marx was a Jew that Marxism was also Jewish because of that reason.
But you do not realize that SOCIALISM pre-dates Marxism, so just because someone is anti Marxist, don't mean they're anti Socialist.
I can put it bluntly. The Social Democrats of the Weimar Republic were opposed to both the Marxist and the Nazis within the German Republic. The Social Democrats were also Socialist, yet they were opposed to both Nazism and Marxism. Just because your movement is in opposition to another doesn't mean you're not similar or the same, in fact it can literally make you more hostile as you're in direct competition with the opposing political party for the same populous.
BTW Hitler was never a Fascist, him, nor Himmler or Goebbels ever called themselves Fascist. They're only called Fascist out of Association with their alliance with Italy. Germany nor Japan were Fascist regimes.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think you missed the point entirely. The point is, Antisemitism LEAD to the Stereotype of "The Capitalist." The very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of antisemitism. Socialist practice a anti capitalist faith fighting an enemy that is literally an antisemetic stereotype that had only just been rebranded under a new name. Issue with Socialist is, they don't realize it.
Socialist use this terrifying stereotype to scare people. Whether they target Jews or not is irrelevant at this point. They literally took OLD Christian Antisemetic Propaganda and rebranded it for their own use.
It's also socialist are not entirely immune to it either. There have been plenty of Marxist parties that have been Antisemetic. Taking some of the comparisons that Marx himself made between the "Jew" and the "Capitalist' seriously. The Czech Communist Party, the West German Communist Party, being good examples. Apparently the British Labour Party as well, caught with their pants down a few years back making some pretty nasty antisemetic comments. I still remember when the DNC emails were leaked, that many in the Democratic Party were calling Bernie Sanders a "Dirty J*w." So it exist, just not as in your face. So TIK's points are not irrelevant, or really misguided.
It doesn't take much going from an Anti-Capitalist to becoming an Anti-Semite because the origin of the Capitalist came from antisemetism. Which is why TIK included this part in the video 25:30.
Best example I can think of to ring home the point is how many radical Socialist keep pushing that the US Federal Reserve is "Privately Owned." Despite those running the Fed being appointed by Congress and officially being a State owned Corporation. They claim because the Fed was originally financed by selling shares to Major Banks in America so it's actually owned by a handfull of fat bankers. Ignoring the whole point of doing that was to make all Major Banks to be linked to the Fed, ie partial Nationalization of Finance. Giving the Fed roots into all major banking institutions. Issue is, Antisemites believe the exact same thing, but instead of big fat Bankers owning/ running the Fed, they just say Jew. They will use the same arguments.
Why? Because the Propaganda is identical. The Propaganda has the same roots.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
0:32 you're not a Titanic history buff if you believe they cut safety standards on the Titanic, and wanted the ship to be faster than anyone else. Those are actually myths. Not reality.
In Reality,
1.) The Titanic was actually one of the safest ships in the world at the time. With only a few examples you could argue topping it. Most of which surprisingly being smaller German linears.
2.) She actually had more lifeboats than what was required, it's a myth again that she had the bare minimum. Also at the time most shipping companies didn't have faith in lifeboats saving passengers. There had actually been a lot of accidents in which lifeboats actually lead to the loss of life, not saving life. Most famous for the White Star Line itself was the sinking of the Atlantic where about 90% of the passengers went down with the ship and not one lifeboat survived deployment. At the time of Titanic designers were trying to design a ships that could stay afloat long enough for rescue to arrive ie the ship itself being the lifeboat, and the lifeboats existed to ferry passengers from ship to ship.
3.) Even if she did have enough lifeboats even after staying afloat for almost two hours, the last few lifeboats still didn't make it into the water. Despite crew not waiting for boats to be filled to capacity, it's actually one of the reasons so many boats were launched near empty. The crew didn't have time to wait for more passengers most of which were in denial the ship was sinking, so launched boats mostly empty so they could move onto the next boat.
4. Another myth is the gates being locked deep down in the ship. The hallways that had gates were primarily for the crew, and if passengers were allowed to travel those hallways they'd be lost for good. Passengers were directly to the main hallway/staircases as they were the fastest way out of the ship. Cameron actually included this in the film Titanic but had the crew being jerks about it. Because roar roar classism.
5. The White Star Line did not design the Olympic Class for speed while at the same time going for 'size.' They knew they wouldn't win for speed so didn't even try. The whole gotta having to beat some kind of speed contest is a total fabrication. From what we know even the story of telling the captain to sail the ship faster isn't true as Ismay was actually afraid Titanic could arrive at New York too early, and film/cameras wouldn't be there to photograph her arrival.
Basically there are a lot of myths surrounding the ship.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Soviet Union wasn't better. Working Conditions were horrific throughout the 1920 to 1960s. Under both Lenin and Stalin. Great example, Stalin cut wages of the work force to encourage both men/women to work, to increase the number of laborers in the work force. Basically to feed themselves/buy any goods he forced the entire household to work, and they worked hard. It could often take a few months wages to save up enough money to buy a new set of clothing for example, just one outfit. I still remember the working conditions described by an American Socialist who moved to the Soviet Union hoping to live the Socialist dream, he described welders with ragged clothing working from dangerous heights in the middle of winter with steel beams covered in ice, and he did describe people falling to their deaths, and the attitudes of those at the work camp was sad, "Oh well."
TIK History's video about Operation Keel Haul actually has some witness accounts of soviet citizens who found being a slave laborer in Nazi Germany BETTER than working as a laborer in the Soviet Union. Which shouldn't be possible, so it actually makes that man's accounts of working conditions in the USSR believable.
Basically, "TRY AGAIN." lol
Btw the story I mentioned about the American Socialist was a story presented by TheUshankaShow who is a former Soviet Citizen. =3
4
-
4
-
4
-
@UshankaShow Well I would argue the issue is, Russia was the right place. Issue for a country like France/Germany is they lack raw material/resources and rely entirely on foreign trade for Iron, Coal, Gas, and Grain. Meaning without those resources such a socialist system was next to impossible without trade with outside Markets. Which if you want a system that operates without capital accumulation, it would be very difficult to get the capital to pay for those foreign materials.
Russia had it all, just Russia didn't have the industrial capacity at the time to capitalize on it. Which is why Stalin was so brutal trying to force that industrialization upon Russia. It's also the main reason Hitler invaded the USSR, Grain, and Oil for example, he had Iron, and access to Coal. He wanted to cut Germany off from the J**ish Capitalist/Marxist world order as he viewed it. To do that would require material he didn't have, Russia what he needed, with the added bonus in his eyes of getting rid of the Bolsheviks.
If you tried to make a Socialist or Communist country in Germany or France, you'd run into the same problem Hitler had.. no resources, and absolute reliance on foreign material, meaning your socialist state would end up being reliant entirely on foreign markets to survive.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
TIK makes it quite clear what National Socialism is, and what Socialism is, what Marxist Socialism is and what Fascism is in his videos. National Socialism is Socialism, but so is Marxist Socialism. They're variations of Socialism, built off the core of Socialism itself. They're not the same ideologies. So calling Socialist Nazis, isn't correct. They have to want to make a Racial Socialist State to be Nazis. That is the distinction. So yes, the Nazis are Socialist, but just because the Nazis are Socialist, doesn't mean all Socialist are Nazis. It's a very simple principle.
You can argue that since both Fascism and to an extent the German Worker's Party which Nazism was built upon, were also built originally on Marxist Socialist principles, and most Socialist today including Democratic Socialist are as well. We can argue that nearly all Socialism in the modern age however are Marxonian at their core. Even if they hate each other. Including National Socialism, Fascism, the Communist, Syndicalist, Corporatist, Social Democrats, and the list goes on and on. So it may not be accurate calling Socialist Nazis, it is very accurate calling Socialist Marxist as it's influenced them all and in cases like Fascism directly branched off of already existing branch of Marxism. ie a mix of Anarcho-Syndicalist, National Syndicalist and Marxist Syndicalist were the signers of the first Fascist Manifesto in Italy in 1914.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jussim.konttinen4981 To my knowledge he ran a farming equipment supply business or something along those lines post war. Any rumors or claims he conducted evil experiments post war are also fabrications. Surprisingly and likely supportive of claims about him being likely more legend than fact he lived for about 20-30 years under his own name, ie he wasn't really in hiding. Like many Nazis who went to South America, but like those who didn't think they did anything wrong he never bothered changing his name unlike others who knew people would be coming after them. Many scientist and soldiers didn't change their names, Mengele was among them. Not until I think the mid/late 1960s when he found out he had a bounty on his head anyways. His Diaries found after his death seem to never mention horrible experiments either, something you'd think he would of wrote down at least something about them in his own personal journals. Now if I recall, he son did claim he found a lot of documents of evil things his father did after his death, but also claimed he destroyed them out of shame. Though, likely he could of said that just to keep people from bugging him about it.
I do know the man was called the Angel of Death, because interviews with Camp Inmates well their attitudes toward Mengele vary quite a lot. Some people have relatively positive opinions of the man, while others described him as a monster. Some people could not even get the description of the man right, so you know up front many people were likely not honest. It's also plausible these people saw someone else and assigned that act to Mengele because Mengele becoming a big name by then so without knowing who they saw doing a deed they pinned it on a name they already heard horror stories about. I'm under the impression he was more of a doctor than a Mad scientist, though it is known and proven he did inject inmates with unknown compounds. Because no documentation of what seemed to have been found it's kind of in the air to 'what' those compounds exactly where. From what I've read it's also plausible he did decide if inmates were to be killed or not from time to time, but a lot of doctors did throughout all the camps, including many who were lethally injected in camps like Dachau. But he seems obsessive toward children, if you were a child at Birkenau under this protection as an experiment you actually had a high chance of surviving the camp. Which makes me wonder if he had different motives than "Bwuahaha" evil madman according to one girl who claimed to be one of his experiments... well women, she said he expected all the kids to be well fed, and well dressed, he seemed to take special interest in their health/well being, and that he would give them regular injections. I wish I could find the article written by her as well, it was quite interesting as she did interview a few people who worked at Birkenau. Openly forgave Mengele as well, wishing the man was still alive so she could ask him questions that have bugged her her whole life since then.
PS. Don't get me wrong, the man was a loyal Nazi, right up to the day he died. From letters and correspondence found from the post war years. His attitude toward Jews in general was still, "Jews are bad." One personal letter found he even mocked Holocaust survivors. But then again the mocking could of been personal, being from what I said earlier, ie if he wasn't a literal Doctor Frankenstein and the stores are mostly made up, you'd be pretty mocking yourself likely. But honestly, I think it's deeper rooted then that. Definitely I know his Journals did talk about Eugenics from time to time. His medical degree did revolve around Eugenics so it makes sense.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Harlod Shekelbond
Nor do you.
Also you're assuming Russia has better equipment outside equipment they save for the parade ground.
Su35 = F-15 Killer ( Still around but replaced with slightly modernized versions like the Su30S/M etc. Which are not really all that different just a new name so people think it's new.)
Su37 = F-22 Killer (Canceled, despite being paraded around for years as the greatest fighter jet in the world and even I jizzed over it in my youth... yet they only made what 3-4 examples?)
Su47 = F-22 Killer (Canceled)
Su57 = F-22 Killer (Currently only a few examples used for Airshows)
T-72 = Joke (Imagine a T-64 but Modernized and still blows up just as easily.)
T-14 = Parade Toy (Only a few examples exist, and some even question whether they're even real tanks..... outside prototypes and demonstration pieces, being they're only seen in demonstrations and parades basically tank version of the Su-37/47/57 exist only for the sake of flexing with no plan to ever use them for actual battle. Read recently they even canceled them so they will be making no more T-14s EVER so the hand full they have are just that, parade pieces)
List goes on and on, you name it, it existed only as a demonstration device to make Russia look up to date/modern, and are used specifically for demonstrations, and parades.
You think they have better equipment but no... they don't.. when I saw footage of the VDV landing in Ukraine, which Russian State Media has posted on the internet... a vast majority of them were using equipment equal to that of armed civilians seen in Kyiv outside of their uniforms of course... they were very poorly equipped, no night vision equipment, no scopes, iron sights on nearly every single rifle.... They're not the modern military they portray themselves as. Then you wonder why one of their landing forces were completely routed by militia.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
14:09 Genshin Impact isn't pay to win. Outside of how much purchases actually cost, it is actually an enjoyable game, and F2P isn't even that bad, as unless you're obsessed with collecting every character in the game you have no real reason to actually spend money on the game. That being said, the mobile gacha elements are the worst elements of the game, but... to be frank, the game itself is better than Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Skyrim, and many other open world games. And if we are honest, it likely wouldn't even exist in the 'scale' it does if it wasn't for the fact it was a Gacha game. The world map is huge and constantly growing. I literally had to be dragged kicking/screaming by a few of my friends to play it as at the time I draw a line saying Gacha games NEVER! but I was honestly surprised on how good of a game it actually is, and I barely notice the Gacha aspect of the game most of the time I'm playing. It's less grindy of a game than none Gacha games like WoW, World of Tanks, and War Thunder, Lineage II and Ragnarok Online other MMO's I've played in the past. I honestly can compare it to being leisurely fun, similar to MMOs like Mabinogi or PangYa.
I honestly find it sad that Blizzard could of look at what was done with Genshin Impact, the most successful Gacha game in history and took some pointers, but instead they're doing what other Gacha games are doing, including UI Vomit, ie pop up ads and other nonsense, unbearable grind... it's like playing War Thunder where the grind is so horrible that you're pretty much forced to spend money which is literally why I quit playing War Thunder. And yes I consider Immortal to be a Gacha game, a VERY VERY VERY bad one.
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're getting Leftism mixed up with Liberalism, they're not the same thing. TIK points out in an another video that even Stalin considered Fascism to the LEFT to Communism. Which means at one point Leftism meant something different than what a lot of people today think Left means. Left was never liberal, will never be liberal, was never meant to be Liberal. The Left is has always been about equality, but not equality in a liberal sense, but equality in a fairness sense. Leftism is Collectivism, Leftism is Socialism, Leftism is Democracy, and Federal State Governments. Leftism in turn is also Marxism and Fascism. All of these are anti Liberal because they ALL Advocate the group over the Individual and Liberalism has always been about Individual Rights over the GROUP. This is why the Left are almost exclusively pushes for fairness, even at the expense of people's individual rights.
Were as the Right has always been around Individual Rights, and Responsibility separate from the group. Which ironically means, Rightism is actual Liberalism. Yes Conservatives Support the Right, and are often the stereotype of Right Wing Politics, but that is only because the RIGHT IS LIBERAL. The Right Supports Religious Freedom, and the Rights necessary for specific groups to survive in Society. Racist often Support the Right because the Right allows Freedom of Speech, and the Right to Assembly which they require to have any voice whatsoever. Religious groups support the Right because the Right allows Religious Freedom mean while the left is obsessed with Religious suppression, like changing Christmas to X-Mass or Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas just as an example, even publicly berating someone if they dare say merry Christmas in Public. That isn't liberal behavior. Left wants, and needs conformity.
It's why Capitalism is literally Liberalism at an economic level. Your own personal economy is in your hands, and no one elses. You choose were to work, or whether you want to work for yourself in a Capitalist economy, it's about responsibility, and freedom of choice. It's against the idea of the Greater good, or the GROUP. Leftism has always been about the Group, Collective Will of the people. Which is why the original Leftist in the USA were called Federalist, and why they call themselves Democrats today. They want that Collective Will, that Majority Rule, which goes against everything America stood for, the entire reason all those protections exist in the constitution, why checks/balances exist within the political structure was always meant to prevent Majority Rule. If you have Majority Rule you did not have a Free Society which Individuals separate from the group can survive, at least without serious risk to their individual rights.
It's often a question I ask Socialist who say Socialism can not be Socialism without everyone being included, if often ask "And when you try to create this society and people refuse to join it, what do you do to them?" They have no answer to that question. Because when I point to regimes like the USSR, or Nazi Germany who crushed people into dust who refused to conform to the GREATER good, or the Majority, they claim that isn't socialism, in spite that they function under the majority principle. They actually believe that minorities in a majority ruled system will have a voice. It's laughable.
4
-
4
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 "that is an internationally recognized political entity which borders coincide for the most part with a single nation. a nation is a group of individuals (...), a state is a political entity (...), a nation state is just a type of state"
At least you're able to finally get it right. If you read the wording clearly anyways. It's there.
"borders coincide for the most part with a single nation" "With" not, on, in or for the most part referring to something that can not be defined as territory. The Nation is the People, as it states later "a nation is a group of individuals." The "State" is what is the territory. Nation State is a State built around a "Nation."
Also about Dictionary. I post two definitions, you posted one. Mine contradicted themselves, both of them had contradictions within them. ie if you read them closely they say Nation = a People, and later = Territory/Land, but in two different contexts. ie Nationality = People but Nation = Territory. But in actuality Nation = People and Nationality is used to describe different peoples often within Nations. Ukraine having multiple Nationalities. Saying Nation = Territory is well not true.
Meanwhile the one you posted felt like a joke as it basically left nationality out of it entirely to avoid being a contradiction, as someone with a close eye would see it as one if it did.
Dictionaries are not perfect mind you. Definitely now days which they seem to be changed on a whim. You forget that often multiple people are involved when changing a definition or adding to one, those people have to come to a consensus, often they can not agree, so compromises are made. Like how Corporations have been getting added to the definition of Capitalism. Some places don't include it while others do include it.
So even among multiple different Dictionaries or colleges, they do not always have consensus, and god for bid if someone uses Google Definitions, which do change on a whim.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I would argue against the A6M Zero, even by the A6M5 variant from 1943 just wasn't as technologically advanced as even a BF109E1 from 1938.
The reason they had such great performance was because they were very light weight aircraft, but technologically there isn't much special about the A6M Zero outside of materials used in it's construction, of which was a double edged sword as early war variants of the A6M were renown for being death traps bursting into fireballs after just getting touched by gun fire. Which means the A6M would have to hit an enemy plane hard to down it, while an enemy barely had to touch it.
It didn't take until a few years into the war for the Japanese to fix these issues, at the cost of performance, as the Zero finally saw self sealing fuel tanks, and a tad of pilot protecting armor, but still used the same low powered engine but it was already mid war by the time the Zero saw those improvements. Which was too late, as vastly superior American aircraft that not only could out perform it in ways that mattered, also had superior firepower and superior protection, Zeros just didn't really stand a chance.
In most respects, the A6M is a grossly over rated aircraft. It shocked the world because of it's performance, and it's range allowed it to strike often with people's pants down, but once people learned how to get around it, they were blown out of the sky in an alarming rate.
To sum it up, a BF109E-1 in 1938 could carry 500kg of bombs. Climb to higher altitudes, could dive much faster. Compare firepower to the E-3 variant they were nearly identical. E-3 entered service a few years before the A6M. Technologically even when the A6M came out the E-3 was still better.
When it came to engine technology even the DB601 used in the BF109E which had existed in some form or another since the mid 30s was superior to most of the engines the Japanese were using in their aircraft into 1943. Which is why the Japanese licensed them from the Germans as the Ha40 which would be used on the Ki61 which was one of the better fighters the Japanese produced in WWII, yet tragically isn't as famously remembered.
In short. It didn't take until 1943 for a version of the A6M, the A6M5 to start seeing wide production that I say would be comparable to aircraft being used in Europe, over all technologically from the beginning of the war. The one major advantage that the Zero did have, that nothing the western powers could compete with was it's range. But again, that has more to do with the fact they chose long range, at the cost of being a flying death trap. A6M5 even saw it's wings reinforced and thickened just so it had a chance to keep up with enemy aircraft that chose to dive away. Basically by 1943 many of the advantages it had were thrown out for practicality, self sealing fuel tanks, reinforced wings, some armor protection for the pilot, all reduced it's performance and range. By 1943 the Zero was just any other fighter, but one that was now years behind everything else.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well to most extent it was better. Well, counting where you were used as a laborer within the Reich. How slaves were treated were literally as varied as say in the Rural South during it's height of slavery, and I'm not making a false equivalency. The Nazis used forced labor is just about every aspect of the economy. How individuals within the reich treated those laborers varied wildly. You could be very unlucky, and get stuck working on State Projects like forgot the name of it particular but an underground Me262 factory built with slave labor which lead to the deaths of a few thousand of these laborers. OR, you could be lucky and be sent daily to help a German Farmer who interestingly often enough treated these laborers like any helpers, even fed them. Even some SS Officers treated laborers humanely. As I said though, conditions, and treatment widely varied from location to location.
BUT, yes this would easily explain why many would say that being a Nazi Slave was better than being a Soviet Slave. I know pro soviets claim the Gulags were nothing like the Nazi's programs because they paid laborers, but I could easily go to the Jewish Virtual Library and point out the Nazis did the same, for reasons TIK mentioned in one of his earlier videos. Paying laborers even if it's monopoly money was done so by both to encourage them to work harder. Even if they couldn't really do much with the paper they were issued.
As I said. Conditions varied.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Vintage automatic pistols. They just don't make them like they used to. So interesting to look at. Modern hand guns are often in my opinion just boring. In fact, honestly, I don't like most fire arms "Post" WWII. Seems WWII people started standardize more to reliable, known designs/concepts, sure some experimentation is going on still but, not much. Early on everyone was designing from different concepts almost, now it's more standardized, less unique/interest. Mauser C96, Early Colt Automatics, The Luger P08, Nambu, and among others seemed to have their own unique flavors for their day.
3
-
+You're Fired! French were known as cowards but were not cowards. British were bigger cowards in most respects. France lost more troops than Poland did in 1940, had it's airforce fought almost to the death, inflicting some actual air victories against the Luftwaffe. Some of it's defenses held strong, one town traded hands like 15 times during the Battle of France. In the end it was the split up of the French/British army, and forced evacuation of British forces from the continent, combined with the lack of air support by the RAF (being Britain wanted to save their Hurricane/Spitfires for home defense). The last nail, was when the Briitsh attacked the French Navy in port, even though France promised if they would surrender that French warships would be scuttled if the Germans tried to take them, but instead while they were still Allies the British attacked the French Navy, killing well over a thousand French Sailors. A lot of French, including Petain felt betrayed, it isn't a surprise the French Capitulated not long after.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@matro2 Pacific wasn't any better. China was a bloodbath easily comparable to the Eastern Front. It's often overlooked but 900,000 Chinese at least we know, served with the Japanese in Manchuria, and low China under the control of puppet states, like Manchukuo, which was technically ruled by the last Chinese Emperor who the Japanese installed into power there. You can imagine most of them were forcefully conscripted, but there were many who viewed the Japanese as the only means of rescuing China from the Decade's long period of civil conflict between the fractured warlords of China. Also China itself, the Republic of China often referred to as the Chinese Nationalist, not to be mixed up with the People's Republic of China, were not all Unicorns and Rainbows either. For example, the single most destructive act done in China that likely lead to more civilian deaths than any other act (other than the war itself) was conducted by the Chinese themselves. When they intentionally flooded the Yellow River, to flood farmland, villages and towns, directly killing something between 200,000-400,000 people, some say more, and indirectly killing millions from the famine, and refugee crisis it caused....
Ironically it did hurt the Japanese as it made it very difficult for the Japanese to feed their own forces in the area, let alone the Chinese they occupied. One of the primary reasons for Japan's invasion of China ironically, was the same as Hitler's wish to occupy Ukraine... food. But the Japanese occupied very little of it's actual agricultural centers The Republic of China denied them this with a 'water' earth policy, no pun intended, as they destroyed one of the few the Japanese did occupy. Japan occupied most of the much denser populated East Coast of China, and were unable to occupy much of their "Goal" which was the rural farmland. This also meant that Japan had to provide food for far more mouths than was available, and actually made their food shortage issue which lead to the invasion considerably worse. In turn, when it came to feeding Manchukuo, Korea, and Japan, well occupied China was pretty much last on the list, a sad similar scenario to what you see in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.
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
-
@daviddoran3673 So witness testimony from Soviet Soldiers are wrong then? I remember one Russian saying they were ordered to remove parachutes from supplies that the Red Army were dropping into Warsaw. All so they could say they did something. He said it was useless as the supplies would disintegrate upon impact upon streets.
Other accounts from Polish conscripts who were ordered into the city are just as bad. They were sent without supplies, and most were recently conscripted from the Polish countryside, with no training. The Polish resistance called them utterly worthless, claiming many of them just went into hiding.
There was no German counter attack that stopped the Russian advance, as they captured the eastern party of the city while the murders were still going on and Resistance fighters were still fighting. The Red Army halted along the river, and then did nothing... Waited until the entire city west of the banks were leveled to the ground.
That being said going to use this quotes from Wiki which does provide a source. Being it sums it up quite well.
"The role of the Red Army during the Warsaw Uprising remains controversial and is still disputed by historians.[20] The Uprising started when the Red Army appeared on the city's doorstep, and the Poles in Warsaw were counting on Soviet front capturing or forwarding beyond the city in a matter of days. This basic scenario of an uprising against the Germans, launched a few days before the arrival of Allied forces, played out successfully in a number of European capitals, such as Paris[140] and Prague. However, despite easy capture of area south-east of Warsaw barely 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) from the city centre and holding these positions for about 40 days, the Soviets did not extend any effective aid to the resistance within Warsaw. At that time city outskirts were defended by the under-manned and under-equipped German 73rd Infantry Division which was destroyed many times on the Eastern Front and was yet-again being reconstituted.[141] The weak German defence forces did not experience any significant Soviet pressure during that period, which effectively allowed them to strengthen German forces fighting against uprising in the city itself."
"Declassified documents from Soviet archives reveal that Stalin gave instructions to cut off the Warsaw resistance from any outside help. The urgent orders issued to the Red Army troops in Poland on 23 August 1944 stipulated that the Home Army units in Soviet-controlled areas should be prevented from reaching Warsaw and helping the Uprising, their members apprehended and disarmed. Only from mid-September, under pressure from the Western Allies, the Soviets began to provide some limited assistance to the resistance."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Notrusbot USA has not fought wars for resources, outside of preventing monopolization of resources by way of closed economies or cartels. Only non-capitalist economies like Mercantile or Socialist economies care about creating autarky on resources for example. Because Trading with non-Socialist countries is evil and Mercantilism was an old obsolete way of looking at economics a remnant of the old European way of trade. Which is why the old Empires literally just fell apart, after the realized free trade was superior to occupation/colonization.
This was the primary reason the USA got involved in WWII because actions like Japan/Germany actually broke down international trade, as both Japan and Germany tried to create Autarky. USSR did the same as well, spreading it's influence mostly to create it's own sphere of influence closed off from the rest of the world at the time.
USA's involvement in South America in the 19th/early 20th Century was the same way, the USA sought to kick out European Empires from the Americas, and open up trade within the Americas which ironically benefited everyone and most definitely South America. 30-80s Latin America was a paradise until Cartel Lords, Dictators, Communist rebellions, and Socialist politicians ruined it one country at a time.
Ironically even the "Oil" War of 1991 (Desert Storm) vs Iraq was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait which Kuwait because they destroyed their domestic economy. Kuwait was also one of the only Arab nations that didn't join OPEC which was is a oil Cartel.
Ironically most Arab countries also joined the USA in this campaign. Arab forces were actually tasked with liberating the Capital for political reasons, being it was considered most fitting that Arab troops should liberate Kuwait City.
Basically USA didn't get involved to monopolize resources of any kind but got involved to keep trade open preventing monopolization of resources.
Every other war the USA was involved in were not Oil Wars in the Middle East. Despite the memes/stereotypes.
Now European Empires, ya that's a different story, but as I already mentioned the USA stood up against Empires. Whether run by Monarchs, Fascist or Marxist. And yes the USSR was an Empire.
You can argue the USA is an empire, but the USA isn't a colonial Empire, but more of a soft power, financial empire. USA only really has military access to nations that ironically just want USA military protection, and in some cases the USA even pays the governments for access to say a port, and some facilities. Which isn't Colonialism, and honestly isn't exactly an Empire per se.
Currently today Russia is perhaps the best example of a Modern Empire in the traditional sense because it occupies entire countries that are considered parts of the "Federation" that are not Russian. They're not allowed to leave either, those that have tried were met with brutal military force.
PS before you mention nations like Iran and how the USA supported a coup there. It's because National Bolshevism, Marxism, Socialism and Nazism were the most popular ideologies within Arabia, so you can see the USA's worry when Iran decided to make exclusive trade deals with the USSR early in it's fledgling Democracy.
3
-
@Notrusbot Now you're venting and just threw your cards on the table, Contradulations.
Your examples don't even work.
Example: Russo Ukraine War. Well if Mexico hasn't been acting in the interest of the USA for decades now mind you, why has the USA not invaded Mexico? I mean you brought this example up right? USA has a long lasting friendship Canada and Mexico and both operate on their own interest, not the USA's interest. But by your logic since they don't operate on the USA's interest why has the USA not invaded them? You kind of have a serious plot hole in your argument, a plot hole because you don't actually understand history or geo politics outside of an obvious anti American bias position which you literally just threw on the table.
Name a country that the USA invaded that wasn't already at war, or started the fight to begin with since WWII? I can think of only one and almost no Americans look back at that president or war fondly. Because we know it was wrong. And if you know what you're talking about you can name that War in a heartbeat. I'm not going to tell you which one it is. Because I know you will likely guess wrong.
Your China example isn't a good example either because China has not been beating the USA at it's own game because it's been ironically cheating behind the scenes, like the person that takes a photo of a Lamborghini after test driving it and posting it on social media that they own it. You should join China Watchdog Channels/Activist Groups who are often run by people who lived in China and since left the country. They will point out that China's GDP figures are fabricated, and that China is currently almost caught up with the USA when it comes to debt after only twenty years of 'false' growth funded by the State using money the State never had. Unlike the USA that Debt is bought with fake wealth that also doesn't exist and isn't even really debt just poof gone, which is why the China bubble has been coming apart in the last 5 years. Almost everyone is pulling out of China even the company i work for has pulled out of China. It's going to collapse within the next decade many economist predict and mind you China isn't under economic sanctions or a blockade it's entirely their own doing. I mean it's why India, New Zealand, Mexico, Singapore among other countries are becoming the new Chinas.
3
-
3
-
3
-
To be Blunt, Nationalism has little to do with anything. Socialist have historically been nationalist in so many cases prior to Nazi Germany, including the Czechs you brought up in your video about the first National Socialist. Some people mistakenly believe because someone is "Nationalist" automatically = Far Right, which is ridiculous.
That being said, I wonder if you can dig up information on "Cafe Central" in Vienna. Supposedly Hitler visited it often while he was in Vienna, and it's known as a major socialist hot spot that many Marxist and Communist visited. Basically to sum it up, it was similar to the Beer Halls in Munich, it was where people went to get a meal/drink while listening to socialist spokesmen. This is why Hitler being a Communist in early 1919 is a very believable argument as why would he visit such a Coffee House?
Ripped this from Wikipedia the names of people who visited Cafe Central being "... Peter Altenberg, Theodor Herzl, Alfred Adler,[2] Egon Friedell, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Anton Kuh, Adolf Loos, Leo Perutz, Robert Musil, Stefan Zweig, Alfred Polgar, Adolf Hitler, and Leon Trotsky. In January 1913 alone, Josip Broz Tito, Sigmund Freud, and Stalin were patrons of the establishment."
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
-
To be honest, that phrase is pretty accurate. All Collectivist ideologies are surrogates for religion, they replace Religion. Religion itself is collectivist. It's why ironically most collectivist ideologies are so far removed from Liberalism that ideologies like Marxist shouldn't ever be considered part of Liberalism. Because they behave like a collective, and go against the ideals of Individualism which dominates the concept of Liberalism, ie Liberty of the Individual from the collective group. Other collectivist ideologies include Nationalism, Fascism, Nazism, almost all monotheistic religions, and the list goes on, where the GROUP is more important than the individual. These are NOT Liberal movements, Marxism is literally in the same boat.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Marxism = Class Socialism
Nazism = Race Socialism
Socialism = Social Ownership of the Means of Production
Class = Social Group
Race = Social Group
Social Group Ownership of the Means of Production.
So... by extension. They're both Socialist movements, they're just fighting for a completely different "Social Group" as the Society that owners the Means of Production.
To go deeper into it. Marxist fight for their Social Group, the "Working Class" as a result, anyone who works for someone else is the Working Class. So in a Marxist Society there can be absolutely ZERO private ownership of any kind, as to own a factory or business would mean you're not a member of the Working Class because you hire people to work for you, by a Marxist Logic. So to avoid Class Exploitation as they view it everything must be cooperatively owned by the Working Class, no exceptions.
For a Nazi they don't really have to Socialize all means of Production as long as said Means of Production is owned/operated by someone who is considered a member of the Racial Group. This is why Hitler focused on Socializing the People, more than Socializing Land/Property. He took Land/Property off those who were Outside the Racial Group, but for those who were part of that Racial Group, he forced them all to join Social Organizations owned/operated by the Nazi Party itself. ie Socializing the People. All Education, Recreational, Womens/Mens Groups, Doctors Unions, everything everything that would be considered a Social Organization from Education to a Flying Club were Nationalized into the Party, or more accurately Socialized Into the Party.
By doing this the Nazis could convert everyone in Society into being Altruistic Nazis, who'd place their "Race/Community" above their own personal interest.
This is why looking at Nazism with a "Marxonian" perspective on what Socialism is will lead to people coming to false conclusions, because they have a terrible idea on what Socialism even is. The fact many think Socialism = Working Class anything is often proof they don't know what Socialism is. They understand what Marxism is and mix it up with Socialism rather than knowing Marxism is just a variation of Socialism.
3
-
3
-
Wind Rose Just checked Oxford Reference, list a lot of books, dictionaries and encyclopedias with oxford's name attached. A lot of them it will provide a rough definition of the primary definition of the books when you search them on the website.
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.): Political system in which the (major) means of production are not in private or institutional hands, but under social control.
A Dictionary of Geography (5 ed.): A social system based on equality and *social justice, once linked with common ownership of the *means of production
A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (4 ed.): A political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production
The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History: A political ideology that rejects the private ownership of land, factories, and other means of production
Dictionary of the Social Sciences: A form of social organization that prioritizes the common ownership of property and the collective control of economic production
Oxford World Encyclopedia: System of social and economic organization in which the means of production are owned not by private individuals
All above literally mean "Public Control of the Means of Production." Or as TIK would say the Public Sector is the state, so Public Control is State control. Those were also the first 6 that actually presented a definition, some of them sadly came up blank sadly, which means they're not all properly cataloged. But I find it funny that they all pretty much said the same thing... and it isn't the one you listed. =P
Websters Online Dictionary:
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
3: 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
#3 in Particular ONLY APPLIES TO MARXIST, and TIK already pointed out in an earlier video how that actually isn't correct either among Marxist themselves, as few believe it from what I've seen in debates myself. So I honestly dunno where they even get that from, because it's vague and undescriptive, so it's a meaningless definition.
Also Irregardless is an oxymoronic word. You're basically using a double negative. You should be saying "Regardless." Irregardless isn't even a proper word. So great way of starting an argument.
3
-
Wind Rose I didn't decide what Socialism means, consensus decided what Socialism means. The most common definition of Socialism is the Common Control of the Means of Production.
I listed plenty of sources that literally said that exact same thing. Common is the Community, and the Community is the Public sector, and the Public sector is the State. I didn't ignore your argument, I countered it. Language has nothing to do with it.
Also do you even know what Liberalism is? Liberalism is about individual liberty over the social group. You have a right to religion, a right to property, and right to be who you want to be without the community, the collective, the state deciding it for you. That is liberalism, and it's the core essence of Capitalism. So ironically Capitalism is true Liberalism.
Classic Liberalism comes from John Locke who promoted the concept of the right to property free from the grips of the Collective State which at his time was the King/Nobility. Instead of the King owning the land and in extension the Nobles, it was the private farmer who gets to own the land. This is from Classic Liberalism. A lot of Marxist Socialist are anti liberal and they don't even know it or not. They are definitely not Conservatives, but they're definitely not Liberals either. But when Marx refers to the "Liberal State" and he did a number of times in Das Kapital he is referring to a state which allows Liberal ideals like Capitalism to thrive, because Capitalism is built on individual freedom which is the basis of Liberalism. So Marx wasn't Liberal.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What we have here is a classic Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Trans Community and Identity Nonsense latched itself onto the LGB community. They use the LGB community as the Motte, the final defense line, if they get called out on their nonsense they will resort to calling you terrible because you're against the "WHOLE" Community, even though they don't represent the Community they claim to be part of. This allows them to stand for any insane position they want ie the Bailey, and when they get caught being nuts, they retreat to the Motte which is the LGBTQ label, because standing against them means you're also against LGB.
Basically TQ is a Parasite which latched itself onto the LGB community. I can not sum up how insane this is better than one Trans person who's story I became aware of, who was a social media moderator. I will not name names because I don't want people to troll, or harass but... This is the best example of this and why I refuse to accept it is because of a contradiction I saw. There is a White Man who calls himself a Trans Woman, who then IDENTIFIES as a MALE DEER, meanwhile goes around on Social media calling White Men the Bane of Human Civilization, and films himself going outside eating grass, and getting his fake ears rubbed by his girl friend. I mean... ummm? Trans "Woman" who identifies as a "Male" Deer. Contradiction. As a result, I can not help but think the only reason that person is a Trans woman, is because they want to be part of a "Club" that hates "White Men" but because he is a white man, he had to do something, he still has a girlfriend for example, he didn't lop off his frank. See the issue? Why it makes it sound like complete rubbish?
Basically, the LGB community in mass has to separate itself from the LGBTQ+ and return to just LGB, reject the TQ+ until the TQ+ stops pretending to represent you. They must realize that they DON'T stand for you, and until they realize that, you have to turn your back toward them. Basically putting them in the corner until they realize what they've done, and actually wake up to reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
0:03 TIKhistory has that problem. He even brings it up in his videos. People who watch 5 or 10 minutes of one of his 30min-6 hour videos and then try to debunk him based on the "Title" of the video without even really watching it, if at all watching it. They often bring up all the same arguments he already addresses in the video, which is often proof... that they didn't watch the video. Basically the only people they will convince are people who didn't watch the video either. Because those who watch the video know their arguments are stupid and are already well, and every well addressed by the TIKhistory.
Recently for example I came across someone saying the "Nazis are not Socialist, they were State Capitalist." Ignoring the fact TIKhistory addressed the State-Capitalist claim, and has since rejected the term entirely because State Capitalism literally means State-None State, and is oxymoronic. Basically it's State Control of all Business, which in other words still means.. it's State Control of the Economy, or Social Control of the Economy still... hmm sounds familiar. State is the one running the show/economy.
From my own research into the term State Capitalism seems to be a synonym with Market Socialism, and even Marx used the term once saying State Capitalism was preferable over the current system. State Capitalism is literally just a term used by Marxist to define a country that all business are owned by the State but a Market Economy still kind of exist in the background. Which is actually something a lot of modern socialist currently want, because they like the market, they like consumerism. They just had evil greedy capitalist. But these modern Socialist call it Market Socialism instead. Only difference is a lot of modern socialist deny that Socialism has anything to do with the State, so when the State Controls the Business it can not be Socialism right? But if the "People" Control the Business it is Socialism. Issue is a Politically Organized Community that Governs a piece of territory is a State. All socialism is state socialism as a result.
TIKhistory brings up amazing arguments backed up by mountains of evidence to support it. He cites more sources often than the Authors people refer to him. Yet those authors are considered lets say more reliable than him apparently. What I despise the most is when someone says "TIK is a shame because his own sources contradict what he's claiming they say." Which I don't know where they get that from, TIK openly points out when he doesn't agree with the authors he is citing. There is no rule that you have to agree with Author's conclusions, or that you cannot cite a source because the author says one there here but something else there, if that is the case the Author themselves are the ones presenting a contradiction not the one citing the author. TIKhistory even points out a lot of these authors when they contradict themselves often within the same paragraph. So it isn't that TIKhistory is being dishonest, it's often the authors he is citing who've been dishonest and worse people fall for it.
3
-
3
-
I don't think it's "Want" more so than they themselves don't know what Socialism is. A position TIK has taken often. Socialist often flounder at defining Socialism. Which is the Social Ownership of the Means of Production. Every other Socialist will give you a different interpretation on how "Social Ownership" is defined. When you go through the history of Socialism, you see it's a common problem, as when Socialism as an ideology was still being established, everyone was arguing over what Social Ownership even means, even today this hasn't been completely resolved, so you have lots of fractured Socialist opposed to each other who have different ideas of Social Ownership. Which is why you have a hard time finding two Socialist randomly on the internet who have an agreed opinion on what "Social" Ownership is because, there is a high chance they're from two different socialist camps.
When I was a Socialist it was ironically something I never noticed, until I started arguing with socialist. I've seen Socialist defining Communism as Socialism, ie using the common definition of Communist and calling it Socialism, while using the definition of Socialism for Communism, likely someone who thinks the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, so take the USSR as an example of "Not" Socialism. Next day I will run into someone who says State Ownership of the Means of Production is Socialism, and openly supports the idea, and says they're a Social Scientist, and will argue how the Nazis didn't have State Ownership of the Means of Production. etc etc etc etc
You know how it goes.
3
-
3
-
There is a channel called Brandon F.
< Period is included. He does wonderful reenactment videos. He has one which states that getting accepted into say for example American Revolutionary War Regiments for reenactment is actually very strict with age requirements as you have to fit the age range, and you have to have a very deep understanding of the history, how people talked, and willing to pay for all your own gear, uniforms, etc. It's quite complicated, definitely for how much they drill to get it as authentic as they can, he even made a video discussing the difficulties with something as simple as proper glasses for the period, trying to get his hands on a pair, being he requires glasses. He has done videos on how a military camp scares the land, to muskets actually overheating, something you wouldn't think would happen unless you actually use one for prolong periods.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1:22 that fact he is lie like that is so irritating. The Inflationary issue was caused by his Party. They blame it on President Trump but Trump wasn't the one advocating economic shut downs, Trump wasn't the one who wanted the world economy to shut down, throwing people out of work in mass. Meanwhile as a result social welfare had to keep getting paid out... guess what? No people working = No Tax Revenue, no Business operating = No Tax Revenue. How do you pay for all the spending that was going on while the economies of the world were well forced to mostly close their doors for months? Policies people like Biden and his party supported btw. Their only solution was to print money and LOTS OF IT. Meanwhile Americans on the Right were losing their minds trying to tell them how bad of an idea this was, economy means everything, literally everything. Trump's only fault is letting each State handle the Pandemic in their own way. Instead he should have said no we are not closing down, no people can still go to work if they want to, business can stay open. Let people be individuals in charge of their own lives. Sadly he tried to find a middle ground letting the local governments do what they deemed right regardless how dumb they would eventually become. The fact many Democrats actually praised how China was handling it blows my mind, a government which literally welded people's doors shut closed off entire apartment complexes, allowed entire communities to go without food as people were not allowed in/out of communities so no trade/no transportation of good/services... These people were praising monsters... and the fact Biden can have a straight face should be horrifying.
Just about the only thing Trump did that could be partially to blame for this was when he shamed the Democrats for putting Americans out of work, then not wanting to give them federal funds in return to keep people from well... running out of food/goods. The Democrats after the first mass payout to the american public actually wanted to halt those payouts after the fact. They realized it would cause inflation, so didn't want to anymore. Issue was THEY CAUSED the situation that put so many people out of work to begin with. Trump shamed them for it.. and they would pay out I think what two more times after that? He shamed them for throwing people on the streets then not wanting to help the people they threw on the streets.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@crazygoosegaming2602 Sad affair really. When the movie premiered in the USA SJWs tried to keep fans of the anime from seeing it by banning Cosplay for the anime at the very convention that the movie was premiering. Hoping the hardcore fans will get so pissed off that they wouldn't even show. Why? Because the film had a very anti socialist and anti communist vibe, and the antagonist's battalion ie "Mary Sue" literally the name of the antagonist, well their unit's flag was a LGBTXYZ rainbow flag. The people making the movie went all out because a lot of SJWs who reviewed/dicussed the TV series concluded the TV series was about the evils of Capitalism, because they're either idiots or were intentionally lying to mislead viewers of the show, despite it was about Classic Liberalism vs Totalitarianism, with "GOD" being the Totalitarian. With the argument that people should be allowed to decide their own fate, and their own destiny without some "Pappa/Mamma" holding their hands. Tanya literally preaches this throughout the hole gosh darn movie!!!! Basically replacing the Socialist state with the divinity of God himself. Of course SJWs either didn't notice this or lied about it so much that when the studio working on the anime made the film, they had to make it blatantly obvious that it wasn't about the Evils of Capitalism. So then SJWs tried to Cancel it and I think they were semi successful. Sadly Crunchroll and Funimation hold the general rights to Youjo Senki, despite having a dub available in only a few months for the TV series, we've still not seen an official release of the movie, no dub, no DVD/Blu-ray nothing, two years later. You can take a guess why.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
geheimschriver Many of them were in place in 1933. I mean, book burning, banning opposition political movements deemed dangerous to the movement, shutting down opposition newspapers, arresting political rivals for having different opinions not considered correct in their eyes. Not a big difference.
I mean when you have a number of holocaust historians saying these laws are unjust, even if they're used to arrest holocaust deniers, because it's the same kind of injustice that was used to persecute their own people, you know you're doing something wrong. When you deny people a right to have an opinion, that is injustice. False opinions should be combated with "truth" not a jail cell. Only if their actions intentionally deliberately harm someone should criminal action of any kind be considered. But you shouldn't arrest someone for being a conspiracy theory loony. You shouldn't arrest someone because their Red Flag as the wrong "Socialist" movement logo on it. That is injustice.
Let me rephrase that, you 'should' know you're doing something wrong. I forgot, Germany nationally it's afraid of it's own shadow, so it's willing to take extreme measures to avoid being 'associated' with it's past actions.. ironically causing it often to act exactly, like it did in that past.
We have a thing in the USA, well used to do. When Neo Nazis or the KKK go on parade, we ignore them. If you ignore them, they have no power, no voice. We don't arrest them, unless they conduct violence. We don't ban their right to publish books/magazines, we do not deny their right to speak, and march. Guess what? Not a single Neo Nazi, or KKK member has held major political power in the USA in any way for well over 50 years, and at this rate, indefinitely, I would say longer than that, because I can not think of a Pro KKK American president being in office since Woodrow Wilson. Despite what some say Trump isn't a Nazi. He is just a buffoon that feeds on liberal gripes and seems to enjoy making them mad on twitter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ComradeLuna69 But Social Democrats are Moderate Socialist. So they're Socialist.
In fact Utopian Socialism had a heavy influence on Social Democracy, along side Democratic Socialism.
Btw Utopian Socialist didn't believe in Class Division, and THEIR Socialism pre-dates Marxism.
In many respects a lot of groups branched off of Utopian Socialism, and don't even use the word Socialism within their movements today. Including Nationalist. Despite how much Socialist like to deny it.
Utopian Socialism is also the foundation of most Religious Socialist movements who do not see Classes, but followers of the faith. They're also still around as well. Though some Religious Socialist movements do support Marx's classist views, they view the Faith as a means of creating a classless Society, not the Workers.
So there are so many ways to prove you wrong in that statement quite easily.
Basically you're implying Marxist have a Monopoly on the word SOCIALISM which is a bankrupt position to hold, as it flat out ignores all the other socialist movements from the 18th, 19th and 20th century who didn't follow Marx's ideas, at least not completely, and there are PLENTY.
Before Marx the concept of Class within Socialist ideology really didn't exist or at the very least wasn't a pillar of Socialist ideology. Even today not all Socialist movements based their ideology on Class.
A great modern example of this are Black Nationalist in the USA. They replaced the Workers vs the Capitalist with skin colors. Similar to how the Nazis did. Basically becoming Racial Socialist rather than Class Socialist. There is even a wonderful quote from Harold Cruse when he basically said that they had no time to wait on the Marxist. Basically saying if they waited for Marxism to succeed their people would be dead. Despite most academics refuse to call them Socialist, they still wave the Marxist Fist, but painted black.
3
-
@ComradeLuna69 TIK addresses that in this very video you're commenting on. It's a Fallacy.
By that logic the Nazis are not Fascist because they went after the Austrian Fascist. They're not Capitalist because they arrested/imprisoned hundreds of business owners. They're not Christians because they imprisoned hundreds of clergy men.
By the same logic Lenin wouldn't be a Socialist for going after the Mensheviks.
Rosa Luxemburg wouldn't be a Socialist for going after the Democratic Socialist.
See the issue? It's a bad argument. You're mixing up political rivalries for power vs what they actually believed or wanted.
He also uses an example of the British Labour Party's definition of Socialism vs their actual political rhetoric, so even if Norwegian Socialist definition includes Worker Control like the British Labour Party, in the end they're still fighting for Public/State Control. I can not remember if that's in the Definition video of Labor Union video but.... it's an accurate assessment.
As often, it's political juggling. Say Society, Public, Workers, but in the end it circles back to State Control regardless. Which is the primary point TIK made in the definition's video on what Socialism means. Pretty much regardless what Socialist define it as, it will circle back to State Control.
This is why Bakunin referred to Marxism as a Cult of the State, regardless of Marxist rhetoric, as that is what it would come down to when it practice. And guess what, every Marxist country turned into a State top down bureaucratic nightmare. There has been few exceptions. Even in the Nordic States you have what can be best described as State Corporatism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DopaminedotSeek3rcolonthree Yes, most people when they think of antisemitism they think of Racism. They forget there is religious antisemitism as well, which is more against the Jewish religion more so than the concept of race.
Issue with that though is how one also perceives the concept of the Jish religion. Religious antisemitism is often built around the religion itself being a poison not exactly the people.
This dates back to the dawn of Christianity, when Christ threw the out the "Money Changers" from their temple. If you've seen the phrase Money Changer/s it's code for the Js. Also Self Seekers, International Bankers, International Poison are also used.
Historically the stereotype of the J has been the greedy, selfish, self seeker, money changer, banker, etc. The polar opposite of the SELFLESS Christian. All the Cores of the idea of a Capitalist. The idea is all one in the same. So the very idea of the Capitalist has it's roots in a long history of antisemitism and even Marx himself made it blatantly clear.
This Selfish vs Selfless Mentality is also the core of the Capitalist vs the Socialist among Socialist believers. Also the core of all Collectivist vs Individualist movements including Nationalism. Which is why it's easy to view Socialist as a alternative to religion. Despite claiming it's built around Science.. it's roots are built around theorems that themselves are built around faith.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rjames3981 Counts whether they can tell the difference between Socialism and Marxism. Problem I've had with a lot of historians for example, like Richard Evans or Ishay Landa is their very concept of Socialism is literally Marxism. Marxism is a version of socialism built around the Working Class, a very Classist centric version of Socialism. So when they see say Prussian Socialism and claim it isn't Socialism because it's doesn't elevate the working class like Landa points out, they're making that claim entirely from a Marxonian perspective, whether they realize it or not. As even Social Democracy branched off the Marxist movement in the 19th Century, so many of it's core beliefs are still Marxist, but.... Marxism, isn't Socialism, Marxism is a version of Socialism but it's not the definition of Socialism.
There is a reason when you look up the definition it will say Common Ownership, that Common can literally mean almost anything said specific group of Socialist want it to mean, which can include Workers. It's why the definition is idiotically vague.
So say you're a Feminist, and you want women to control the means of production, you're still a socialist. Curious what they would be called honestly Fem-Socialism?
Say you're a Nazi and you want the "Race" to control the means of Production, you're still a socialist. They didn't mind if a private owner still owned/operated the business as long as they did what the State told them, and that they were "German."
Say you're a Social Democrat and you want the State to Control the means of Production (Being a democratic state the people should be fairly represented as they believe.). Well that is also Socialism.
Marxism itself is literally Worker's Control the means of Production.
Socialism exist within a HUGE plethora of different iterations, ideas and concepts of what a Socialist society can be. It's actually why it's quite honest to say "Socialist don't know what socialism is." Because Socialist have yet to really figure out what it is... they're still experimenting.
Spengler the father of Prussian Socialism believed Society could organize itself along Nationality, ie putting the good of the nation and it's people above your own self interest, making capitalism obsolete. So all business operated with the goal of prosperity of the community, not themselves. Making a revolution unnecessary.
You can call Spengler's idea Proto Fascism but. Fascism was also born from Socialism, being most Italian Fascist were originally Syndicalist or Anarchist, in fact James Gregor refers to Fascism as National Syndicalism which is an accurate description of it.
PS Spengler is supposedly the roots of National Socialism in Germany, yet Spengler himself became an out spoken anti Nazi in the mid 1930s. His final book before he died was even banned by the party because he called them Bolsheviks in disguise, basically, despite what some historians have said, the National Socialist broke most of their promises to big business, not the working man, they even nationalized property by outlawing private property by law, something most socialist pretend they never did, there are reasons Spengler went from being a Pro NS to an Anti NS is ONE YEAR.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There was some resistance but it wasn't on the same scale the Germans Faced in occupied countries. Some of it lasted for years, but you gotta remember, unlike occupied countries by the Germans, the Germans had no hope. So even if people wanted to resist who were they resisting for?
Resistance groups mostly fought to weaken the occupier so someone else could come and save them later, they had no hope/dream of forcing the Germans out. on their own So ask yourself this. "Who was coming to save the Germans from their occupiers?" No one. They had no reason to resist, so even the hardliners who did form some forms of resistance didn't last but a few months to a few years. Even today there is some shadow resistance within Germany, as the Government often does raids on pro Nazi arms stashes now and then over the years, they're rare events but they have happened. So even today, they still exist.
On top of that, a lot of Germans welcomed the peace, even if it might be a harsh one. 6 long years of war, and a country mostly devastated, let alone how nasty the Nazi regime progressively became year after year, peace was peace.
Some of the reactions by the Allies and Soviets toward resistance was also pretty harsh. Combatants caught out of uniform were liable to be shot and executed by the Western Powers, and the Soviets burned down an entire town in response. One case in the West from a German sniper, caused the local American garrison to evacuate the town, and gave orders for the town to be shelled for hours by artillery. No one was going to put up with it in short, and few Germans had reason to go along with it, whether they wanted to resist or not.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@redaerf2b414 It's explained quite clearly in his Hitler's Socialism video, as well in this video timestamped 22:41
BTW that quote at that point sums up why Wilson and FDR were socialist presidents, even if the USA itself wasn't. Wilson established the Federal Reserve to ensure strict control of banking/finance within the United States. FDR later confiscated all the privately held gold during the great depression as Keynes would be quite proud of him. Basically eliminating hard Capital from the market, forcing all citizens to be bound to the Federal Reserve's banknotes. Even today, 80 years later, Americans still rely entire on the US Dollar, the concept of gold and silver coinage never truly returned, even the coins issued today hold no real value as they're mixed alloys intentionally done so it's impossible for a normal citizen to know what their value is in rare metals, and you can not melt them down either as they're a mix of multiple alloys and you'd have to be very talented to do so. This all was entirely done to control capital, make it impossible for citizens to have any control themselves for money. Basically the State Monopolized currency, and FDR and Wilson are the primary reasons for it.
3
-
3
-
Reich Labor Service or Reich Labor Front. All employers and employees had to be members of the Union. Wages were set by the Union, who worked where was set by the Union. Employers couldn't even call them employees. Basically the Party built a structure similar to the Army around Labor. Worker's went where they're assigned and employers had no choices on who they hired, how many employees they'd receive or how much they paid them.
So it isn't as "one sided" as Marxonians try to paint it. As TIK also points out, even if wages went down after the formation of the Reich's Labor Service, cost of living also went down, considerably. It's why many Germans remember the 1930's fondly if you were poor. Goods were cheap, cost of housing was cheap, wages were more than enough. So in spite of the pay reduction, living was actually better. Issue is, it was at a hidden cost. Rapid bankruptcy of the Reich's Finances. Basically they were subsidizing food, housing, luxury goods, while also trying to spend spend spend on the military. Within 4-5 years the Nazi party bankrupt Germany.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I remember when I used to be a socialist. The more I read about history, the more I would come to understand how flawed it was. So i supported a limited form of socialism for many years after since I graduated highschool. Which was back in 2003. Now it is 2019 and I'm totally against Socialism in it's entirety after I entered the workforce and just saw how lazy people are inherently. A nation that would adopt Socialism in it's entirety is doomed eventually just from that very fact alone. What scares me more is how nearly every socialist state, including Nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea and all turned into socialist backed plutocracy. No greater example of this than the USSR, and modern China, or North Korea which became an autocracy now that I think about it. Of which even the Russia hasn't completely moved away from, with some of the poorest people in the western world, yet it's leaders live in palaces. People often accuse Capitalism of creating Plutocracies but honestly Socialism is no better, hasn't proven itself to be better. While Socialism in turn feels like empty promises, were as Capitalism you at least have chances, and more freedom to choose.
3
-
3
-
@PainterVierax "Well, socialism includes ideologies that aren't collectivists at all (mutualism, individualist-anarchism). Whereas capitalism includes ideologies that are collectivists (eg. fascism).
Although collectivism doesn't negate individualism so you can have both, like in anarcho-communism who reused Proudhon's distinction between propriety and possession."
You're fooling yourself here.
For example. Anarchism = a Stateless Society, and you can not have a Stateless Society without Individuals fending for themselves, because that is what a Stateless Society will come down to. So any form of Anarchism that states they're not Individualist are either stupid, or lying. For example. Anarcho-Syndicalist, Basically means Stateless Unionism.... but if you have a Union of Trade Unions you technically have a State, as the Unions would be running the show and would be the authority. It is in short an Oxymoronic Term. So say Individualist Anarchism is a double negative similar to the word Irregardless, you're saying pretty much the same thing twice.
You can say the same thing about "State Capitalism." It literally means State-None State, or better yet, Public Control of Private Enterprise which is also Oxymoronic as if the Public Controls the Private Enterprises it isn't exactly Private. If the private individual doesn't have control of their property/enterprises/business then it isn't Capitalist. So State-Capitalism is a joke, just another word to describe nationalization of business without sounding socialist.
Also Mutualism is literally how all economies work, regardless. Baker makes Bread, you buy bread, baker makes money off bread, and you get something to eat. Both benefit from the exchange/action. Just another word people through out their to make their Socialism sound 'friendlier.'
"Whereas capitalism includes ideologies that are collectivists (eg. fascism)."
Hate to burst your bubble but, both Mussonlini and Hitler were against the idea of Capitalism. Similar to Lenin the only Capitalist elements that remained in their regimes existed specifically to aid keeping the economies afloat. In fact both regimes adopted State owned Corporations, stripped private property rights, and even appropriated property from large segments of the community. For example the Nazi's Four Year Plan stripped private control of all raw materials/resources into the direct control of the Nazi Party, and no business could operate without those materials. Even companies like I.G. Farben a poster child by Socialist on how Capitalist the Nazis were, well the party forced much of it's board members out of the company and some were even arrested, and the Party made sure Party Loyalist were in charge. Which ironically means, the Capitalist were not Controlling the Nazis, the Nazis were controlling the Capitalist by brute force, and extortion. Basically to say the Fascist are Capitalist is a gross misinterpretation of history. If you understand Fascist and Nazi ideology, how they viewed the world, you'd understand that they were devoutly against the idea of capitalism. Giovanni Gentile (Father of Fascism) in particular called the Capitalist state a Liberal State, because it was entirely Individualistic. Gentile openly stating that Capitalism is not compatible with Collectivism. Being the Italian Fascist forced all business to join state owned Corporations, they were far from being Capitalist. Fascist view is to prevent class conflict, to prevent the collapse of the economy from the "Crisis of Capitalism" (which doesn't exist btw) which both Hitler and Mussolini believed, the State had to take near direct control of the economy.
3
-
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
-
@noone8418 To be honest, I don't view them as Right Wing. The few Nazis I've talked to have always viewed themselves as Socialist and to be frank seem to have a better understanding on what Socialism is than many other socialist movements..
For example. Utopian Socialist do not view Socialism as a Class Struggle and consider Socialism to be the Opposite of Individualism. Utopian Socialist predates Marxist Socialism. Utopian Socialist are not even against private property and believe in a voluntary almost hive mentality of collective will. In most respects you can argue Utopian Socialist evolved into what we think as Nationalist today. ie a Society which individuals place their communities above their own well being voluntarily. Good examples being Prussian Socialism, Corporatism, Nazism. Were it was less about absolute Totalitarianism and more about Regimentation of Society into a willful Cooperative Society that places the Nation, Corporate State or Race above their own interest.
Marxist Socialism is the dominant form of Socialism today, and it's built on the concept of Class Struggle and everything revolves around the idea of the Oppressed and Oppressor. Even if said movement doesn't consider themselves Marxist, if they fit those two primary tenants, then they're at the very least heavily influenced by it. Examples, Feminism, Communism, CRT. All believe in placing power out of the hands of the Oppressor and placing it into the hands of the Oppressed. That is it's collectivism. It has the same Cooperative end Stage as Utopian Socialist but are obsessed with revolution against oppression.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When it became a World War, defeat was inevitable, for all the Axis powers. The resources, and man power involved were well beyond what any of them could handle with the limited resources, production and manpower available. They could win local conflicts against specific nations, but as another youtuber pointed out. Germany stood literally no chance of winning when she was facing the two largest economies in the world, on top of fighting a war on the scale as she was against the USSR in the east, which on her own Germany likely would struggle with, even if the UK/US did not get involved. Once the war escalated, there isn't really any way Germany or any of the axis powers were going to win, their respective conflicts. Politically, how most of the Allied Powers played their cards, well there wasn't any way to avoid having the conflict escalate either. Even if Germany didn't invade the USSR, I doubt the war would of ended there, and I don't see Germany winning a long drawn out war with the UK/US as well, and yes, the US was most certainly going to get involved eventually, Roosevelt made sure of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you study history, you learn when people are lying to you. When teachers are lying to you, when politicians are lying to you, and when the media are lying to you. And I don't mean just one side of history, you have to study it from many angles, if you don't you will never know who exactly is telling to truth. Cross reference, find who omits information, who leaves things out, who intentionally changes quotes, among many other tricks often used to confuse, and ruin a person's perspective of the world. TIKHistory in one of his recent videos pointed out recently how Wikipedia and an particular author intentionally omitted parts of quotes by Rosa Luxemburg, and it was very likely intentionally, as no citations are made to hint to the reader that parts were left out, which if I did that on a research paper and got caught I'd get in a lot of trouble in collage, yet, some how professionals can do it freely....
Which is why it's so important not to get all your information from one source, you never know if that source is telling you the truth or not. This goes both ways, as this History Tuber has pointed out in many occasions in which Generals in the Memoirs. writers, and historians either lie, get things wrong, do not understand things they're writing about or worse, INTENTIONALLY falsify history. He released a video not long ago when he realized one of the books he was using for his Stalingrad series from a Hoax written by the Soviet General Chuikov.
2
-
2
-
Italian War crimes are generally mixed. I think a lot of it at least in Yugoslavia, and Greece in particular had more to do with the Dual Occupation of those regimes between them and the Germans.
As the famous quote from the Island of Cyprus ""Send us bread or send us Coffins." When the Italian officer was absolutely desperate for supplies/food. Being the Germans bared merchant traffic including Fishing, which many islands in Greece needed to survive, literally. Because of this a lot of people starved to death.
Yugoslavia the Germans split the country a part, and the partisan war that followed the occupation lead to a lot of crimes being committed by all sides in Yugoslavia. Of course the Italian occupation forces would also be involved. As Italy was pretty much a puppet by 1942, and definitely 1943 when the government pretty much dissolved.
Italian concentration camps were a pea when compared to what the Nazis did in number of camps, and the level of brutality seen. A lot of people don't even know the Italians had concentration camps, similar to how a lot of people do not know the Allies including Britain and France had them as well. For reasons of Civil Conflict, lack of resources, the Italian camps were however much worse than that seen used by the French in 1938/39 or the British throughout the war. Most concentration camps on all sides were made for Political prisoners primarily. Including Italy, however, Italy's concentration camps were also used as a 'stops' for German concentration camps with people coming out of the Balkans so they were technically also involved in the big H. Similar to French Concentration Camps Post German occupation.
That being said, at least in Europe anyways. I would easily say Italian war crimes though horrible, were benign when compared to say the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, I would even argue when compared to the USA/Britain if you consider terror bombing war crimes. When we are talking about number of people who suffered as a result anyways.
There is no shadow of a doubt, Fascist Italy was the least brutal of all the Axis powers for a reason, but well, war makes people do bad things, definitely when you're trying to play 2nd fiddle to another madman, and end up having to do what that 1st fiddle says because you need their support.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Notrusbot You don't understand those conflicts very well then. Taiwan specially, hope you're not reading China's version of events on this one, because I find it ironic that both South Korea and Taiwan, ie US backed regimes eventually became democratic yet the opposition the USA protected them from are still not Democratic. So ya.. strange isn't it?
To be blunt there is a lot of anti american propaganda spread about a lot of these conflicts sadly even within the USA which don't paint a great picture of the USA's involvement. I will concede on the post Spanish American War occupations of Philippines, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. But ironically those occupations actually gave Americans back home a nasty opinion of even the very concept of the USA becoming a Colonial Empire. Definitely the brutality of the Filipino War which actually saw some consequences for US officers involved and testimony by soldiers of atrocities committed before the US congress.
It's actually the reason why by the 1920s the USA had already helped the Philippines establish it's own government as a protectorate and later full independence. Of course the USA would still get military access to the Islands. Fun fact the only Peashooter Ace in history was a Filipino in 1941/42 Jesus A. Villamor. Mind you he also trained Eisenhower how to fly.
Panama Canal was a massive investment on the part of the USA, and finished what the French failed to do. Of course the USA would protect it's interest in Panama as a result. So I don't even know why this is brought up. This wasn't a "resource" war either, but the canal was a huge boost to trade/commerce not just for the USA but internationally as well, and also for Panama. Mind you since 1977 Panama has ownership of the Canal.
Banana Wars, were as I mentioned, preventing interest from outside of the Americas from influencing American politics, this including South American politics btw. For example, the Germans were arming and assisting Mexican rebels and insurrectionist in Mexico. USA was dealing with a massive refugee crisis as a result of Mexico's political, social and military instability and dealing with rebels. As well as a number of armed incursions by those rebels onto US Soil. So the USA got very proportional. Ironic as this is currently repeating right now, and the US unwillingness to get proportional has caused the USA a lot of issues as well as Mexico, but the Mexican Government claims it can handle it.. but...
Haiti being a good example, with the US intervention actually providing Haiti with the longest surviving government in it's nation's history up to that time. Prior to the US Involvement Haiti was in constant economic and political strife, collapsing/revolving governments every other year. The only time the US got involved militarily in Haiti it actually installed the Constitution of 1918, and the longest stable government Haiti had seen in generations, and tragically has seen since.
2
-
2
-
2
-
To be Frank, Rarity, Labor Time, and Use Value are all sub servant to Subjective Value. Not that they don't exist at all, though I would still argue labor time can not be calculated but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Issue why most capitalist dismiss other value theories is because they all still bend the knee to subjective value when you look at it deep enough.
Example on Rarity. When referring to works of art all art is subjective. Being every single painting that has ever been made is unique and one of a kind, no two paintings are alike, and even when someone tries to copy a painting it's still unique. It's value should if based on rarity be nearly limitless because there is never a painting that is the same. However, other factors come into play, like the age of said painting or who painted it, even if at the time said painter may have not been considered valued in his/her day. Regardless of Rarity, it's still based on a person's personal assessment of it's value ie subjective opinion of the value of said work. Hitler would literally have art destroyed that he didn't like, regardless of rarity, regardless of age, and regardless of history. To him it held no real value, and was even degenerative. In most respects, the only thing that differs from common painting or a multi million dollar masterpiece is "Opinion." Which is Subjective Value.
Use Value. I think the issue with Use Value is, literally everything has a Use Value, and there really are no exceptions. I mean literally where I work we use a rock to hold a door open, a random ROCK holds use value. I mean someone chose to make that rock serve a use, giving it use value. It wasn't pre-ordained by GOD, an individual person decided it had value and gave it a use. ie Subjective Value. All use value is because someone somewhere decided something had value because they found a use for it, it wasn't preordained. Give a person in the Amazon a 100 Million Dollar piece of Art, and to them, it might as well be fire wood because really that is about as useful as it would likely be for them. Making the concept that it's even rare to begin with kind of worthless. Because Value is Subjective.
Labor time, this one actually bugs me. Because really, anyone who's worked in the real world knows it's mostly poppycock. I know people who've not been fired from their jobs in spite of having horrible attendance just because for the few days a week they are at work they often do a weeks worth of work vs some of their peers. This rings true just about in every single field. Even a Burger Flipper, two different people will not have the same skill set, or fortitude to perform identically. I know when I ran a brake press I could get around 3000 parts done a day, 4x as much as the guy who trained me who was one year younger than me. These variables honestly makes it very difficult to calculate Value based off of Labor itself. No two employees are alike, even if you make the production processes as simple as possible. I find it interesting, and honestly insulting that you almost had to claim that WORKERS have no SKILL in the work place anymore to justify Labor Time. Seriously... as a worker myself I wish I could back hand you. You can not even run off averages because you can never guarantee that skill sets will be evenly spread out to make viable calculation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
Well not technically, not all of them. Also he is using multiple sources, and showing them contradicting each other. So this implies someone interpreted those archives poorly? There have also been examples of historians intentionally misrepresenting the material they dug out of the archives hoping no other historian would have the brass to dig for those materials as they did. David Irving being a great example, when Richard Evans eventually went back only in response to a court case, to find out how much Irving had been manipulating the evidence he often cited in his books. This implies that for decades no one went back to see if he was well interpreting those documents accurately. Which implies a lot of historians DO NOT DIG into those ARCHIVES. lol
So no... using archives do not exactly make you a "REAL" historians, definitely when many real historians have been caught manipulating what they've found. TIK has caught a few in previous videos actually without even needing to look into official archives, by using some of the available online archives. His Hyper Inflation video Part 2 for example, he catches one intentionally cutting out part of a quotation he did of Rosa Luxemburg without showing proper citation that he did so, you know the "Bod walked... ...inside." "Bod walked outside to get the mail, then proceeded to walk inside." Using the ... followed by ... is how you indicate you cut part of a quote out. If you don't do that, you're committing a form of intellectual fraud because you're basically lying about what someone said by not showing the reader you removed part of the quote so they have a reason to go back and see the real quote. TIK caught someone doing that. It's one thing misquoting someone and interpreting said quote wrong, but.. it's another thing changing a quote without showing you changed it. As that is INTENTIONAL. TIK could ruin that guys career I bet if he wanted to as it's just as big of a dastardly move that David Irving would do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is seriously some WWII style gains here. I think of Operation Uranus, where once the Soviets were able to break, cut off and eventually surround forward Romanian positions, the Romanian and German forces in the area only had a few reserves they could send to try to block the break. Even though the operation took longer than the Soviets planned because of stubborn Romanian Resistance, once that break was made, and no reinforcements in the rear to stop it, within days after they broke the line, they were literally advancing unopposed behind Axis lines. Within a week the entire 6th Army, among other auxiliary forces, and Romanian/Hungary, Croatian, as well as Ukrainian and Russian Hiwis were surrounded.
2
-
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
-
2
-
@superstormthunder3 Christians are Conservatives because they've established much control across America. Conservativism is literally To Conserve, and they seek to preserve what they've established. It's where the word Conservative come from.
A good example, in Russia to be a Conservative say in the 1990s would have been to Conserve what remained of the Soviet Union, to Conserve Socialism.
The word Conservative itself when applied Broadly, in a Political Context in that way is actually meaningless. As the idea of what is considered "Conservative" changes wildly from place to place.
The most popular forms of Socialism prior to Marx has been dubbed Conservative Socialism for the same reason. Many of the ideologs behind Pre-Marxist Socialism wanted to use Socialism to conserve their way of life, as the industrial revolution zapped more and more power away from the Nobility and Aristocracy. Basically bring society into the control of the "State" and that "State" was run by of course the best/brightest of Society, and of course they were referring to themselves.
Honestly why when someone says Conservative = Right Wing it's kind of well... weird to me. Similar to Liberalism it can jump the fence so to speak, and isn't really bound to either side. Definitely being the concept of Left/Right came out of the French Revolution Primarily and what was deemed left/right out of that revolution has little semblance with modern day societies.
It's personally why I kind of agree with those who say we should just ditch the idea entirely and only focus on what people support, what they want to do, not what 'side' they say they're on or what their opposition claims they're on.
About whether Hitler's a Socialist. It's kind of a gray subject. It really matters what someone perceives as Socialism. Most arguments against Hitler being a Socialist can often be dismissed when you realize Hitler replaced Marxist "Classism" with German "Racism." So many Classist Principles of Marxism literally no longer apply.
The Working Class was no longer the focus of the movement and the movement was entirely about the Race. Being Socialism isn't about the Working Class. Marxism is, MARX added the Classist Element to Socialism. So most arguments against Hitler 'not' being a Socialist often only prove he isn't a Marxist. Which is well "Duh."
Same argument works well against critics of Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism, which has more in Common with Conservative Socialism, not Marxist Socialism. But most critics use his opposition to Marxist Socialism, and Marxist Socialist style programs as proof he wasn't a Socialist. So again, they successfully prove he wasn't a Marxist, and for how openly hostile Spengler was toward Marxist he would 100% agree.
There have been some arguments about the Nazi regime creating large Cartels instead of Unions. But a Cartel functionally is a Union. Cartel itself is used as an synonymy for Syndicate/Union/Fasci/Soviet/whatever you want to use to describe a "Band" of people working together. There is a reason in say America "Organized" Crime it is referred to as Cartels, yet say in Japan they're referred to as Syndicates, and Syndicalism is a branch of Marxism. The words are synonymy's and by using the Cartel, they're accidentally admitting the Nazis unified industries into larger segments for the Party to control. lol
I will quote Tooze "Both Governments [Nazi and Soviet] reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase State Control over economic activities." Which is why I laugh at the Cartel argument.
Gunter Reimann's The Vampire Economy goes into depths on how much control the Nazi party instilled upon the Economy. Though Reimann being a Communist, he of course has Marxist Goggles when coming to conclusions but how he describes life doing business in the Reich is utterly terrifying. One wrong move would see almost everything you worked for or owned taken from you by the State. Basically to sum up, if you want to make tables, but the state says chairs, you have to make chairs. The Party even abolished private property rights in the Reichstag Fire Decree and Monopolized Labor under the Reich's Labour Service. Business couldn't even decide what to pay their employees, they were not even allowed to call them employees. You couldn't hire or fire who you wanted either.
I know some have also argued wages were lower in the Reich, but so was also cost of living, and the Reich was trying to avoid inflation, so lower wages, with the state Fixing prices lower than their actual value so people could afford those goods, was a method they used to mask inflation. Because the Nazis were utterly terrified of inflation they saw what happened in the late 1920, they lived through it.
I would love to talk about Hitler's ideas on "Socialization." But I'd have to find the quotes on it, which I don't have easily on hand. To be blunt, Hitler believed Appropriation of Land Property shouldn't be necessary, as long as he was Socializing the People themselves. This is why the party didn't Nationalize all business/industry, at least openly, they nationalized all social elements of people's lives, from social clubs, women's leagues, recreational activities, etc etc etc, everything in this context was put into the Party's direct control. There was no "Private" Life in the 3rd Reich.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I honestly see nothing wrong with Bona vacantia. Being the State already practices it itself. So if the Monarch isn't doing it the State will anyways. Basically if it's bad for the Monarch to technically profit off the dead who do not have wills. Then the State is just as guilty for doing the same. If it's wrong for the Monarch it should be also wrong for the State to do the same.
Now what I don't like is the whole Ambulance thing, that is pretty scummy. That being said. Where I live banks can seize all your savings if you do not go to the bank after 5 years. So say you leave your money in a bank to accumulate interesting and not touch it for 5 years, the "State" will call open the bank to seize that money and give it to the State. Which in my opinion is State Theft because the owner of that account is still alive.
Sadly a lot of places have petty laws like this, which benefit the government. Bona vacantia only sounds bad because well, the Monarch is the Government in those Duchies. But the fact the British Government does the same implies Bona vacantia carried over into the hands of the State in regions directly ruled by the State, so it's essentially the same greedy practice. USA it can also happen, the State can seize land/property and wealth off someone who didn't create a will, families can fight a long legal battle over it, but say said person died alone, and family was unaware of it, well everything they had is the State's. So sadly even in the USA this is practiced.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GreakFTW That is honestly not exactly true. Success rate is so low that it's honestly throwing money away into the trash. Only reason Ukraine for example is getting successful strikes is mostly because of how bad Russia's general air defense is, that even systems as dumb as a V1 Buzz Bomb would be able to penetrate, some are about as smart as a V1 Buzz Bomb, and watching them slowly fly into Russia and successfully hit a target, something a DSHK could shoot down, shows a serious lack of defenses.
Meanwhile Russia has not had really the same success vs Ukraine, as you rarely hear stories of any real strategic assets taking serious damage anymore, as Ukraine uses literally everything from DSHK, Browning .50cals, Maxim Machine Guns, advanced air defense systems provided by a lot of countries on top of that. Almost nothing Russia throws seems to make it through now days.
So you have a scenario where both sides are throwing dumb ordnance at eachother but one is more successful because one has better air defense systems in place.
Also quality definitely matters. If you look at how the Moskva was sunk by just two missiles. It had a long history of being a broken ship similar to the Admiral Kuznetsov. Both ships were terrible, scary on paper until you realize they were made by well the Soviet Union which cut corners like a stereotypical corporation would, because well a Socialist Republic is basically a Giant Corporation. Kuznetsov ran on what can be best described as glorified "Tar" as fuel. Making it a smelly, dirty, hot mess prone to fires, and basically a floating death trap, that never worked, and spent almost it's entire life in repairs. Moskva is a similar story, by the time she was sunk, she was basically gutted, and barely functional. She didn't even fire a single shot in defense to shoot down either of those missiles.
Quantity comes at the cost of quality. I would be interested in how bad 'Quantity' warships would be in the 21st century. What corners would they cut to get as many ships into the water as possible? Will they even be functional? Would they suffer like Soviet Ships did?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When you judge people by race, you're a racist. Plain and simple. There is no way around that. CRT is built on Marxist Critical Theory, and all Critical Theory built around Social groups is built on that foundation. Marx himself was a Racist, and Classist, and Classism is no different than Racism as you judge people on their social status vs them as an individual person. Which is likely why people on the left are so obsessed with their social status, their social points, how high up the Social Ladder. All Critical Theory build around Social Groups, whether it's Class, Gender, or Race are all bad Critical Theories in short, as they're built on the same judgmental, hypocritical foundation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@debs-101 Dystopian regimes at their finest.
Hitler's idea of a People's State built on Racial Purity of blood, and ruled by those who prove their usefulness to society by merit. ie he used the idea of "Race" as a glue to bring people in society together.
Marxist ideologies are not much different. Switch out a Race focused People's State, and replace it with a Worker's State, and the Class is used as the glue that holds their "New" Society together, and you fundamentally have something that is different in name/fundamentals but in actual practice/implementation, too similar to ignore.
To sum it up. To create that Racial State, requires removing those from Society who get in the way of creating that Blood Pure Society.
To create a dictatorship of the Proletariat, requires removing all those in society who are enemies of the Proletariat, or are a threat to it's continued existence.
Look up quotes from Lenin about the Kulaks. Basically under Lenin he renamed a specific percent of the Rural Peasant Farming community Kulaks and dubbed them as evil as the bourgeoise, and this persecution of the rural Russian/Belarusian and Ukrainian farmers didn't end with Lenin, as you obviously know. Reason for these persecution primarily stems from agricultural reforms that happened under the Tsarist Russia which a large percent of farmland was actually sold back to the peasants that worked the fields/farms. Because of this, a lot of Rural farmers in Eastern Europe were Landowner. Owning Private Property made you "Evil" in the eyes of all Marxist. Of course when farmers resisted the appropriation of their land/property, Lenin had them ruthlessly crushed.
Lenin in 1918
"Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volosts [regions] must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this because we have now before us our final decisive battle with the kulaks.
We need to set an example. You need to hang – hang without fail, and do it so that the public sees – at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. Publish their names. Take away all of their grain. Execute the hostages – in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.
This needs to be accomplished in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let’s choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.”"
Makes my skin crawl that Lenin considered people who had two too many cows, and refused to give grain over to the red army "Rich Men, and Blood Suckers." When technically his regime stealing from Peasants made his "Red Army" a parasite.
Wasn't just Lenin either.
Josip Broz Tito Communist Leader of Yugoslavia post WWII.
"We will liquidate the kulaks, but not because he is a kulak but because he is a fifth columnist... The present struggle is national liberation in form, but class war in essence."
It's why to be honest, Classism and Racism are two sides of the same coin. Both label specific groups of people in society as evil, and use it to justify persecution, and at times mass murder.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
People say Fascism is a system in which the State enslaves the people, and I know it's actually far more complicated than that I've just seen so many Socialist/Yay! Marxism people excuse the Soviet system because it was for the People (When it's not, it's for the Party Elite who run the Communist Party), while Fascism wasn't, clearly showing they know nothing about Fascism, and nothing about the Soviet system and those who want to emulate it. Yet what did you get with the Soviet system? The people were enslaved by the State and I'd argue it was literally just as Nationalistic being all a Nation is is an Group Identity that has become Conscious of itself. So what do you get when the Working Class become Class Conscious and Politically organize as one community? A Nation, all Marxism is in turn Nationalism in spite calling themselves Internationalist. Ironically being most Communist parties in Europe wanted to emulate the Soviet system as well throughout most of the 20th Century. Yet somehow by the 1980s that started to shift likely as the reality started to set in that it wasn't sunshine/rainbows. Tragically, not everyone has still realized that, and I think the cloak of the USSR is starting to shroud reality once again.
Being there was no Market as well, the Soviet people has zero say, you got the products the State Allowed, and being the USSR was flat out broke by the 1970/80s the Soviet people got the absolute scraps, and suffering from horrific inflation masked by State Price Fixing of Consumer goods/food, ya.. it was pretty bad. The fact it's made so cheap you can see where they cut plastic away around the buttons just so the buttons would function.. it's very crude. I've seen some cheap electronics in my life but I've never seen them made so crudely, to where you see visible cut marks all over the product where they cut away bits of plastic to make things fit, there was no precision in it's manufacturing at all. Just by looking at it, it's likely also a soft plastic to boot. TOYS are made better than this let alone electronics. In fact the terrible build quality reminds me of some cheap toys you'd find in a dollar store in the 90s. The similar wavy looking plastic and lack of polish reminds me of cheap toys.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because they're not criticisms, they're morons who don't actually watch his videos, then criticize the videos in turn, most often using arguments ALREADY addressed in the very video they're criticizing. If you watch this video in particular you will see why he makes these responses, every single point they made has already been addressed in the very video they were responding to, and he did this response to point that out, it's the biggest problem with people who are critical of his videos, is that they do not actually watch the videos to even know the arguments he is making. It is why at 2:00 he directly points to post telling by people in the comments toward critics to watch the video because those critics in the comments try to use arguments addressed in the video. Why? Because they don't watch the video, they see the title and rush to the comment section.
The very fact someone made a Video response to his Hitler's Socialism video, bringing up points that TIK already addressed, is the problem, they never watched the video. They didn't even bother to do any prep work prior to making the video, their first time watching it was when they were doing the vlog, and they didn't really go farther than 10-15 minutes.
I can put it bluntly. If you never watched a movie, or a TV show, why should you have a right to criticize that film saying it's bad? Same goes for a youtube video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MK-jc6us Don't know what happened but you're last comment doesn't come up when I try to click on it. However, the source I used was many, I checked the US Government's official website, Wikipedia, and even checked Quora as you often get some interesting answers with references there, none of them said the Soviet Union paid anything more than 722million in debt as a result of Lend Lease. So out of the Billions of Aid the USSR paid but a tiny fraction of it. The reason it didn't happen until the 1970s was because the USSR insisted it would only pay 120million but eventually yielded to a larger sum. Issue is for a "State" a few hundred million dollars is relatively insignifgant. Unless the USSR was literally that poor.
So out of 11 billion worth of aid the USSR paid less than 10% of that, the USSR insisted for years that it should only pay 1% of that which is why there was such a delay. USA twisted their arm and they paid around 7%. Being a majority of Lend Lease provided to the USSR was material, like food, coal, iron, fuel/oil with most of the military assets loaned being trucks which was like 14,000+. You can argue it was closer to 10% being who knows how much of the military equipment was lost in battle and would be voided as needed paid for.
If you recall 90% Discount 7% is very close to that 10% the USA insisted that Lend Lease receivers pay, when you take into consideration what 722million is compared to 11 billion and that some of that 11 billion was likely lost at sea and in battle and would be forfeit from being repaid.
However, that being said, the Math does reinforce that even the USSR was given that 90% discount. So the USSR never had to pay tens of billions back and wasn't really in debt in any significant way.
Now I know some people use sources where the USSR spent a few billion USD worth on war materials during the war, but those were for things that Lend Lease did not provide, and much of it was to the UK, not the USA, as the UK had a completely different program. USA didn't have everything, heck not even for herself, like Rubber for example. So there are war materials the USA couldn't provide the USSR and the USSR still had to purchase from elsewhere.
Even if you include that it's technically irrelevant as the Axis Powers post War paid the Soviet Union billions in reparations anyways. So if the USSR had to spend a few billion on war materials she was paid back with billions of material supplied by her former enemies. Quote for example.. "in addition to the large reparations paid to the Soviet Union by the Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany and the eventual German Democratic Republic in the form of machinery (entire factories were dismantled and shipped to the Soviet Union) as well as food, industrial products, and consumer goods...." "... amounting to approximately $12 billion in total..." cut out the bits about how much Italy, Romania, and other Axis powers paid, they collectively tie into that 12 billion but the quote would of been really long otherwise. So the USSR not only had to pay only 722million to the USA she received 12 billions in reparations, not even including the use of forced labor from Axis POWs well into the 1950s for construction projects/rebuilding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w btw this guy uses statistics often provided by the Soviet Union to prove that the USSR even by 1960s still haven't reached Pre-WWI levels, let alone Pre-WWII levels, even though the video is titled WWII. Being Grain figures in the USSR was still lower in the 60s than it was during Pre-War 1913 Imperial Russia, and he is using Soviet Statistics. They only topped out those 1913's figures after Nikita Khrushchev started a re-privatization program similar to Lenin's New Economic Policy which was also a Privatization Policy of Agriculture in spite what Soviet propaganda tries to state. Ushanka show and TIKhistory have pointed out that 80% of potatoes and grain in the USSR by the 1980s were produced by PRIVATE farms not collective farms. Yes the USSR had a privatization program, they just skirted around it and never used the word privatization.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thisfool89 And it was Marx who said we should have a 'Rationally Regulated Economy' if I recall. Wouldn't paying the State to be even allowed to do business part of that? I mean this video is a good example of the State regulating water resources, and only organizations that are associated or friendly with the State can benefit from it. Meanwhile weeded out private fishermen. Basically creating a State sponsored monopoly on fishing. PS Marx advocated such monopolies as well though he advocated direct state controlled monopolies in the context how the US does it it's kind of indirect but the state is still heavily involved.
I'd highly recommend looking up the ten points or pillars of the Communist Manifesto. Basically things the Party was demanding needs to happen to the government/economy. For the USA I think the only three that have not been implemented currently are.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Some have argued that as a result of property taxes and the State's right to take land off people who refuse to pay those taxes, that this has actually been done in all but in name. Implying that we're all just renting land off the State.)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (though I heard there are some pushing this actually as we speak.)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State. (some still argue this one because of corporate monopolies and corporations and the state are in coexistence with each other. But i don't think we've gotten there quite yet, as the state doesn't have direct or indirect control yet.)
Points 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 have all been already done in the USA.
And yes 9 has been. Most farmers today are de facto employees of the Federal Government because of heavy subsesidation and even the state telling them what to grow as a result. So the State is rationally regulating agriculture. It's actually why so much produce is thrown out. The State is obsessed with stable prices, and over production will cause prices to fall. So a lot of over production of milk is bought by the state, thrown out or comically put into long term storage as dry cheeses, yes the USA as a cheese reserve. Canada they just dump their excess milk production USA we go the extra mile. Because ya can not have cheap affordable milk for consumers. Not the evil Corporation's fault either but the State.
List goes on and on honestly. Yet somehow we live in capitalism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Interesting note, very few Fascist organizations in Europe were racist. I know the Spanish, Hungarian, and Italian Fascist were not racist. Italy you can argue post 1938, but that had more to do with appeasing Hitler for an Alliance, which is why they didn't really enforce antisemitic oppression. I would say the Puppet State of Croatia under Nazi Germany is perhaps the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but being a Puppet State influenced by the Nazis, it's understandable. So it really lets you realize that Racism, is not one of the core parts of Fascism. I know Italian Fascism in particular it was about bringing all of Societies groups together through Nationalism, you were Italian first, Christian/Jewish/Sicilian second etc etc. This is dramatically different than how the Nazis viewed Nationalism. Which is why I kinda agree with TIK that the Nazis and Fascist should be viewed separately, not as the same movement. Influencing each other but still not the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@galdutro Brazil would have to make offers that foreign investors can not refuse. With China going into an economic down turn and possibly recession or worse, collapse. Brazil may get her chance again. I hope so... as South America needs more wins, the past few decades haven't been so great from what I've seen for much of South America with boom/bust cycles coming/going for a number of countries which seemed to throw all their eggs in one basket until demand for said resource well went down or someone came along with a cheaper option. You can not rely on resources alone.
The primary financial hubs of the world are in the USA/Europe, so that is where the money is at and that is who Brazil needs. In fact if I recall being a Financial hub is literally the only think keep the UK a Float for example, ie foreign capital flowing in/out of the country at a fee. Similar to Japan the UK is a resource starved country, so it has few options for prosperity, so that's what it's been focusing on. Japan's approach has been different, even after China overtook it Japan focused on importing resources/exporting goods made out of said resources, in spite of China being next door they're still among the largest economies in the world.
About the Battery thing. China has that market largely cornered. The quality ones go into vehicles of wealthier countries/companies. The cheaper batteries made in China pretty much stay for domestic production, and China has the largest E-Vehicle manufacturing currently in the world... they also have the largest number of E-Vehicle Explosions in the world as well, so they're definitely batteries no one wants.. and sadly the resources making those Chinese E-Vehicles is likely being wasted. As they were made for the Chinese people and the Chinese people are growing terrified of them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Issue I have with Tucker at 1:29 is he is literally interviewing someone who is a renown liar. You can not trust a single word Putin says, and I'm not embellishing this. If people understood Putin's world view, and how he views politics you'd think he was a madman. For example, when Putin says "Liberal" he isn't talking about Blue Haired Woke people per se. In Russia Liberalism extends to individualist values, including literally everything the United States stands for, our old Libertarian Classic Liberal values that founded this country. He literally believes the western world is out to destroy Russia. He even blames the start of the 2nd World War on Poland, a position many Communist in Eastern Europe believe and many Nazis world wide believe. Because Stalinist and Nazis have a similar view to the lead up to hostilities. Putin I don't think realizes this but he actually makes Hitler look innocent when he blames Poland for WWII.
This also doesn't include the fact Putin doesn't believe in freedom of speech, has pretty much nationalized almost all media in Russia and is now going to ban all VPNs in Russia so only state approved media can be fed to his citizens. I mean if you believe "WE" should hear his side of the argument, he sure as heck doesn't want "HIS" people to hear anything but "HIS" side of the argument.
Basically, best way to sum it up. The man doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a lying scumbag through and through. He lives in bizarro world. Anything Tucker can get out of Putin is likely not true, or grossly distorted.
Issue I have with it is, enough people "Want" to believe Putin that this Interview will do a lot of harm, and the fact I know most people know jack crap about history, definitely eastern European history and post WWII/Cold War politics in the region makes it even worse. For example I doubt anyone who reads this comment even knows Putin blames Poland for WWII because they don't know the "Soviet" Perspective on WWII and how F***ed up it is and Putin was raised with it and believes it. He still believes Soviet Propaganda of the west as well.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the polarization of the USA which happened post 2015 isn't coincidentally around the same time the USA started providing military aid to Ukraine. After Russia failed first invasion of the country in 2014. Remember Putin hates the west, and who else hates the west? Gullible blue haired people who are easily convinced by throwing a few anti western propaganda bait on the internet.
Anyone who is right wing in America are foolish in short if they think this is the right road. I'm a right wing Libertarian and I'm just shocked at how the right in America is handling the Russo-Ukraine War. But I'm also a big study of history and politics, mostly dealing with ideobabble. As a good history tuber recently coined. Love that word he invented.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
MiG-23, the Soviet Union's answer to the F-4 Phantom. Fun fact with the MiG-23 is that it copied the F-4 Phantom's engine intakes. So much so they even kept the blades between the intakes/fuselage meant to prevent landing nets from an aircraft carrier causing unnecessary damage to the aircraft. People often claim the intakes were not copied but it's odd the MiG-23 would have features that the F-4 had specifically for carrier landings when the MiG-23 wasn't a carrier aircraft. This heavily implies the engineers working on the MiG-23 copied features from the F-4 without knowing exactly what those features were for. To me it makes it quite obvious that they took the F-111 and married it with the F-4 Phantom and ended up with an aircraft that was barely better than the F-4 Phantom.
Problem with this aircraft though is, is that it was quickly made obsolete within only a few years of service. It was barely an upgrade over the MiG-21 when it entered service, and once more modernized versions of the MiG-23 came about it was already too late, as far more advanced western designs had already entered service.
I'd argue comparing the MiG-23 to aircraft like the F-16, F-14, and F-15 shouldn't really be done. To be honest, it's more comparable to the F-4 particularly the E variant than other American aircraft. For how much older the F-4 is. That doesn't bald well for the MiG-23 in my opinion. What I'm saying is, the MiG-23 is basically as I said before a Soviet F-4 Phantom literally. They have nearly identical performance wise with the F-4E actually having a maneuverability advantage. So it mostly comes down to weapons, electronic suites, and pilot training.
To be blunt. By the time the MiG-23 came out the concept of Super Sonic Fighters being relevant was already going the way of the dodo. They're still relevant only in the context that they're fast. It's the only advantage a F-4E or MiG-23 would have over say something like an F-16 or MiG-29 and that is if they're modernized versions. Put it this way, within a year or two the F-16 and F-15 would exist. Meanwhile the MiG-23 was considered barely an upgrade by most pilots from the MiG-21.
As I said. MiG-23 should be compared to the F-4E Phantom. It's the closest aircraft performance wise that the US Air Force had to the MiG-23 even if the MiG-23 was slightly better in some areas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
3:00 Actually the primary definition of Socialism is Common Control. Not worker Control. Worker Control came about because of Marxism but the socialist movement pre-dates Marxism. When you look up Common Control it can literally mean almost anything under the sun that said "group" of socialist want it to mean at that particular time.
Which is why Austrian Economist "Ludwig von Mises" who gave rise to the Austrian School of Economics and was himself a former socialist in his youth before abandoning it entirely stated in one of his books that the Definition of Socialism has periodically changed throughout the century. And I paraphrased that as I don't know the exact quote. However, even today, there isn't a Consensus on what Socialism even is even among Socialist, and I'm not talking about the grunts on the ground but intellectuals. During the 19th Century Socialist activist had already split the movement into multiple different camps, and by the 19th Century even the Marxist camp had broken into rival groups. All having their own ideas on what Socialism is. Communism at one time and history even used to be a synonym for Socialism but has since been distanced from it primarily because of Lenin and the USSR, as an example how it's ever changing.
However, Common Control can include State Control, even in the Communist sense if you're in a Worker's State and the State consist of the Workers ie Soviets ie Trade Unions, hence the name Soviet Union originally, then well the Worker's are technically the State. Issue is those at the top of those worker's consuls live like kings. It's actually the same logic that the Italian Fascist used to claim they're the ultimate form of Democracy as a State that is the people, which means that even if the State controls everything the State is the people and in turn no one is a slave, and everyone is free because everyone is the state. Hence why Giovanni Gentile literally said "Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state." Fascism itself was built off of Marxist Syndicalism. They abandoned Classism and replaced it with Nationality. Which is why it isn't built around Labor, or Workers anymore. But they still push for State Centralized Control. Look up National Syndicalism, Fascist Syndicalism and Fascist Corporatism. It's quite interesting how many Italian and Austrian Fascist were former Marxist Socialist. Even German Fascist like Hitler and Sepp Dietrich were members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
2
-
@mattysav4627 I would argue the Communism and Socialism were Synonyms of each other so their goals used to be the same thing. Being they used to be part of the same general movement. As I already said between Intellectuals Socialism was a heavily split movement but for the common man supporting Socialism it was "one thing" to them Communism and Socialism were the same thing. Being Intellectuals still haven't decided what Socialism even is, as I mentioned Mises's claim that definition has changed constantly over time, heavily implies that socialist are still trying to figure out what Socialism is, which is an admission they actually don't' know. This is why you can often have multiple Socialist intellectuals today on a debate all having varied definitions of socialism, because it isn't a consensus yet even among those who champion it.
As I mentioned this has been a problem for Socialist for 200+ years now. Dates back nearly to the very beginning of the movement. I mean Proto Nazis existed already in the 19th Century with their own ideas of Socialism. Libertarian Socialism had already been founded by the 19th Century. State Socialism which is the most common Socialism which is included in Social Democracy, Preussen Socialism (Proto Nazis), Syndicalism ie Trade Unionism which includes Corporatism in my opinion being it branched from Syndicalism, ie making a country ruled by Trade Unions which the Soviet Union was pretty much being it was a Federation of Trade Consuls, so a Nation run by Trade Unions. Which is why I compare the USSR to Fascist Italy being Italy adopted Corporatism which was a less extreme form of Syndicalism. I know Syndicalist claim their movement is anti state but they still advocate creating a collective community which lets face it would be a state. Which is why I didn't mention Anarcho Syndicalist because honestly they're just Syndicalist but ones that adopted a contradiction.
I mean there are so many different forms of Socialism that it would be hard to make a definition of it, and it's understandable why Intellectuals have that problem.
I would recommend watching TIK History's videos on this subject. He does a great job quoting intellectuals from these movements in many of these videos, even if you do not agree with his conclusions.
TIK would claim that in the 1920s Socialist went through a large Socialist civil war in the heart of Europe. Which would give rise to Fascism, and eventually Nazism as some former socialist ended up rejecting the old ideas and decided to create their own socialism. Because that socialism civil war shattered their entire world view on socialism and they utterly lost faith in the socialist they used to follow.
The split in the German Socialist Democratic Party the SPD being a great example, or how Hitler and Deitrich were members of the Communist Party of Bavaria while many other eventual nazis served with the Freikorp under the Social Democratic (Also a Socialist Party) against the Communist, which is literal Socialist fighting Socialist. Even if the Freikorp was doing it on the SPD's behalf. But he is glad to point out that they were all Socialist in 1919/1920 yet were enemies. Similar to how Lenin absolutely destroyed the Social Democrats in the Russia which even formed a democratic government in Saint Petersburg which he destroyed btw which is why the Social Democrats in Germany take a hard line against the pro Leninist Communist say the Spartacus and Bavarian People's Republic. Because Lenin had eliminated their Russian peers with violence/death and if the Leninist in Germany achieved power they'd do the same to all other socialist. This was literally a Socialist vs Socialist war.
Yet some how despite this the SPD are often referred to as right wing counter revolutionaries by pro Marxist writers/historians which is just mind blowing. I mean they're Far Right despite being Socialist, and they're Counter Revolutionaries Despite being the first Revolutionary Government after the fall of the Kaiser. Makes you never want to trust a word from a Marxist ever again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jameshodgson3656 You don't know the chaos of the Inter-War period. Between 1918-1920. Most armies really not much better than armed mobs with uniforms fighting for Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Red Army, etc. Poles were fighting Germans, Ukrainians and Lithuanians. Ukrainians were fighting the white and red Russians, and Poles. List goes on and on. Lets say civilians were not protected, towns were assaulted, everyone wanted to claim as much land for their "New" Nations as they could, a lot of crimes were committed by almost all parties.
Heck fun fact Heins Guderian fought in Lithuania as a Freikorp Volunteer and served with a unit responsible for the murders of many local civilians in the region, despite fighting against the Red Russians, they were also fighting against the Lithuanians. In short, he stained his hands if blood long before Hitler ever came around despite being considered the Father of Mobile Warfare.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Commiboos are not restricted to people on the internet. They can be politicians and military generals/advisers as well. I mean if the Wehraboo could dominate American military thinking for years during the Cold War, the Commiboo could do the same. They existed side by side for years, but the wehraboo as been pretty much forced out, while the Commiboo still around. Their conservative approach to how war works, how politics works, and how society in general works ie still being stuck in the 1930s-80s.. is why TIKhistory called them Commiservatives.
They're the reason the T-34 is so heavily praised, why the AK rifles are revered as Gods, and the Simplicity of Soviet design is considered superior to overly complicated western systems in so many circles. DESPITE in practice history has proven otherwise. Every war Western vs Eastern weapon systems bumped heads, the western systems won almost every single time. It's also the fault of what LazerPig calls the Fighter plane Mafia who also advocate for Simplicity = Better, ignoring that the fundamentals of warfare have changed so greatly that rules/tactics even from just 30 years ago are pretty much void on the modern battlefield, in an age of smart phones, drones, and procession munitions. Every Soldier is now a radio man, every soldier has a GPS, every soldier can film, and relay live footage/information to intelligence, get accurate positions of enemies for artillery, etc. Drones providing a bird's eye view with real time information never really seen before.
I think Animarchy stated it best, when he said Russia tried to barge into Ukraine using unencrypted radio communications, while every single civilian with a smart phone could track their every movement on social media for the Ukrainian Army to counter, block and at times destroy. This allowed the Ukraine Military to know where the Russians were, where they were going, what weapon systems were in the area, etc etc etc. Something Generals from only a few generations ago could of dreamed off. Meanwhile the Russian Army was still acting like it was the 1980s.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reason for this is that value of land is worth far more than the value of currency. Decades of inflation because of needless State spending of money it doesn't have, has inflated the currency.
You see this problem in China in a nasty way, and it's the most extreme example of it in the world because rich people in China do not trust the currency because in China it's worthless technically which is why the CCP wants to get the currency well internationally recognized ie a replacement for the USD, but no one wants to bite because of the CCP's actions it's impossible to know the value of Chinese Currency so well it's basically as valuable as monopoly money internationally, the USSR had the same issue. HOWEVER, because of this anyone who has money in China buys property/land, PHYSICAL Capital in short, something that holds REAL value. So regardless how valuable the YUAN is, they remain rich, even if the CCP completely collapses, they'd still have their property technically, ie their wealth. It's also why a lot of Rich People in China have been buying property outside of China as well, out of fear of the CCP collapsing. It's the only way they CAN keep their status, everything else in their country is smoke/mirrors.
That being said, if Rich people are buying land, standing on it knowing they still have to pay taxes on it in spite of that land/property earning them no income, it heavily implies people at the higher positions in Society HAVE no FAITH in the US Dollar. So they're gobbling up REAL CAPITAL, something that actually holds value in spite of the value of the USD. This heavily implies that the US Dollar is not in a healthy position right now.
If I am right, this is 100% the fault of the State and the Federal Reserve if my assumption is correct. So you can not blame rich people 'this time' if I'm right. Inflation is easily the biggest killer of all economies in the world, and the fact the USA has constantly seen inflation of our currency supply year after year after year for the greater part of twenty years. The past year accelerated it considerably, for this reason the only safe bet is to go after Physical Capital, REAL CAPITAL, something that doesn't loose value because the State is irresponsible.
The Federal Reserve badly needs to raise interest rates back up, encourage people to start saving money, instead of spending/investing, this would help get a lot of currency out of the market, lower prices, and raise the value of the USD. It doesn't look as pretty as ARTIFICAL Growth created by low interest rates which force people to invest their savings into the market, but as Deflation kicks in and the value of the USD starts to go back up, EVERYONE who has USDs benefit, everyone becomes wealthier, and of course prices would also drop as a result to. Mean while with higher interest rates people can save money, and securely gain income from interest coming from their savings again, something people USED to be able to do. Something you can not do now because interest rates have been lowered by the Federal Reserve literally to nothing, and inflation rates have risen higher than interest rates making saving money in a bank well no longer viable as you make yourself more POOR doing it, which is the OPPOSITE of what it should do when you put money into savings. Again, a sign on how bad our economy REALLY is, if the Federal Reserve has to put interest rates so low that people end up losing money when putting money in savings.
But Politicians right now are heavily reliant on BOOM/BUST cycles. BOOM as in the STATE spends, injects, subsidies, manipulates the market, encourages investments, this causes a economic boom, but it's an artificial economic boom, looks GREAT on paper, makes politicians thump their chest on how good they are. Constant Inflation is a sign that the US Federal Reserve is manipulating the economy trying to keep it from Busting.. Holding up a Dead Corpse in short rather than letting it bust, and correct itself, because no Political Party in the USA wants to be in charge when that egg cracks.
Basically however, everything I just listed above should hit home on how "NOT" Capitalistic the USA technically is right now. Well beyond just State Overreach but literal manipulation of the economy, on a level that would make the Weimar Republic Blush.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@caelphillips8895 Hardly, they're all branches of the same family. ie Fascism budded from the Anarcho-Syndicalism movement. Which itself was a branch of the Marxist Socialist movement.
"Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista" Manifesto created by Pro-War Syndicalist in Italy. Who believed the war would lead to Class War and the Socialist Revolution. So unlike the other Communist in Italy decided to become Pro-War hoping it would accelerate the downfall of the current world order. Mussolini would be one of those Anarcho-Syndicalist who would latch onto this movement when he became a co-founder in the Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria shortly after getting kicked out of the Socialist Party for supporting that Manifesto. Which is funny because Lenin when finding out about it wrote a very stern letter to the Italian Socialist Party for kicking Mussonlin out, Lenin saw Mussolini as the only Socialist in Italy who could lead a revolution. It also easily answers why Mussolini crushed the Socialist Party whom kicked him out later down the road.
This in turn also means the first "Fascist" party ever created, was founded by Marxist Syndicalist. The Term Fascism comes from Bundle which was an alternative word used by Italian Syndicalist often for Union, ie Labor Unions. Even by the end of the 1930s the Italian Fascist Party were still Syndicalist. Just they abandoned Worker's Unions for State owned Corporations. Concept of a Corporation and a Syndicate however are pretty much the same, just one is built around labor unions and the other is a collective of trade unions, so all bakeries will be put under a "Baking" Corporation owned by the State, instead of all Bakers joining a Baker Worker's Union. Functionally identical. This is why the Soviets (Worker's Unions) of the Soviet Union pretty much operated identically to the Fascist Corporations. They were operated/controlled by the central state.
This is also why you now have a bunch of modern Socialist who point to the Nordic Model and say it's a Model system, despite being a Corporatist Model similar to the Austrian, German and Italian Fascist. Because the similarities between Syndicalism and Corporatism are often hard to identify because they function the same way. Why? Because they're all Socialist. I know many Nordic Politicans will deny it claiming they have a Market Economy, but if you go far enough back in Socialist history socialist didn't even go against the idea of private property. Which actually makes one of Hitler's quotes in Mein Kampfy Chair comically true "Marxism is against Property, true Socialism is not." Because Marxist don't know what Socialism is, they know what Marxism is, and think Marxism is what Socialism is, but Marxism is just a variation of Socialism but not Socialism itself. Sadly most Socialist today are Marxonian in their beliefs, and can not even spot other variations of Socialism because they don't study socialist history, outside of Class focused socialist movements.
People often use the Hostility between the Fascist, and other Socialist groups as proof that they are not Socialist, while ignoring that Rival Socialist movements are almost always hostile toward each other. Favorite example is when the Majority Socialist, Independent Socialist and Communist Socialist were literally killing each other in the streets of Berlin in 1919 when the Social Democratic Party of Germany split a part between Democratic, and Revolutionary Lines, as different leaders fought over what kind of government would run Germany. They were all Socialist but had different ideas on what a socialist system was, or how to achieve an ideal socialist society.
Also a fun dirty secret socialist either don't' realize or pretend isn't true is that Nationalism is a form of Socialism. Socialism for the Nation. Instead of being about the Working Class, ie Worker Control, it's about the Nation. As long as all business are owned/operated by people who are part of the "National" Community, it's fine for a Nationalist, their Socialism is their National Community. The Nation comes before the Individual. This is why 19th Century Nationalism exploded around the world at the same time as Socialism was spreading across Intellectual circles in Europe and America. Many latched onto the ideas an applied it to Nations. Socialism is nothing but Common/Social control of the means of Production, all that matters is what kind of Community/Society Controls it by that point and it can be almost any kind of Community. This is why Nationalist like say "Trump" wanted to Nationalized TikTok, not into the "State" but into a Company that was part of the Nation where as at the time the majority owner was a Chinese Company. That is a Nationalist's idea of Socialism. Their concept of the Socialization of the Means of Production is, the National Community their Commune is their Nation. Hard to get that through some people's skulls but I can try.
That is why Fascism is different than Nationalism as well. A Fascist requires Corporatism/Syndicalism, a Nationalist does not. This is why Fascism is falsely thrown around at anything Nationalistic when that isn't what defines Fascism from being it's own unique identity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I still find people who deny that the Holodomor happened. They will source many intellectuals, you know the same kind that will release spreadsheets saying how much better the USSR was, but because they're intellectuals and professors, they're CREDIBLE. They will say. They will even cite Albert Einstein who had no way of knowing at the time whether it was true or not.
5:30 I think that is a bit of a stretch, even prior to Hitler being in power there was a lot of foreign investment within Germany itself. Germany was a recovering economy during the 1920s and many investors found it a great opportunity. On top of that the German Government borrowed a lot of money as well for state works projects. Even John Keynes lost his fortune investing in the German Mark which lost him almost everything, yes the great Keynes the founder of Spreadsheet Warrior Economics, didn't know how to read the stockmarket, what a shock. BTW he lost his fortune before hyper inflation happened in Germany invested in German currency, pretty ironic he failed that badly. That being said, Germany saw a huge economic boom in the 20s, and a bust of massive scale by the end of the 20s.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheLocalLt Wrong, Fascism is a Social and Economic system. It replaced the Class Warfare of Marxism, with the unifying force of Nationalism. Unlike the Nazis Fascist believed Nationalism should be used to unite all the Social groups in society with Nationalism, were as Nazism's concept of Nationalism was Racial, so unification was not possible. Ironically, making the Nazis more like Marxist just switching out Classism with Racism. Fascism was an alternative to Marxist Socialism, but in the end it was just a variation of Syndicalism, ie Trade Unionism, ie Fasci (Union/Bundle) Fascism literally means Trade Unionism. It's why the Fascist tried to put all business into state own trade unions (Corporations). It's no different than the Soviet Union's Soviets (Trade Unions owned by the State). Fascist at the time tried to claim they were something absolutely unique and different. While the Nazis perverted the concept of Fascism with their Racism. Both knew common people were terrified of Marxism at the time, so claimed they were something different. But they were just another variation. Since then all Marxist have been in denial trying to find any excuse to claim they were something different as well. But they're more similar than they're all different.
I'd highly suggest looking up the youtuber TIK. I will list the titles of some of his most important videos on this subject. I used to be a Fascist in my Highschool and Collage years, and TIK is just about the only person on youtube which seemed to care to do his homework on the subject. Even George Orwell know Fascism was a Socialist movement if you read his closing pharagraphs in his article "What is Fascism" Quote Below.
"But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. " < Key part "because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make." This is why he wrote Animal Farm and 1984. Orwell also know if he flat out openly admitted what Fascist were, his Socialist readers would abandon him, so instead he pretty much put it in plain sight in a lot of his post mid 40s works. Tragically Orwell claimed the only definition we have come to for Fascism was "Bully State" < Paraphrased. If you read most definitions of Fascism today, it's still pretty much a Bully State. Which Orwell found unsatisfactory because it was a Social and Economic system, so a Bully State is wrong, and should be rejected, even a democratic state like the USA can be a bully, and both the CCP and USSR have proven Marxist states can be Bully States.
Also Totalitarianism Requires Socialism. State ownership of the Means of Production. Totalitarianism is literally State Controls everything, if you're Totalitarian you're automatically Socialist because the State already controls everything, including the means of Production. Totalitarianism can not exist without State ownership of the Means of Production. So by Defacto, calling Fascist, Totalitarian is admitting they're Socialist.
That being said. Titles of some of TIK's best videos on this subject. These are his most important if you want to understand the concepts of Capitalism, Fascism, Marxism and Nazism.
FASCISM DEFINED by TIK
Public vs Private by TIK
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments by TIK
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Kayluv101 Well, now you're speaking Soviet style propaganda, good job sounding like a Communist.
1. Ukraine never JOINED the Soviet Union. Ukrainians sided with the White Russian forces in an attempt to gain national self determination similar to the Baltic States and Finland who all sided with the white Russians for independence. When the Civil War turned against the White Russian forces, Ukraine's military forces were not strong enough to hold onto the country themselves and were defeated. Mass grave in Crimea housing over 40,000 dead soldiers, civilians and politicians who surrendered to the Reds too late in the game, is proof of what happened to those who decided to keep resisting the Communist after capitulation. Basically they didn't join willingly,they were invaded/occupied and the history after that occupation is pretty brutal well into the 1950s.
2. Territory wasn't GIVEN to Ukraine per-se as a result as territorial boundaries between the Soviet Republics were arbitrary and made up. ie they didn't exactly exist really. They drew some lines, but being Moscow ruled regardless Ukraine existed on paper really only. To claim they belong to Russia is stupid anyways unless you're some kind of Ethnic Nationalist, or Neo Nazi who believe lines should be drawn based on Blood or something stupid like that for the same reasons it was in Europe itself. Ethnic boundaries were mixed, and hard if not impossible to define.
3. Soviet Population Transfer Program removed large sums of ethnic minorities from the region, from German settlers post WW2, Tatars from Crimea, Jews, Gypsies, Cossacks, etc. Stalin wanted a mono ethnic State, and was more successful at it than his National Socialist counterpart. Much of the Donbass region was in turn resettled by Russians under Stalin's rule, he didn't just do this to people in Ukraine/Russia/Belarus he would do it to people in Estonia/Latvia and Lithuanian, after WWII millions of Poles were also uprooted. This whole argument of Russia giving territory to Ukraine is nonsense, the lines on those maps were made up to begin with. Heck it's ironically why the USSR had a Jewish Autonomous State it is where the USSR shipped Jews prior/following WWII because of all the antisemitism that existed prior/during WW2. Promised it would be safer there but it was more of Russia's attempt to monoculture the region. Ship minorities to the frontiers where they're out of the way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My biggest problem with Skyrim and Fallout 4 in particular is the weapon/armor design. They make me feel sad inside. I mean Fallout 3 had better clothing/armor/weapon design than Fallout 4, so WTF!? I see clothing/armor design from Oblivion and honestly despite the dated graphics the concept and design was just better. I mean it's taken years for true proper plate armor to find it's way into Skyrim for example, made by modders. Bethesda has had such a hard time sheathing/holstering weapons in their games that they didn't even bother including the feature in Fallout 4. Everyone remembers the floating weapons in Skyrim yes? That being said I love Skyrim, but it's the first Bethesda game I couldn't stomach playing without modding. Fallout 3 I could, Fallout 4 I could also, but Skyrim was just so horrible, with the visual design of characters, clothing and weapons. I still play Fallout 3 and New Vegas without clothing/weapon mods, it isn't needed, not even new textures personally. Fallout 4 is the least mod necessary Bethesda game on the market, outside of downloading 'fixes.' Skyrim is a completely different beast.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
8:11 actually there is evidence that Russia has already spent it's better equipped forces. In the opening week of the conflict. Footage of the VDV in action showed most of them didn't have kit on their rifles, despite having AK-12s, almost none of them had scopes, or even a red dot.... so the VDV, elite paraptroopers didn't have as good of equipment as much of the Ukrainian National Guard has....
According to sum sources for example the VDV the Russian Paratroopers and it's vehicle mobile and airborne elements were all but wiped out, 100 vehicles of the VDV being destroyed in a single operation, and most of it's air borne elements were well decimated as well. Many of the Russian Guard Tank Divisions were among the leading elements to enter Ukraine as well, also suffered heavy loses during the first week of the campaign. VDV in particular is pretty much no longer a serious fighting force, with even it's highest ranking officer being KIA. They're are pretty much now functioning as infantry. Some of the Guards Tank Divisions have resorted to using reserve training vehicles as well, ie tanks without modernization upgrades, recently being seen deployed in Ukraine, which heavily implies the Russian tank loses in Ukraine is extensive.
Basically they used up their best forces already, those best forces were just, not anywhere near as good as Russian State Media portrayed them.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Communism must be efficient, cheap and unwasteful. That practice didn't carry over well into advanced technology. Soviet Union was definitely cheap, but they were not efficient and were very wasteful because well a lack of efficiency creates waste, with no natural price mechanisms like seenin the USSR it was impossible for them to even know if they were being efficient to begin with. It's this lack of efficiency and waste which is why the USSR had no choice but to cut corners to keep up with the prestige and facade it was holding up.
They could make an engine you could beat with a wrench and keep working, but that philosophy doesn't translate over well into Nuclear Reactors, Computer Chips, and Advanced Tech. You end up with dangerous nuclear reactors, capital ships that barely operate under their own power, and don't get me started with computers, USSR was often 10-20 years behind in that sector by the 80s.
Americans built the F-111, USSR came along and made their own similar aircraft a few years later the MiG-23 and Su-24. EU presents the world with the Concorde and the Soviet Union shows up year slater with the Su-144 (which needed engine replaces every other flight btw). US Built the B2 Lancer, and the Soviets show up almost a decade later with the Tu-160. The American Space Shuttle gets shown to the world, and oh boy, guess what the Buran Shuttle was first revealed. Merica, France and Germany were building Nuclear Reactors? USSR must make them and make more than all of them because Socialism is Superior!!!!
USSR spent so much of it's time playing catch up for prestige that it failed at it's most important job, keeping it's people happy.
The Facade of the USSR is almost disgusting when you think about it. Sadly China is kind fo falling into the same trap, of caring more about prestige and holding up a facade than actually doing right to it's own people. Likely going to be the same result with a collapsed economy and a citizenry which will have to spend decades realizing it was all a facade. They're already in that mindset where they automatically assume the State lies to them about everything to a point that even when they're told the truth they don't' believe the government.
West has sadly been following in their footsteps as well, forgetting how important trust is when it comes to a State being able to survive.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Peter-vf3dl Honestly I never seen such a long post that says just one thing "They had no economic plans."
Though what I love is this contradiction.
"The biggest concern however in this mind set was the dependence and shortage of ressources. The private (!) sector feared being "starved" because of the political climate, so they went along with the idea of autarky which meant simply self preservation in this case. Actually, a very capitalistic thought process ;) "
Which ignores the elephant in the room. Building an Autarky requires some economic planning.
Also comes off as a joke because you try to weasel in some durr capitalist nonsense. Also ignoring that they were Forced because of the Autarky wishes of the Nazi Party. So there is hardly anything capitalist about it.
Also if you think the Far Right have no Economic Plans, look up Neo Liberalism, or modern Classic Liberalism. The primary Economic ideas of the Far Right. Unless you mean Neo Nazis, which I wouldn't call Far Right. Neo Nazis have about as much economic planning as Antifa, and I doubt they even read Nazi literature.
PS Neo Liberalism is a Left Wing Term to kind of demonize Classic Liberalism or Right Wing Economic theories, ie like the Chicago School of Economics.
That being said I don't consider the Nazis to even be Right Wing. So, much of your rants come off as weird. As TIK has tried to point out, groups like the Nazis, and Fascist are more in the line of 3rd Positionist which is how they still view themselves. But they're more closely related to the Left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He didn't say conservatives are fascist/nazis. He was expressing the Leftist point of view of the Right and Conservatives.
I mean I literally recently not even 40 minutes ago just got bombarded by someone on one of TIK's videos posted repeatedly copy/pasted quotes from Richard Evans, and Kellner trying to prove the Christian Church was in league with the Nazis, in spite of the fact you can literally go to the Holo** Museum's website, and it literally tells you why, and how much the Church resisted and eventually resorted to collaborating and keeping their heads down because doing otherwise was well dangerous, and the Church decided to protect it's people, ie members of the clergy vs resisting. Which means the Church didn't willingly side with the NS, unwillingly collaborated. Despite being an atheist I'm willing trying to defend the Church's actions and why being conservative didn't have anything to do with it.
Yet trying to convince people of such things, when they're already imbedded deep in their minds that the NS Persecuted just about everyone regardless whether left/right conservative or liberal is hard for some to grasp because they've been conditioned one way or the other.
He even posted a list of Political Parties he called Right Wing, even though one of them wasn't, that supported Hitler's Enabling Act. I literally had to show him how every single one of those parties was forcefully dissolved within months after the Enabling Act. Literally being bullied/harassed/pressured into closing their doors by the NS who promised they'd be a Collations. Of course he dismissed it and spammed more copy/paste comments. One of the parties leadership even became parts of the anti Nazi resistance, but of course..... that doesn't matter to someone that nuts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To be honest, 2 to one is pretty significant when you're referring to millions. As you often have to take account onto where those men are concentrated. I mean this is how the Germans pushed toward Stalingrad despite that USSR had a 2:1 advantage over all. Most of the Russian defences were focused near Moscow in anticipation that the Germans would try to take it during the Spring/Summer of 1942. ie a large percent of that numerical advantage the Red Army had in early 1942 were not where the Germans attacked. Instead the Germans pushed south, which took the Red Army by surprise. In turn, many of the Soviet Offensives were very strong for similar reasons. Wars are not fought fair. Also, if we were talking about a battle Napoleonic style battle, than 2-3x the men was normally recommended/required when going on the offensive regardless. But in modern war, numerical advantages are not as important as tactical/strategic and material advantages. What really matters more than men is the amount of artillery, tanks, trucks and aircraft available to the Red Army. It is interesting to note I remember reading somewhere that at any given time on all fronts combined the Germans had normally around 400 armored combat vehicles available, save for a few periods, because of loses, and long term repair. Then when you compare that to Operation Bagration, well what was that around 3000 Red Army Tanks? Your Courland videos also presented this problem quite well, with much of the armor in Courland in long term repair (ie no parts likely), and the Tank Divisions involved being well, inept much of the time. I don't think any practical person would ever believe the Red Army had 10x the men, and suffered 14x the loses. In fact I think 14x came from a German estimate from during the war itself, but it was primarily from 1941, and included captured. That 12:1 figure comes pretty close to that claim I often see of 14x the loses, which is as much a myth as 5 Shermans to Kill a Tiger.
2
-
@hobbso8508 "Literally the first thing the Nazis did was imprison then kill Marxists" So what?
"All you're proving is that you have never actually read Marx and Engels." Many have including myself. I disagree with the original Comment that they're Marxist. But the Nazis were MOST DEFINITELY influenced by Marxism. Nazis literally believed in Marxist views on economics for example. The only real fundamental difference between Nazism and Marxism is one is built around "Class" and the other is built around "Race" as a result it has quite a few differences, but they have more similarities than differences.
Both are Totalitarian. Though Marxism pre-dates the idea of Totalitarianisms, Marx's program advocated state control/regulation of nearly every single aspect of the economy. Which is... ding ding Totalitarianism Total State Control. The Fascist embraced the idea, and coined the term. The Marxist came up with the idea but deny their movement is "State' Centric. But when you have Libertarian Socialist like Mikhail Bakunin calling Marxism a cult of the state because "The State" is at the very core of it's program. Only reason a lot of Marxist don't know this is because they have a dumb dumb idea on what a "State" is.
Now that fundamental differences between Class vs Race, well this has an impact on what "Social Ownership of the Means of Production" means. For Marxism the entire movement is built around the Proletariat, ie Working Class, to be a Worker means you can not own the means of Production, the 'group' as a whole must own it, otherwise other's would be working for you and you'd no longer be considered "Working Class." So Private Ownership of the Means of Production CAN NOT exist in any capacity in a Marxist Socialist society. However if you're say a "Racial" Socialist like the Nazis, technically Private Ownership in the Marxist sense can exist, as it's replaced by Racial Ownership. If you're considered part of the same "Race" that is technically all that classifies it as "Social Ownership" as society is built around the "Race." Same applies to National Ownership, where Nationalization of Business isn't exactly "State" but making sure Business are owned by Nationals, people who are part of the Nation, no Foreign or International Business. The Nation is Society, not the Class, the Race is Society, not the Class. This is why Marxism is absolutely bonkers about State Ownership because no other form of ownership can work in a "Marxist Society" because there is no private ownership of business/industry it CAN NOT exist without being a HUGE contradiction in their ideology, where as in other "Social Ownerships" it can to an extent of course because it isn't built around a Class that can not own business because they're "Workers." this is why Socialism before Marxism had little to do with Social Classes, and Private Ownership wasn't even excluded 'prior' to Marxism.
Over all Socialism has transformed into State Ownership by default because Marxist influenced variations of Socialism is just about the only Socialist movements that remain in the world today. Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, are all Marxist influenced for example. Using the State or Democracy to make lives for the "Working Class" better.
That being said in spite of this, because the Nazis still believed in Marxist economic they still despised the idea of "The Capitalist." So the Nazis cared a lot about organizing society itself into a single 'Body' to ensure the concept of a Capitalist can not exploit the people as a whole. Hitler himself stated why do they need all that socialism when we are socializing the people? Because if you socialize the people, appropriation of land/property no longer becomes necessary as people in society are already doing what the State/Party demand. At least that is how they viewed it. They even take from Marx's own playbook about the Jews, but being the Nazis are Racist it becomes far more sinister. If the Jews are the origin of Capitalism and the "Money Changers" in a Marxist class society they could renounce their 'faith' of 'money' as Marx put it. For a Nazi it's in their blood can never change, so their solution to the problem was well sinister.
So to sum it up. Nazis are not Marxist, they're literally Race Marxist. They took what they liked from Marxism and merged it with other ideas including their own.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ryan Kiesow It's why Marxism and National Socialism are so similar to eachother.
Best example being, if you've ever read Marx you'd know that his concept of a Capitalist is literally built on a foundation of antisemitism. Which is why every anti capitalist stereotype you can think of is eerily similar to antisemtic stereotypes. The similarity isn't a coincidence.
Marx tried to claim it was, but from personal correspondence, and earlier writings he did before Das Kapital, his very concept of a Capitalist was literally well... the evil J word Money Changers.
Money Changers also being another code phrase used to refer to the J ish people. Interesting enough FDR used Money Changers a number of times, look up some of his quotes using it, and ask yourself, was he really a Capitalist?
Once someone realizes this though, and reads Mine Kampfy Chair, you come to realize Marx and Mr H were TOO similar to a terrifying degree, and that the foundation of literally all modern socialism was built of racism.
Which also means, Marx is the Catalyst for both of the big Holos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I often tell people you can not hold Japan to the same moral standards as the west. Mostly because, nearly all Asian countries at this time had backwards sense of morality. I mean the largest single most damaging act of the war that killed more people than any other 'single' act was conducted by the Chinese toward their own people. When they destroyed levies to flood the yellow river, turning much of the countryside into a swampy impossible mess, intentionally to slow the Japanese Army down. It killed directly hundreds of thousands of Chinese, completely destroying a number of towns and villages, destroyed countless acres of farmland, and aided greatly to the famine which would follow under Japanese occupation by destroying a large chunk of the farmland that would be in Japanese occupation... one of the primary reasons Japan invaded China in the first place was for farmland, similar to the German invasion of the USSR to reach Ukraine, and the Coccasses. In short, this one act was the primary contributor to the famines for the years prior, which killed millions in China. It's often intentionally overlooked acts of the war, because it doesn't paint this black/white picture that Modern China likes to push. Japanese Brutality aside, but there are plenty of photos as well of the Chinese conducting mass executions on their own population from the 1920s, 30s and 40s pre-communist China, don't get me started with the CCP and PLA, but the Chinese are not so innocent. When you also compare Japanese brutality to the actions of the North and South Koreans during the 50s/60s, and the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and the people of Laos during the 50s/60s/70s. It's VERY hard to not look at Japanese acts of brutality in a lesser light. It's hard to justify such behavior, but you can not condemn a nations actions when their neighbors were pretty much just as immoral.
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
-
@sava411 I think you need to learn to read. As you missed the entire context of the quote.
"By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. It was not until 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution, that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution."
Basically it was stating the difference between the words Communism and Socialism within the Marxist movement were Synonyms up until Lenin. However, it openly states that Lenin ONLY Said they were different in DEFENSE of his own actions. Not that there IS a difference. Basically he lied to explain why his Marxist Revolutionary Loyalist were being Hostile toward the original Marxist Revolutionaries. ie Lenin was a counter revolutionary against the original Marxist Revolutionary Government and he won. He created the Distinction as a smoke screen so he could say like all Socialist love to do "They're not Real Socialist."
Similar to when Marx called Utopian Socialist who came before him not, REAL Socialist.
It's a stratagem and nothing more, not because what they're saying is actually true.
Also you're Stateless Moneyless society nonsense is also a smoke screen. Marx never intended to make such a Society. Unless he himself was stupid. Bakunin literally stated that Marxism is a Cult of the State in direct criticism of Marx's program. Once that state is established those controlling it would never ever let it fade away as Engels said. It's a LIE and people like Engels likely knew it, they just added it into their ideology to lure in gullible people to volunteer themselves to the slavery of the central Totalitarian State, and yes the Communist Manifesto literally advocates the establishment of a Totalitarian state, but with the promise it would fade away. But as Bakunin rightly believed, it would never fade away and that it was nothing but a lie to convince sheep to follow.
So the whole scapegoat that Communism = Stateless society with no money is a joke. And for the greater part of 100+ years Socialism and Communism was a Synonym.
So in short, you need to learn to read, and comprehend what you're reading. Because you missed what that quote was saying by a landslide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
Funny part is, first two weeks of Genshin Impact made over 100million dollars. It didn't even make 1/4 of what Genshin made on it's launch. Diablo doesn't have much of anything people want either. Diablo fans didn't get what they wanted, and Gacha fans what?? do they think Gacha players want to collect gems that cost them almost $10,000USD to get per, when they got a perfectly good Waifu collection game that cost $100-200USD per waifu if you're nuts about collecting them all and if you only want specific ones it's actually very easy to get them without spending money. Diablo on the otherhand feels almost completely unplayable definitely because of the PVP elements unless you whale.
I'm not defending Genshin, I think the game cost way too much, but I'm utterly shocked that Blizzard thought they could do this and people wouldn't get mad, it's multiple times more predatory than Genshin Impact, and worse, you don't get anything to show for it either. As I already mentioned, what Gloating Value does a Generic Gem have Vs say a "Klee" or a "Hu Tao" etc etc. It's a Gacha game that doesn't give Gacha players what Gacha players want, interesting things to collect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trystdodge6177 Oh totally. Totalitarians once in power limit the number of social groups in society. They almost always resort to homogeneous actions to break society down into a hand full of groups or one group, and anyone outside of those groups are forcefully removed, or reeducated. All groups they once claimed to support slowly disappear from society until they unified under one homogeneous Group. You can not have a collective if society is split into so many different social groups.
Fascist resorted to get around this problem by using Nationalism. All Social groups in Society are part of the Nationality and in turn are not enemies of the collective as the collective is the Nation.
Nazis used Race to get around this problem.
Fascist and Nazis tried to get around the Socialist Class Conflict nonsense by using something else other than Social Classes to bind society together. Fascist used Nationality, and Nazis used Race. Which allowed a broader chunk of society to be part of their Collective.
Where as most Socialist only focused around the "Working Class" but they considered working class to be people who worked for other people, which would mean a HUGE chunk of society, including small business owners, farmers, self employed contractors, etc etc were not part of the Working Class. Even if they were hard workers themselves.
So to get around this technicality the Fascist/Nazis tried to use something other then the Working Class, which was more inclusive.... shockingly.. yes Fascist/Nazis being more inclusive than Socialist and that is not a joke. Of course they had their own issues with specific groups, but they included a larger chunk of society than most other Socialist movements ever did at least at the time.
2
-
2
-
@jamestcatcato7132 "ratkomal" would be true, if we were not facing recessions every 10-20 years, and endless inflation that has constantly existed since the 1910s. So I'd argue you're far from right by using "ratkomal" to explain modern economies. Most major economies exporting their debt just to survive and have pushed for "Cheaper" consumer goods produced by poorer economies to mask how increasingly poor their citizens are becoming.
Some even Resort to economic manipulation to keep the rotten corpse standing. For example 2008 recession the USA resorted to lowering interest rates to near Zero, which increased Inflation rates as the only way to accumulate wealth without owning land/property was to invest, which in turn also injected large amounts of people's savings into the economy, creating the illusion of an economic recovery but in turn actually progressively making majority of citizens more poor as not everyone could afford to invest, during the decade that followed. Best example in the 1990s $5/h is relatively equal to about $15/h wage today. Can of soup in 2008 cost say 89 cents, by 2018 it was a dollar 1.89 more than doubled. That is how bad inflation was during the Obama era, and Trump never fixed it during his presidency either. Federal figures matter not, buying power matters. Buying power has tanked as currency value tanks.
2020+ has seen property values skyrocket as well, a result of a slowing stock market, when in conjunction with poor interest rates the only way to preserve capital is to buy land, this had shot up land/property values through the roof and sadly it's a bubble created as a result of Inflation, state manipulated interest rates/markets. So we've basically circled right back to 2008 when the last housing boom crashed for similar reasons. You'd think if modern economics are based on logic they wouldn't repeat the same mistakes... but... it's because they operate on pseudo economics, interventionism, Keynesianism and have little actual logic behind their decisions. Because the logic they do use is flawed.
"don't possess the mysticism of fascism which is at heart ultra" All Socialism is Faithful. The end Stage of Communism in the Marxist program is literally built on the foundation of the Utopian Socialist ideal civilization which is a Pipe dream. It entirely relies on Faith.
2
-
@DietyOfWind
"You were very off the mark on a lot of the stuff you stated about America
America couldn’t have it quite the same way because many of the native Americans were wiped out. Also america was highly involved in nationalist sentiment around the same time as Germany was and Hitler got the idea for the treatment of Jewish people from how America was treating Mexicans at the borders. Conservatives in America were in full support of the NAZIs and there is even an old video on YouTube of a NAZI rally in New York. Progressive anti fascist sentiment won out in the end tho but conservatives spent years dumping money into media in America to propagandize their version of the same culture war Germany did but instead of Jewish people they targeted black people here which is why it’s still so ingrained in people to buy into all these false stereotypes and tropes."
1. Conservatism is not restricted to Left or Right of the political spectrum. When you understand what Conservatism is, all it is is preserving the Status Quo. What that Status Quo can be, can very greatly. If you live in a Liberal Society built on Liberal Individualist, and Liberal Economics, you're in a Liberalized Society, and preserving that status Quo in that society would be Conservatism. This is why American Conservatism also includes American Libertarianism, who are among the most Liberal people in America. But you also have Christian Conservatives, and Racist Groups who also side with the Conservative movement all to preserve already established Status Quos in different regions of the country. Many of which would rip each other to pieces if they didn't have a common enemy to side against. Because the Libertarian are definitely no Christian Conservatives, and many Racist groups including Nazis are also Anti-Christian as they view Christianity as a Branch of Judaism. Which is why Nazis are so obsessed with Nordic and German Paganism. So you often find such radically different movements loosely allying against a common enemy, regardless what side of the political spectrum they should be long on.
2. Nationalism is a branch of the Utopian Socialist movement. The concept of the Modern Nation state didn't really come to life until the 19th Century. Nationalism is all about placing the National Community above your own Interest. Which was borrowed from the Utopian Socialist whom came before Marx. In many respects the Nationalist are what is left of the Utopian Socialist movement from the 18th/19th Century, as Marxism ended up dominating the term Socialist itself, they just became the Nationalist in opposition to the Socialist. This is actually why despite what Ishay Landa's a Critic of Prussian Socialism calling it not Socialism because it was opposed to Labor, Marxism and private property is actually fundamentally wrong. It's also why one of Hitler's quote's from Mein Kamfy Chair is actually right as well "Marxism is anti-Property, True Socialism is Not." Marx was referring to the Pre-Socialist philosophies before Marx came onto the stage. Ironically Nazis even to this day consider the Marxist the ones who warped what Socialism means mean while Marxist say the Nazis are trying to warp what Socialism means. Instead of admitting they're two opposing Socialist ideologies, most people just side with one or the other and start pointing fingers. Issue being Nationalism ahs always been in the Socialist family true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A person's definition of a "Bad" guy varies really.
Serverus Snape was never a bad guy, not at all throughout the Harry Potter films. He was what you can call a "Mole." He did have to do some questionable things to keep his spying role a secret but still, he was never a bad guy shouldn't be on this list.
Francis X. Hummel again wasn't a bad guy, he did what he thought was necessary, it is just his interest conflicted with the US Government. In the end he proved he wasn't a bad person anyways so again, he wasn't a bad guy, he was just "Called" the bad guy. There was no bad becoming good with this character.
Terminator not a bad guy, not human, just programmed. One version sent to kill, other version sent to be a body guard, both versions the bad guy versions and good guy versions are all different machines with different programming. In short, they shouldn't be on this list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheBrother171 USAAF later the USAF was the only major Airforce in the world which took targeting civilians as official doctrine. RAF to an extent, but the RAF never continued doing it after WWII, and only did during WWII as they resorted to night raids making accuracy an impossibility. USAF did, did in WWII, did in Korea, and did again in Vietnam. Luftwaffe never official adopted targeting of civilians and population centers as an official strategy, as most officers in the Luftwaffe believed it had the opposite effect, and had no major impact on the war. Only when Big wigs like say Hitler or Goering demanded it did did the Luftwaffe really target civilians directly, and intentionally. But spent almost all their Air bombing assets on targeting real targets. Almost every bomber designed for the Luftwaffe was designed to support the Army, flying at medium or low altitude to insure better accuracy hitting military targets, like troop positions, defenses, etc etc. Tactical bombing not like Allied Strategic bombing which proved to not be very strategic, but more like drop enough bombs and you're bound to hit something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anton Adelson Everyone is Racist.. truly. Anyone who says other wise is a liar.
I'm uncomfortable around Africans and Latinos for example who dress, talk or behave stereotypically, it's a natural fear of a stereotype.. in short, a racist fear.
Being Racist to a specific culture or group is just natural, it's learned behavior, one that is hard to shake off completely.
Now being racist doesn't mean you're a hateful person. Being a Racist, a Nazi' it's all fine and dandy, but if you use it to cause harm to others, verbally, or physically that is wrong.
Issue being all a stereotypical "Racist" is, is just a Racist who can not control their transgression, they're no worse than a Conservative who can't control their hateful statements vs a Liberal... nothing more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Operation Barbarossa wasn't a Mishap! It was one of the most successful military operations in World History. In the span of half a Year, an alliance lead by Germany which involved over half a dozen European Nations captured more ground, took more prisoners and inflicted more damage than any military operation in history. Within just over 6 months Russia faced it's most embarrassing defeat in it's entire history, and by the winter of 1941, Russia was hanging by a thread. If you asked anyone around the world at the time, it was a forgone conclusion in their eyes that Russia was defeated. It is almost unbelievable that the USSR was able to pull out of such a massive defeat, and a disaster for the Axis afterwards. It wasn't a mishap, it was a gross underestimation of the USSR's willingness to slaughter it's own people to achieve victory.. because that is exactly what Russia resorted to to achieve victory, it suffered more casualties than nation during the war, and relied on an endless supply of conscripts, including millions it forcefully conscripted in nations it later liberated to make up for it's insane, unimaginable loses.
1
-
***** A Strategic blunder is Delaying Operation Citadel, which allowed the USSR to turn Kursk into a fortress. A Strategic Blunder was deciding not to encircle Stalingrad. A Blunder was declaring war on the USA when Japan had no interest to joining the war with the USSR and had already signed it's own none aggression pack with the USSR. Invading the USSR by itself wasn't a blunder, it was success for the first year of the campaign. In the end by the end of the winter of 1941, Operation Barbarossa was over, it succeeded in almost every goal it sought out to achieve. It ended up being a series of blunders, miscalculations, and a few of Hitler's Poor decisions later on during the Russian campaign which eventually sealed the German's fate in Russia. Not Barbarossa itself.
So to say that, Operation Barbarossa was insanely ambitious and yet so successful. Usually when an Operation is considered a military blunder, is when a specific operation ended up becoming a failure. Operation Market Garden rings a bell. Operation Citadel Rings a Bell. These were operations that could of changed the outcome of the war but ended in failure, and ended up hurting their respected factions instantly after. Market Garden would in the end delay the allied advance into Germany being a huge waste of man power and resources. Citadel left the German's weakened, though they suffered very first tank an aircraft loses, the German Army was running low on infantry, and infantry were the backbone of any army. Russian counter attacks around Kursk broke the German defenses in the area, they just didn't have the man power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boris Victoria Agility wise, the BF109G and K were comparable. Climb Rate wise, both were superior to the P51D variants. Diving, the P51D I think was comparable to the BF109G and K. I think the major area was energy retention which the P51D excelled in, and also because of this the P51D also had a higher top speed, and because of it's larger size, a longer cruising range. Fire Power was clearly in favor of the BF109K-4 though. That being said the BF109K-4 was built around a time in which manufacturing was crude.
So saying that, the pilot would make a far better difference than which of these two aircraft were superior vs the other. They have pros and cons. But what they're pros and cons at are not SO better than the other that it would make a big obvious difference in a air battle. Example Erich Hartmann Germany's ace of aces, I think with a flight of 2-4 BF109Gs engaged a flight of P51 Mustangs late in the war. They successfully shot 7 of them down, Hartmann himself I think 3 or 4 of them. Hartmann's squadron of course were seasoned veterans who survived the Eastern Front, and just happened to chance upon a flight of P51 Mustangs a rare sight for them.
Most cases when the P51 Mustang was king of the skies the role was reversed. Most BF109 pilots who would face the P51 Mustang were green, and were poorly trained, rushed into service. Normally lost any dog fights they were in. This is often used an excuse why the BF109 performed so badly vs the P51, and in some respects they're right to say that. But it isn't an excuse to call it superior to the P51 by all means in my opinion.
If I had to choose between a P51 or BF109. I'd likely still choose the BF109. 20mm MG151 or a 30mm MK108, rather have just one of those than 6 .50cal Browning machine guns. Seems to be the same story on every flight sim I've flown in, they just rip planes a part, if you can connect of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I sadly have to agree. If not practically visually I find fantasy armor and weapons to be irritating. I told someone once, if it wasn't for Mods, I wouldn't of touched a game like Skyrim with a ten foot pole. Visually I thought the game was beautiful, but once you get past iron weapons/armor/faction gear the game starts getting weird, impractical, and irritating.
My Dream game currently would be taking "Skyrim as a base, Mount & Blade style combat, with a Waring state's era Japan theme." If a game like that existed, I would cry. Closest thing is Way of the Samurai series, but it isn't exactly what I'm looking for.
I remember when I played White Knight Chronicles on the PS3. People often complained because I wore low level gear at high level. (character stats made a bigger impact on combat than gear but..) gear often made a difference, maybe 1/3 to 1/4 of your effectiveness. I often said "I'd rather die with style." referring to that I thought low level gear was many times better looking. lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
I couldn't but face palm when watching this video. Then again, what can you expect from channel that pumps out right wing propaganda. Don't get me wrong, when I say propaganda, I don't believe propaganda means "False." But spreading information whether fact, truth, misinformation, or lies to convince people of specific political views. That being said, Antisemitism is all over the world, in France for example it's estimate almost 2 in 3 people have some form of Anti Semitic views. It's just most pronounced in the Arab world, it isn't the root cause the root cause is just down right freaken is idiotic.
To put it intro Retrospect.
1. Finding Political Scapegoats is common practice even by developed economies even today, in the USA, Germany, Japan, coughs in a disgusting way China. And it's been like this for a very long time, not just recent.
2. Empires were at times built on the backs of ethnic divides, hatred and bigotry. Slavery was common practice in the ancient world, be it different forms, not exactly the classical form we think of today. Roman openly persecuted specific minorities, but built one of the worlds greatest Empires on the view of this own superiority and their destiny to do so.
3. Islam is in the Dark Ages, metaphorically speaking. They've become so focused on religion that they lost enlightenment. It has very little to do with Antisemitism, in all respects antisemitism is a result of that dark age, not that antisemitism has lead to that dark age.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would say "Only 50?" I guess we should send cruise missiles to Israel then, blow up their artillery and air bases for bombing/shelling the massive ghetto of Gaza in 2014, killing a few thousand people. Oh, it was perfectly legal, they warned them first, sometimes a minute before bombs starting falling, but... oh I forgot, they had no place to hide/run to didn't they because they're walled inside a giant ghetto.
Issue is, we seem to care little about the "legal" killing Assad has been doing but go BAT shit crazy when he uses chemical weapons, because well, ya we consider them illegal, but ironically the US Army uses a lot of Illegal weapons as well, like depleted Uranium ammunition, incendiary munition and bombs, etc.
Not defending Assad, I just got to a point that I really don't care, and I'd rather side with the side that is going to end the war the fastest which would be Assad's side.
Issue is, we abuse legal loop holes in international laws all the time which cause civilians to die, but fall under the classification of collateral damage instead, even if they were intentionally targeted. Been common practice since WWII actually, a war which people Mastered legal loop holes in international laws.
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I'd rather pay more for a Japanese product than Chinese. I've had some bad experiences with computer parts. Look into who makes the parts, what components are used in them, where those individual chip sets are manufactured, long before buying a computer part of any kind, including a power supply. For example, I had a bad GPU, of course found out outside of the main chips it was built as cheaply as possible by a Chinese company that changes it's name constantly to avoid lawsuits. Found out I had a power supply that had the same problem, but not just cheaply made, but the components inside were also of poor quality, caused a lot of blue screens. Replaced the GPU, and I still had problems. Replaced the PSU with one with all Japanese manufactured components... I have now zero problems. So when they say they build diamonds, I'd believe them. I've learned in the past to avoid buying cheap, and I dunno why I do sometimes, like the examples above. A have a lot of Sony brand electronics, and honestly, not a single one of them have stopped working. I have a PS1/PS2 Original PS3, and a PS3 Slim, headsets, controllers, remotes, still working all. lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, the Japanese military wanted the war to end, they were willing to accept a negotiated truce to the war. Anything but a surrender. We denied them a Truce. Yet we willingly made Truces in both Korea and Vietnam later on when we didn't win. But We didn't let Japan have a truce when they couldn't win even when they were asking for a Truce, and a way out of the war, we refused, we demanded an unconditional Surrender and would accept nothing less. For that millions of unnecessary deaths came.
Imagine if Britain and France accepted Germany's offers for peace before the Battle of France? Without Germany's amazing victory against France/Britain in 1940 they would of never had the Balls to invade the USSR.. imagine the tens of millions of lives that would of been spared? Going to war with Germany in 1939 would be equal to the EU going to war with Russia because of Crimea, or Georgia. Europe learned it's lesson it seems but are unwilling to admit what lesson they actually learned. Sometimes inaction can save millions.
Issue is with Japan we could of ended the war any time we wished. The moment the Japanese knew they couldn't win they knew the only possibility to get any possible positive outcome would to to hold out to the end, hopefully the Americans will decide the war would be too costly, and ask for a truce, something the Japanese badly wanted, but a truce that could be negotiated and hopefully lead to Japan keeping some of it's colonial assets. That was the only reason they were holding out, Japan badly needed the agricultural strength of it's colonies in Korea for example to feed it's people losing Korea was devastating post war, and forced Japan to rely almost entirely on fishing to feed it's people as Japan's population grew over the following decades, which still persist today.
But in the end that Truce never came, we developed bombs that could wipe out entire cities. Tragically we didn't even free Asia from oppression. South Korea was ruled by former Korean Japanese Officers who created a Nationalist Dictatorship under the false name of a republic. China fell to the communist, and Taiwan was then ruled by the very same, a Nationalistic dictatorship under the false name of a Republic. China, Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. Former Japanese colonial assets all under oppressive regimes, some still are. What a BEAUTIFUL out come. Those bombs ended up saving no body, only caused death.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Chinese Communist Party believes to uphold control of China that they can never be wrong. Even the most idiotic things they say have to be truth, if it isn't truth then the CCP isn't all knowing, can be questioned. In turn, this leaves China, well the Communist Chinese Party, to be one of the biggest bull headed political regimes on the entire planet. If you want to know how insane the CCP is, just look up the channel China Uncensored, kind of a "Daily Show" like program on youtube focused entirely on the nonsense of what is "China."
Secondly. Putin is likely the closest thing on this planet to a modern day Adolf Hitler. He even has his own brand of "Putin Youth." You can say which political indoctrinates children in boy's youth camps. That being said, even "Adolf Hitler" wasn't Adolf Hitler, in the lore sense, but very much human in the same context that Putin himself is also human. Putin uses intimidation, assassinations, and terror in Russia to keep political control. He also has one of the most successful propaganda machines, and has even spread it to the USA.
Thirdly, just because Putin's propaganda machine is also present in the USA, doesn't mean he is the only one as well. The Chinese spend billions every year influencing news, and popular opinion of China. They go so far to buy out movie theatre, and studios. Good example being the most recent anti Japanese war film was produced by Legendary Studios, which was bought by a Chinese film studio. Intentionally to convince Americans of how evil Japanese are, in an intention to weaken USA's alliance with Japan and other friendly pacific states. You can look up on youtube about Nanjing and find most videos/documentaries posted about it are posted by Chinese, including CCTV's official channel on youtube, CCTV is the official propaganda news branch of the CCP. Spreading it's propaganda and lies in the west.
1
-
1
-
+JettyDeke worst argument ever "replace any object and say it can kill people" as a counter argument to fire arms regulations. Issue is, it isn't a counter argument it's a "Strawman" Argument. In short, it isn't a real argument. Of course a knife, a baseball bat, a hammer, a car, a house cat, your Dog can all be used to kill people... well cat less likely but... Issue is, none of them are "Designed" Specifically to kill. The Gun is. Guns are designed to kill quite easily at that.
People often use an example of a Boy in a Chinese school stabbing about a hundred people in his school, but forget to mention that "CHINA" has laws in place making it ILLEGAL to self defend against attackers.... which is why the BOY became so dangerous with a KNIFE an object that someone could of just taken a class chair and put him down in seconds but legally were not allowed to because CHINA is that F***ed up of a country, as the state hires goons to attack citizens and only have the law to protect their own thugs.
Issue is you try to rob a bank with a baseball bat and see how far you get. Try to conduct a mass killing with a hammer in a high school, see how far you get. Wouldn't be surprised a few teachers, and some ballsy students would quickly put that person down to the ground. But if that same person came into the school with an AR-15 or really even a 9mm pistol, the story would be COMPLETELY different.
In short, NO comparing a hammer to a gun is the DUMBEST argument any moron can make. It isn't an argument, it's a strawman, a scapegoat excuse made by people in complete denial so they can ignore the real problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Julker someone comes at me with a knife in a school, I'd grab one of the chairs, person with a knife will be in too much pain to stab someone. If he had a gun it would be a different story, tables, chairs, books, not stop that person. Issue is, people often use an example from China of a mass school stabbing as proof that Knives are just as dangerous.
Issue is they're often ignorant as F*** or just do not care enough to know that China has laws that prohibit people from defending themselves when they're attacked, or the State can charge them criminally for it. It's how a victim of a mugger can go to jail in China for daring to fight back when a mugger shows up to steal something from them. Issue is the law exist because the CCP often hires thugs to rough up small business folks, and other citizens that they do not want the Police seen dealing with. Some tourist have even been killed in China in markets because they don't know these laws, and try to protect people being pushed around by these very thugs, often the thugs beat the tourist, and no one does anything about it, in a few cases the tourist have died. To protect those thugs from retaliation of course by citizens, they have laws prohibiting people from resisting when they're being attacked by those thugs. ie they have to rely on law enforcement to show up "When ever they do" to deal with the thugs. In turn someone shows up in a school with a knife regardless who it is, none of the teachers will do anything about it as they themselves will end up in jail if they so happen lift a finger to stop said person.
In turn the whole "knife" argument doesn't hold any water as the prime example often used is done so heavily out of context of the real world scenario that exist in China. =P
Also Knives were originally designed as tools. Spears and Arrows are Tools designed originally to kill. Even the Axe even though often redesigned as a weapon has it's origins like the KNIFE as a tool. The Fire Arm, ie using a propellant to throw a solid projectile whether stone, lead or metal of any kind, was and has always been designed to kill, existed for the sake of killing. In turn it's a weapon of war. It has only evolved from a weapon of war to a tool of hunting and recreation but it's origin and purpose has always been to kill, kill people originally. The Knife, well earliest examples of knives were to cut up already dead creatures. It was often projectile weapons, spears, throwing spears which were used for actually killing pray and 'man' knives even historically have always been a last resort tool turned into a weapon, you carry a knife as a tool but also serves the purpose of a last line of defense. A gun, exist not at all as a tool, and is only for killing either offensively or defensively, it holds no other purpose but to kill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Money rules everything, and that is the sad truth. Trump is right, the Media lies, and is under the control of special interest, sadly, he is part of that special interest, and he very well knows how to exploit it. I'm wouldn't be surprised if all the media hype surrounding Trump's possible affiliation with Russia is a straw man he and his constituents are paying for to distract Americans from things like the Dakota Pipe Line. It's how scientist get fired, teachers thrown out of a job, whistle blowers become enemies of the state, and Native Americans, end up in absolute poverty, despite it's the 21st Century, and we supposedly live in the Freest Country on Earth, as American politicians claim. Both Political parties are owned and controlled by the Financial, Medical and Oil Barons of America. They have always been of whom has all the wealth has always controlled American politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+APCOPILOT I long since stopped looking at the USA (my Home) as the country that fights for "Freedom." As well as I long since stopped believing we do what we do for the interest of "Free" loving people, including our own. Politics infects every aspect of life, from higher education, the military, business, financial institutions. Special interest controls all politics. There is no "Freedom." Nearly all laws primarily international and trade laws outside of civil service laws to make "Citizens" happy exist to support the status quo and nothing more.
There is a beautiful video by The Cynical Historian about Adolf Hitler, and how regardless of your opinion of Hitler, WWII wasn't fought as a "Good vs Evil" war. We've just played it off as such for politics and white washing our role in aiding in creating the most devastating war in modern history. The fact the Nazis ever did anything bad, was just "Candles" on the Cake for Propaganda we used for the greater part of a century to justify that war. If you put it bluntly. If the Allies didn't go to war with Germany in 1939, the war likely would of ended in Poland. If Germany didn't see it's amazing victory against France/Britain in 1940, they likely would of never had the balls to invade the USSR in 1941, history itself, heck even the Holocaust as we know it likely would of been much different. Tens of millions of lives would of been spared.
We try to play the Nazis off as trying to conquer the world, but it was far from it. We just sucked so bad that we opened the door for it after we pushed their buttons enough. I think it's best evident by how ready for War the Nazis were in 1939. Their Panzer Divisions were made up of mostly recon (PzII) and training tanks (PzI) as well as a lot of purchased Czech Pz35 and Pz38 light tanks. Their Nazy, 2 Battle Cruisers and a small number of light/heavy cruisers. Their aircraft carriers and main battle ships were still in dry docks when the war started. The German Rearmament program was slated to be finished in 1945, and this was a rearmament/modernization program, not a "Massive World Conquest" plan. The war started years before the German military and navy were ready. The only branch which was even close was the German Airforce, and much of it's fleet was obsolete, including outdated variants of the BF109B, He51 Biplanes and Hs123 dive bombers making up a good chunk of the invasion force in Poland in 1939, if you put these against French and British Mono planes they would of been slaughtered. When France/Britain declared war, the Nazis stepped up production, and the Phony War kicked in, as the Nazis knew they were not ready to face the British/France in an open war, and waited until they had enough equipment and a good plan on how to deal with a force they believed was superior to theirs at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Funderburk But people did suffer in Asia for decades following WWII. China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Taiwan.. etc etc etc. Collapse of Japan, and later Colonialism left a massive power vacuum lead to war, after war, after war. Tragically, even South Korea and Taiwan were ruled by Oppressive Dictatorships up until the late 1980s and early 1990s, completely supported by the US Government to boot. Heck South Korea's Military and Dictator were former Officers in the Japanese Army. While Taiwan's leader and his son were trained by the "Nazis." lol
Some of the horrific things US Advisers in Korea described about the South Koreans during the Korean War are just disgusting. This has also lead me to question how much were the "Koreans" themselves involved in the whole Comfort Women crime they accused the Japanese of... when much of the occupation forces in Korea were Koreans serving with the Japanese.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hope when you say Columbus' brutality is at levels like Genghis Khan and WWII... WWII part being that of the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and East front Partisans. Stories of brutality, mutilation and what not were very common. I know the Germans, and Italians, Romanians and many others conducted many crimes, but you don't find things like chopping peoples, feet/hands/genitalia, well things like that when it comes to crimes by European Axis powers, even if their body count can be considered high. What Chinese did to captured Japanese, what Japanese did to Chinese, and heck even stories I read about how Koreans behaved in the war, it's disgusting. I read how Partisans in the east would mutilate POWs trying to get information out of them as well, which aided greatly to the ever increasing harsh response by the Germans towards Civilians who were even suspected in aiding partisans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Conor, most of which joined during the dying hours of the war mostly for economic trading favors, and well bribes by the USA. For most of the war nearly every country you listed were Neutral, and it isn't a surprise all the countries you listed eventually harbored Nazis in large numbers post war.
Fascism again, is a very nationalistic ideal, they took the good of their nations before supporting Nazi Germany. Also not all countries that sided with the Axis were Fascist either. Technically Japan wasn't Fascist. On top of that you had Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, none of them were Fascist.
So when people often say WWII was a war to defeat Nationalist, they're wrong. Everyone was being "Nationalist" in WWII. WWII also wasn't a war to defeat Fascism, as Fascism is still around today, it was a war fought for special interest, and really nothing more, one that eventually exploded into an uncontrollable monster.
We like to focus on Italy, Germany and Japan as the Axis powers and ignore all the rest, even though Japan wasn't really fascist. Similar to how we claim we fought for democracy but most of our allies were not democratic. Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy, China (Republic of China) were Fascist, USSR Communism.
The Great Tragedy of WWII really is that in most respects 40 to 70 million people died pretty much for nothing. Half of Europe remained in chains for the greater part of a century. Germany today is still handcuffed by Post WWII Treaties and can hardly be called a free state. The massive power vacuums left by the Dismantlement of the Japanese Empire, and Fall of the British and French Empires, lead to endless world Civil Conflicts. The rise of dictators and totalitarian regimes in Africa, Middle East, and Asia to the likes the world hasn't seen. Good examples. Post WWII, China Communist Dictatorship. Taiwan (Republic of China) another Dictatorship (until the 1980s). Korea Civil Conflict, lead to North and South both being ruled by Dictatorships, the North still being ruled by one. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Thailand, list goes on and on.
WWII being a war for democracy, a war to free the peoples of the world? A huge JOKE.
1
-
@jim richardson The People's Republic of China is not Fascist, nor is North Korea. If I recall, North Korea has more in common with the Japanese Empire, than it does Fascist Germany, or Italy. China up until twenty years ago was the literal definition of a Totalitarian Communist State. That being said, nearly all major communist states morphed eventually closer to Fascism than Communism, as Communism has never really worked. They've always had to resort to pushing an extreme Nationalistic Agenda to keep the people unified, but at the very core they're still Communist states. China has lesson it's control over free enterprise, but barely, so in most respects, it's still not a Fascist State, as it's not even Socialist, it still upholds some perversion of what was once a Communist State.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Modern music isn't awful, it is just people are looking in the wrong places to find the good new music and always have. Also who says you need to restrict yourself to shitty pop bands anyways? I grew up my entire life never liking a single pop band, and I hope it stays that way. To me even the Beatles are not good enough. Simplest test I often bring up, remove the lyrics, or replace the lyrics with an instrument, if the song is still good, then it's a good song, you'd be surprised how many fail that test. It also doesn't matter how complex the song is either, proper movement and melody can make a world of difference so much a single instrument can often be all you need. This is where the 8 bit test comes in, if you can convert it to 8-bit without it losing it's memorable charm, ie you can identify it as being that particular song, then it's likely unique enough to be different from other music. A lot of Rap, and Country music fail the 8-bit test for example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RJL612 Which is why most of the Utopian Socialist who founded the idea of Socialism were Conservatives. Marx himself despised them, and wanted to take their ideas and apply them to the Working Class, and created a Class Socialism. But the Conservative Economics didn't go away. If you don't know Capitalism is literally Economic Liberalism. Upholding Individual rights to Speech, land and property. Which is the very core of Liberalism itself. Socialism is in opposition to this. As a result, regardless what a Socialist might say, all Socialist are against Liberalism.
The only reason Conservatism in American is "Liberalism" is because all Conservatism is is Upholding the Status Quo and the United States was built on a Foundation of Liberalism. At the time when Socialism was created by Conservative Thinkers, the Status Quo in Europe wasn't Capitalism, but Feudalism, Mercantilism, Lords and Ladys, Kings and Queens. It isn't a surprise Socialism was created by the Aristocracy. All their ideas on Collectivization of the Means of Production was ENTIRELY for their own benefit at a time when the Industrial Revolution was changing society, and drawing people off their "Feudal" Farms. They wanted to convince the people to re-enslave themselves, and help them take property from the Private Citizens who were outside their control and becoming even wealthier than they were. They said the wise and educated would run society, and who do you think they were referring to? Themselves.
Socialism in short has always been a scam. It started as a pyramid scheme for the disillusioned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
You know which side not to support, when they throw you away like trash when they don't need you no more. 2020 Left = Police are Bad. 2021 Post January 6, Left = Police are Martyrs. Biggest WTF 180 I've seen in my life, at least the leadership of the left anyways. They abused the outcry, fueled the flames, encouraged riots, damned police into the mud, and once they got Trump out of office, guess what? All those people they claimed they were for, ya you don't matter no more, they got what they wanted, and now you're not worth their ear. Trump was a asswipe in my opinion, but I'm still embarrassed that he lost when compared to what happened in 2020, and 2021 how his opposition has behaved in the last 5 years. 2016-2021 have been the biggest eye opening years of my life, and honestly, I doubt I can ever support the Democrats ever again. I'm switching to Libertarian.
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
-
@CarlAlex2 What do we currently have despite those laws? Despite being in an Interventionist and Mercantile like Economy vs a Free Market Economy? People are not even allowed to do with their property for example without the State's Permission.... lets see.
Price Cartels.
Inside Trading.
Abuse of Dominant Market Positions.
Coughs Illegal Trade of Human Beings.
All problems which run rampant even across the Western World. In spite of the rules.
As I said, black markets are a sign you don't live in a free economy, it doesn't mean some aspects of it would be good. Just because it's illegal, just because it's regulated/controlled by some larger body, whether the State or corporations, syndicates, cartels, trade unions or whatever unionist term you want to use to describe a large body that has unfair advantages often with permission from the Central State.
This means that no matter what there will be unfair advantages definitely to those Bodies which do business with the central state, and ESPECIALLY bodies controlled by the State.
Heck I think the last Child Trafficking ring busted including a major of Teachers and school Staff, and Teachers are State Employees, as most schools in the USA are Public Schools funded by the Local and Federal State. So you can not even trust people who defacto work for the State, despite regulations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
46:50 Despite using it as a Joke a few times myself, I often have to correct my friends who still think that is true. I think the line goes "The one with the rifle shoots, the one without follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, you pick up the rifle and shoot!" Though I think there was a scenario somewhat like that, it wasn't a strategy, nor did it involve fresh conscripts either. I think one of the encirclements in Belarus or Ukraine. Though I remember the story from a German soldier who was interviewed. The Soviet soldiers were ordered to break out, and launched a number of assaults against German positions. The German soldier described it like the stories of the old battlefields, like WWI and Pre-WWI in which men died in dence packs as the field was littered with bodies. He said the last attempt to break their line involved unarmed soldiers who were likely rear line personnel riding trucks/cars whatever they could. He said they were trying to reach the dead, who had all the weapons, and he didn't feel very proud after the fighting was done, because he knew many of them were unarmed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be fair to Candie, most intellectuals are semi educated losers, I mean look at Karl Marx he was alive at the same time as these events and most of his theories have been proven not to either work, or built upon huge logic fallacies. Heck the man technically blamed Jews for creating Capitalism. Who do you think came up with Phrenology? Heck Aryanism wasn't dreamed up by some dumb idiot in a gutter. Worse yet, how could he possible know Alexandre Dumas had any African ancestry? It isn't like Wikipedia existed yet. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if 99.9% of people who've read The Three Musketeers even knew the authors name (Like me) or worse had any idea whatsoever of his lineage, and that is in spite of how easy it is to get information like that anymore.
What I'm getting at. Candie was just a miserable person, but to be frank, I don't think he was stupid for those particular reasons. Yes they were used in the film to portray a stupid man as stupid but using those as examples are inherent fallacies among themselves, using retrospect ie we know it to be true now, but people back then likely didn't. But since we can relate to it now it was used in the film as an example of his stupidity. But it hurts the film because if it was a period film, it wouldn't use examples that were accepted by intellectuals then just not now as an example of his stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taloob493 Evil is a construct, and to be blunt, the allies never fought the war for Justice, or for the Free World. As an American it's quite obvious we only got involved for economical reasons, and status quo being well, we relied on exports and the war interrupted that greatly, on top of that we didn't want any new rivals something Hitler wanted to be, ie making Germany an economic rival to the USA, and he openly stated that.
To put it bluntly, this guy says it better than I can ever do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw0-ASR4sr8 As I said already, it isn't about good vs evil, those concepts are constructs. When you look at war in such a polarized fashion you will never understand it, and tragically never avoid it in the future.
1
-
1
-
The day I left the left, is when I discovered the left isn't liberal. After a few years of reading, discussion post leaving the left, I honestly wonder if the left ever at any time in it's history was truly ever liberal.
I mean when you have people like Gentile one of the father's of Fascism refer to the "OLD" style state as a Liberal State, and when you find out that Fascism was born from Marxist Syndicalism, the concept of Left Wing and Right Wing start to blur considerably. That Marx also believed the same kind of anti J*wish nonsense that Hitler did, that J people created Capitalism.
They say the Fascist and Nazis tricked the workers with their socialist policies, but I honestly I think people have been tricked, the left was never liberal, and in fact what some on the left project things as ring wing, which has left wing origins, including Fascism and Nazism. Really answers who the true liars have always been. The true abusers, exploiters, and oppressors have been. The Left.
I'm glad that I used to be a Fascist, a proper Fascist, not what Marxist call Fascist. Fascist believed in creating a People's State, a pro Nationalist People's state, by using Nationalism to bring together all of the Social groups together, instead of using petty differences to divide them. Considerably different from Marxism, or Nazism which focus on social differences, Fascist wanted to ignore those differences and use Nationality to Unite the people. I always knew the Fascist were the most Liberal of all the major Socialist ideologies of the time, which is why I supported it. But I mostly kept it to myself, I voted for left wing politicians my entire life. But when you realize it's all a farce, well things change.
I discovered that Capitalism, and Classic Liberalism are true Liberalism and Collectivist ideologies like Fascism, Marxism and Nazism are honestly absolutely no different than Religions. They're ironically conservative in their behavior, just not in name, and are not Liberal by any means. Being progressive doesn't make a personal liberal, what makes a person liberal is how they treat other people. If someone thinks differently than you, you do not hold it against them. Someone needs help you willingly help them. You don't care who they are, what skin color they are, what language they speak, you treat them like a person. That is Liberal. The left isn't anything of the sort. They label people based on social differences, beliefs, race, ethnicity, gender, etc etc, the list goes on.
They're the most toxic, and hateful people literally on the planet and from my time reading about the Isms of the late 19th/early20th Century, the LEFT spawned them all if you dig deep enough. As a former Fascist I knew that Fascism was born from the left, only fools think it's right wing, fools who likely listen to Marxist Socialist, and left wing politicians that want to distance the left from it because of how much of a negative stigma it has on it. Similar to how the left turns on it's own in a heart beat. They've been so successful that some on the right wave their flags foolishly not knowing what those flags represent.
I think if it wasn't for my views on Individuality, I likely would of fallen into the same toxic hateful environment, but I was lucky enough to be a Fascist, not a Marxist, nor a Nazi. Fascist are Actualist, we believe a group of people can not be co-responsible because of some kind of ill defined social trait. Ironically the least evil of the Leftist ideologies from that time period is the one that has the worst negative stigma in the modern age. Though as I already said, I abandoned Fascism entirely, I not even a Nationalist, as Nationalism creates the same kind of resentful toxic behavior as all the other isms. Collectively all isms are dangerous. When you focus on the collective group, the "We" the "Nation" the "Race" the "Gender" you're no longer an individual, you're a slave of a religious like collective, and collectives are the source of all of society's evils.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:05 thing about that is, Marx's own words, all Capital is Money. So that Communist definition is comical. As it's not a moneyless society if resources are distributed according to their abilities/need, as all resources are still capital, and in turn Money, and yes Marx literally said all Capital is money. So you can never have a moneyless society. It's a serious contradiction.
This is why I often make the observation that in a Socialist system, even if you abolish money people will still fight over other means of capital. It's why the Chernobyl series was so wonderful, you had three selfish men who wanted promotions, office chairs, and better lives, ie other means of capital who ended up being the protagonist of the story. They were still Capitalist in the Socialist sense.
So say you have no money and said Communist grows potatoes and decides to hide some of those potatoes so they can trade them in the back ally market (black market) for other capital, a bottle of vodka that they then trade to bribe an official to turn a blind eye and smug the numbers convincing someone their farm needs more equipment so he can grow more potatoes. =3
1
-
1
-
If it was up to me anyone over the age of 40 should be staying home, unless their job is critical. Everyone else should be extra cautious and face mask (even if you make your own) should be a requirement for the next few months, not just few weeks, let alone other hygiene measures. Shutting down our nations entirely the economic damage is insane, and I think we should be pushing to protect the most in danger of death, and limit as best we can to healthier citizens but try to keep the gears turning, even if 'slower' than normal. Most people my age come out of it with something not much worth than strep throat.
Biggest problem I saw in the USA particular is everyone went panic shopping, everyone went to a hand full of locations in their towns/cities within a short period of time panic shopping, which only insured a larger number of people than necessary likely got infected, all because some idiots told people that they should make sure they have specific goods, including hand sanitizer which I hate honestly, soap has always been better. I can only think how many thousands, if not tens of thousands of Americans got infected because they went panic shopping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism and Conservativism are not forbidden from being a part of each other. I think the greatest mistake people make is mistaking Liberalism/Leftism as being exclusive, and Conservatism/Rightism to being exclusive. In turn they think Socialist cannot have conservative values, and that capitalism is restricted to Conservatism itself, in spite that the entire Capitalist system of Private Ownership is built on a foundation of Liberal Values of Individual Rights, and John Locke's list of said values including Private Property rights outside of the collective community. He didn't just state it should be a right, but it was absolutely necessary for a Free Society. As with private property that was separate from the state in which a state couldn't encroach was the only way a person could be free.
Yet.... some how Capitalism is associated with Conservatism. It's a serious contradiction really with the socialist narrative. Capitalism is Liberalism literally practiced at an economic level, Capitalism can not exist, without liberalism.
This is why I have no real issue with calling Fascist or Nazis conservative. Just because they are, doesn't mean they're right wing. As it seems Liberalism, at least real Liberalism must be on the Right, or is on neither. If it's on the Right, or Neither, no matter what that means Socialism can include conservatism just by the process of elimination. Though it wouldn't stop me from defending conservatives because many conservative movements resisted Fascism/Nazism. It wasn't entirely liberals.
1
-
1
-
To be honest, the premise of this video is well, quite off from the film itself. Kiki is a very unskilled witch, and this is made quite apparent early on in the film when she is still at home. ie she isn't very talented and she herself pretty much admits it. This is why she uses the only real witch skill she has, and that is flying a broom which even this she is sketchy at times, though youth comes inexperience so it's understandable. She uses this only skill of hers, to make a delivery service, so she has a chance to pass the traditional right of passage all young witches must go through by living a number of years on their own cut off. In turn, she doesn't use her abilities to create, she isn't an artist. She flies a broom, that is what she does. She is a glorified delivery girl. A life, and job, that very few if any creatives would willingly be happy to have. So... you're really stretching the premise of the film to make many of the comparisons you've made. That being said, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Just doubtful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They're being very defensive when systemic racism is being applied to something they don't agree with. Laws are not required, systemic means the whole system, culture, how people do business, how people hire, how people get chosen to go to collage etc. Doesn't even really require the Government itself. Only reason some of these people don't realize this is systemic is because they're fed a false belief that only oppressed marginalized people qualify as oppressed under 'racism' so it's okay to be 'racist' toward a group that isn't oppressed. Issue racism has nothing to do with oppression, oppression is symptom but not the cause, and the cause of the oppression is racism. So creating a systemic system that is oppressive in nature toward people of 'any' race is Systemic Racism. Yet they don't see that.
This is sadly when two different words are merged together to mean the same thing when they're not. It's a similar argument that say Neo Confederates have when they point to the Union during the American Civil War they will say "look the North was racist to so the war had nothing to do with slavery." Ignoring the elephant in the room that that "Slavery" and "Racism" are two seperate words, and are not the same thing. You can be a racist yet still be opposed to slavery, and they fail to realize that.
People who think DEI practices are not systemic racism, well think racism only applies to people who are historically oppressed. Issue is DEI actually creates oppression, people lose jobs, or lose opportunity based on their skin color? There is no difference. Racism and Oppression are not the same thing, oppression is often just a symptom of racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I doubt he is an anarchist, as anarchism is a technical impossibility. Eventually someone will build enough power to create a state/kingdom or government within the chaos of an anarcho society, and in fact being anarchism = no society, so. Which is why TIK called anarcho socialist an oxymoron. Issue with Anarcho Capitalist, honestly, I don't think they really exist, as even the most right ring people I've seen seem to not want the state to be entirely gone, just there to act as a guardian against tyranny, not being the tyranny itself, ie a state that protects the people from itself, and acts as a protector of law. I think Capitalist just want the state to stay out of economics, which isn't anarchism, it's just advocating a free economy. Those who are Anarcho Capitalist are not capitalist, they're just plain anarchist. I think the term exist primarily for Anarcho Socialist who are morons themselves can demonize anarchist who do not want socialism, which to be frank, only REAL anarchist would not want socialism, as socialism can never be in any way anarcho in nature, if it was anarchism it would never be socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
9:35 the Communist Toilet thing is likely more true than you'd realize. It's an issue all across Eastern Europe in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Crimea. Were we now live in the 2020s and people still do not have indoor plumbing in wide areas of these territories. Soviet Union didn't prioritize plumbing for private residences definitely in rural parts of it's territories. So say an American Farmer would have plumbing in their homes by the 1940s, now we see a situation which many rural villages/farms do not have plumbing in Russia/Ukraine in 2023. Which in my opinion is a huge shock, as a rural farm would run off a well, not some form of outside network, so it shouldn't be difficult to do it. I read by the 1980s some 20% if not more of Hospitals in the Soviet Union didn't even have running water, most of which in the rural parts of the country as well, so even medical facilities were well treated badly by the Soviet Government in parts of the country that were considered 'Unimportant."
I also think in a Socialist system people would think it would be the "state's" responsibility vs their own as well, so many even after the fall of the USSR likely still have not invested themselves into their own plumping the 1940s American farm being an example, it wasn't the state that paid for that plumbing but the farmer. All because they may think infrastructure like that shouldn't be "Their" responsibility even if it's on private land, their private land.
So I'd argue it isn't just about having a toilet, but plumbing itself. Maybe the bare minimum of water in the kitchen for cooking is what you'd often see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
They want people to get mad. Its part of the Leftist Socialist Agenda. Divide and Conquer. They label Geek Culture as Dominated by White Males. They Label all of their enemies as "White Males." There is a reason for this, and a reason why the left is blindly so supportive of groups that are not white males. Well, except for Asians, ironically a lot of leftist hate Asians to surprisingly. But it seems it's all intentional. They want to pit Latinos, Women, Africans, and Arabs against the "White Males." It's the same tactics Communist or Marxist Socialist used against the Bourgeoisie, or how National Socialist targeted Jews, and other Groups painting them as the enemy, to rally people against them. Today the Left which is grossly Socialist leaning seem to be using "White Males" as their Bourgeoisie, or their Jews..... and pushing a similar narrative that "They're responsible for everything wrong in society." They want to divide us. Issue is, most people do not see this because they're not properly taught the history revolving around Socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At this rate I think Russia would have been far better off with the Tsar, and I don't have a high opinion of the Tsar. But with what Russia went through with Lenin and Stalin, then the stagnation of the USSR in the 60-80s, and collapse, then the Russian Federation trying to piece itself back together again post USSR, then Putin coming in and pretty much ruining any progress Russia actually made on that front. ya... really if the Tsar stayed in power I actually think Russia would of been better off. It's a tragic history for Russia.
TIKhistory is a great youtube channel, and he brought up the argument once in one of his videos that it's very likely that the average Russian Citizen's life is no better off in the 1980s than it was in the 1920s. The Russian Federation saw some improvement but the Russian Federation had to deal with the leftover cancer that was the Soviet Union including the massive inflation of the Soviet Union. I know people blame the 1990s for Inflation but the USSR had Price Fixing, so the currency was already inflated before the Russian Federation existed. When Russia opened up it's economy during the 1990s it just made that inflation obvious, without state price fixing of goods.
So ironically the inflation that was so heavily blamed on the Russian Federation was actually left over from the Soviet Union. Inflationary issues Russia still deals with today, and Putin's solution is the Soviet Solution, with State price fixing. Which is why some people make fake Russian accounts to get games on Steam extra cheap, because Russian Regulations actually decides prices of those games on Steam for Russian Citizens, not the actual market value of said products vs Russia's Currency. This is a clear sign that Russians even today do not live in a free market.
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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@desmondkurtz1936 It matters a LOT. Where does the State get it's wealth? Through Taxation. Which it has to take from the private sector which includes the poor. All Taxation leads to poverty, and the more taxation regardless to whom it's directed leads to more poverty as it's the people who have wealth which provides the jobs for those at the bottom. So again, it's a negative cycle.
So for the state to inject capital into the economy, the state must first take that capital from somewhere else.
Unless the state borrows money, which in turn is just as bad, because in turn it means the state will eventually have to get capital to pay that debt back with interest, which will be even worse in the long run. All for the HOPE their projects will create enough growth to pay for those bills through taxation later.
Either way the State is a Consumer, not a Producer. The State doesn't create wealth, it can only consume it. Which leads to more poverty. The more the state consumes, the less economic freedom individuals in society will have. This is why homelessness and poverty is literally the worst in the USA in Cities that have centrally planned economics, high taxation, which causes unaffordable cost of living including high property values, and taxes, so, with high taxation the state can spend on STATE projects which ironically = poverty. Spend 4 BILLION dollars fighting your homeless problem likely only created more homeless, as the State had to get it's money somewhere. Create Zoning laws because you want to prevent property values from dropping/shifting, = higher cost of living, low construction of affordable housing, which = more and more unaffordability for low income workers.
It's why a lot of These FAILED States like creating minimum wages as it's a band aid for their own failures, but creating a fixed minimum wage never seems to keep up with the increase cost of living they're creating so it never fixes the problem, only drives investment away. It's why so many are moving out of California to a Economically Liberal State like Texas, which is the complete opposite of a Centrally Planned Economic State, not just people but employers/producers are moving out to more liberal states. Yes I mean Liberal at an economic sense. Capitalism is the Ideal LIBERAL economic system, which many liberals have forgotten. It's why I laugh at Anarcho-Socialist, or Libertarian Socialist who claim to be Liberal yet want State Dominated Economics, they claim to be anti state but pro state at the same time.
As Thomas Sowell so beautifully said "If you understood basic economics you wouldn't be a Socialist." Because it doesn't work. It's why the Premiere of Denmark in 2018 said the Nordic States need to push toward less state involvement in the economy not more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I often compare the CCP to Nazi Germany because how they handle their economics, and even private business. Everything is under the "Party's" control, not the "State." It's similar to how the Nazi Party controlled the country, not the State, and by doing so the Nazi Party became the State, despite that the Reichstag still existed, and other political parties also existed. I mean every major corporation within China is controlled by a member of the CCP. Similar to how in Nazi Germany every major business was owned by someone who was a member of the Nazi Party, and everyone who didn't play ball had their companies taken from them, Junkers being the most famous example. Now combine that with the CCP's Ethnic Nationalism movement, persecution of ethnic minorities, and even propaganda trying to convince Chinese women not to marry foreigners, and the CCP sound more and more like the Racial Socialism that dominated Nazi Ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the issue is. Russia is pretty much a 3rd world Country economically. Yet is trying to financially support the 2nd/3rd largest military in the world. They're not using their most advanced equipment because they likely can not afford to do so. I've seen the inside of some of their abandoned vehicles and some of the armored vehicles look like they're 50-60 years old, and not maintained. It's also why they're not using their best assets. They're too expensive to loose vs a country that pretty much has inferior assets to even your mid tier vehicles/aircraft. T90s and T14s being mostly parade pieces of course are likely not going to be deployed for example.
Basically it seems the Russian military had a 48 or 72 hour original operation plan to win and that original plan failed, horrifically. I think proof of this is I think on the 3rd/4th day there were train loads of armored fighting vehicles and tanks arriving in Belarus, days after the invasion had already happened. These forces were being moved to Belarus from elsewhere. If they were supposed to be part of the invasion originally, you'd think they'd already be in Belarus in stage points, but they were not. it's a good sign that their plans changed after the first few days and these were reinforcements being hastily brought in as quick as possible.
They may not of had more air assets ready to operate in Ukraine for similar reasons. They expected Ukraine to fall so quickly that allocating more assets to them was likely not necessary. It can take a long time moving squadrons of aircraft to near by airfields with proper ground crews/equipment/supplies, so more Russian aircraft, like ground forces I just mentioned arriving in Belarus may be on the way.
In my opinion. I think most people who say Russia planned for a short campaign expecting the Ukrainians to collapse quickly is likely right. They failed to capture airports, despite using airborne troops. Why try to capture airbases near major cities if you do not have a plan to use those airbases? A quick capture of a city would require resupply/use of said airbases, so they likely expected to capture Kiev and Kharkov relatively early in the campaign. But, they even botched the airborne assault so even the airbases didn't fall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I sent in my PS3 to Sony when it broke from overheating. Being it was one of the original 60GB Backwards Compatible Models, I wasn't just going to buy a new PS3.
What Happened?
1. They didn't recover any of my data from my PS3. I assumed they would, but I guess something like that is too difficult for them.
2. They sent me instead of a New PS3 Replacement, they sent me a Refurbished one. Poorly at that as it broke within a year.
3. After the Second one broke, I decided to try to backup the data this time. But found out a lot of it was locked to the machine, ie I couldn't transfer it, because the company that made the game didn't want data to be transferable.
4. I asked around and found out to 'save' that data, I had to PAY Sony to have access to PSN Plus. So I decided to do so for one month just so I could back it up.
5. I sent that machine to a proper Repair service over the internet, they repaired it, soldered and reballed the chips that suffered damage and even modified the machine so the fans would run faster to keep it cooler. They told me it was a Refurbished machine, which I never knew. I assumed it was new, and is when I realized it was Conned by Sony. As when I filled out the application it made it sound like it would be new.
My Experience with this. Caused me to no longer Trust Sony. I opted out entirely from buying a PS4, or XBox One, and I'm going to do the same with the new consoles they're bring out within the next two years. They're scumbags, and don't deserve a dime from me.
1
-
Wealth is irrelevant, when you are the State. Best example, HItler's Will did not include the massive amount of wealth Socialist accuse him of accumulating, ie they claim he was a billionaire. But his Will which was made shortly before he shot himself did not include giving any large sums of cash to anyone in his family or friends. Why? Because all that wealth they often claim he accumilated ie He is a Capitalist, wasn't his wealth, but the wealth of the Party, and in extension, the State. Even his mountain top retreat was paid for by Party money, without him knowing, which was ironic because he hated heights, so if he chose to build himself a mansion he likely wouldn't of chosen a mountain top.
Issue is when you're the State, all the State wealth is by defacto yours, even if you do not view it as yours. Hitler didn't view all that wealth has his, hence why he didn't include it in his Will, as it was the Party's. He literally specified it in his Will as well, outside of a few personal things, material items, everything else he had went back to the Party literally stating that in his Will. He never viewed it as his.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reybot5125 I'd love to see an example where he directly refutes his own claim. From my experience it's more of interpretation, and those who see it as something else interpret it differently and that's literally the barrier that some run into.
But he does openly tell his viewers not to take his word for it. Again citing the sources properly for readers to look up. Again it's the main reason I went to read On the Jewish Question. I've also picked up a few books since watching his channel.
However, everyone's bias including the historians he cites. So saying he's bias, and his biasness effects his work is "DUH." Everyone is like that, it's unavoidable. it's why I don't just watch TIK. I mean why do you think I ended up on this video? I even watch youtubers like Animarchy who openly disagrees with TIK's political views and mentions him by name, but he will still give credit when credit is do and has referenced him a number of times in some of his own videos.
My favorite example of bias I often refer to is Ishay Landa's essay on Spengler's Prussian Socialism. Landa only successfully proved Spengler wasn't a Marxist, which such a conclusion is well "DUH" Spengler would agree with that claim. Ignoring that Spengler's ideas on Socialism are based on Conservative Socialism or what Marx called Bourgeois Socialism, which is an older view on Socialism, that doesn't exclude Private Property, nor does it have anything to do with the Working Class, predating Marxism itself. It's a similar issue people like Richard Evans also seem to have. They do a great job proving say Hitler isn't a Marxist, but that's about it. Marxist do not hold a monopoly on the term Socialist. Even Social Democracy is a variation of Marxist Socialism for example, built around Marx's Class Centric Theories.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:26 Many within the British Government were empathetic to the Soviet Union for years leading up to the war, and during and after the war. The USSR wanted all national's under their control, ie Poles, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Russians, etc to be repatriated back to their countries. US/UK Government actually aided it quite a bit of forced repatriations of such foreign nationals back to countries under Soviet Occupation against their own wishes. Operation Keelhaul for example. Only really those who directly worked with the allies were normally spared this. This under the surface hostility is why many still believe the controversy around the death of General Władysław Sikorski, ie many still believe he was assassinated despite an accident being far more probable because it happened long before the west decided to abandon Poland to Soviet occupation.
With that being said. I wouldn't be surprised if much of this was done to force these men to return to Poland which would of pleased the Soviet Union because they really wanted said nationals to return, it was a black eye seeing nationals refusing to return to their home countries. The USSR viewed this as a international embarrassment by how many of said foreign nationals refused to return. So similar to Operational Keelhaul this could of been an attempt to force them to voluntarily repatriate themselves.
Either that or the British government were really just that tight fisted, and used the loop hole of them having no official citizenship as a means to save some money. Which the British government is known for. Using their legal gray status as an excuse to save money. Which if true honestly is worse than the earlier explanation as it wouldn't of been a political reason but a very cold reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waketfup8864 I guess I can simplify it.
Fuhrer Principle = the Party Elects a King, the King serves until the King is unable to Serve. But since the Nazis hated Monarchies, they dared not use the word Kaiser. So used "Leader" instead. This King didn't own the State, they ruled on behalf of the Party, and Party's interest. It was also not Hereditary. So it's basically like electing a President but the President holds more power than say a US President would have, and would stay in office until confidence in their leadership is lost, or they die, step down or whatever reason.
Goring was marked for treason by actually trying to exercise this actually. When berlin was surrounded Hitler was basically trapped, and incapacitated and unable to lead the country. Of course many loyalist in the Party didn't see it this way, including Hitler himself.
Only when Hitler realized all was lost, and Berlin couldn't be saved, did he decided to give his powers over to another Citizen. One that was quite unexpected at that, because he wasn't a Party Man. I personally believe he did it out of spite for all the yes men he realized were lying to him by the 11th hour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Though I'm not a big Star Wars fan, I've not been since about 2002, and no Phantom Menace is not the reason, I actually liked that movie. But it has more to do with that I became a Mobile Suit Gundam fan because of the 2001-2004 airing of Mobile Suit Gundam (1979), 08th MS Team, Gundam 0080 and 0083. Rose my expectations well beyond what Star Wars currently provided, and honestly has since provided. Even Mando seasons 1 & 2 really were not enough to make me excited for a franchise that I honestly think has been grossly lacking for much of it's history. In spite of that, I get the same feeling as a MSG fan from particular events within those shows. They become more than just a TV show or movie, but a world/universe, one that becomes almost rule to the viewers, a world with history, and events that span generations of characters. I mean I watched the most recent trailer for Gundam Hathaway's Flash and saw a MS-18 Kampfer, which hasn't been seen on a TV show or film since 1989's Gundam 0080. When I watched Gundam Twilight Axis, and saw Char Aznable hold Lalah in his arms again, it broke my heart because I knew the tragedy that revolved around those two characters, and their eventual outcomes, and seeing a character remember a moment when she witness them together brought tears to my eyes.
I think the issue a lot of people who work on this productions sometimes forget that when you create a world, a franchise, it has history, and precedent/rules that must be followed, respect to past characters that must be honored as well, when you throw those things out the window you utterly destroy the believability of the stories within the universe that was already created because that foundation has already been laid, and if you want to create something new/different you can not just throw all that out and perhaps should be thinking of making a new franchise instead of bulldozing something that has already been created. It's why when people take existing properties and try to turn them into something they're not they almost always fail, and fail miserably.
1
-
Point of replacing gold with paper, is so the "State" holds the Capital, not the Private Individuals in the Economy. Basically it was State theft on a massive scale. FDR did this, when he even had the State confiscate Jewelry in exchange for Paper Dollars, the State needed Capital, so it stole it from the people in exchange for paper with funny faces. This is why coinage in the USA = mixed alloys. Silver, Zink, Copper, and Gold counting on the coins, and mixed together in a fashion that makes it impossible to know the true value of the coin, essentially fiating Metal coins. We're not allowed to have 'real' capital in the form of money when it comes to exchange/purchases.
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
-
@backwithabang5842 Not really, Dresden suffered 18,000-24,000 Casualties officially according to the German Government after a long investigation, and bringing in many German historians to debate over the subject. I think they officially settled on like 21,000 or something along those lines a middle ground between the high/low figure. They used statistics that were written up by an SS investigation on the bombings, the SS actually took some detailed figures after the bombing disaster and surprisingly were the best source of information on the subject. Even then it paled in comparison to propaganda figures pushed by the Party. Officially for newspapers and propaganda Goebels added an extra 0 to the highest estimate which was 24,000 so it became 240,000, they eventually doubled that to around 400,000. Some historians rolled with it, and made the Dresden bombing look far worse than it actually was.
Basically Hamburg suffered higher casualties than Dresden did. Operation Gomorrah over Hamburg killed around 37,000 people. Sadly Dresden became a propaganda piece because the Nazi Party claimed it held no military/strategic value which is a fars, it was a major rail hub, as well as did have war production factories. Again another myth perpetuated by the Party that carried over post war by lazy historians, or Nazi apologist historians. Most Notably David Irving who is better known today as a Distorian than a Historian. In which is later additions of his The Destruction of Dresden book, he basically included Goebels propaganda figure of 240,000.
1
-
1
-
@alanywalany6460 Why? The guy is a moron. He calls TIK a liar because he fails to understand just because someone uses another person's book as a source doesn't mean he agrees with the author's conclusions. It's a common criticism I see people who react/counter his videos, and they fail to realize this time and time again.
Contradictions are Roadmaps to the truth, as you should always pursue them if you find someone making a contradiction and TIK does that, with the very books DemocraticMarxist claims are speaking truth.
TIKhistory openly admits for example that Gunther Reimann's Vampire Economy was written by a self proclaimed Communist, as a result Reimann will without question come to false conclusions because of the Marx's warped world view. Their own belief system blinds them to reality, and they call reality an illusion anyways.
Best example of DemocraticMarxist wearing Marxist Goggles blinding him from Reality is when he actually ruins his own argument in "TIKHistory's lies debunked: Hitler's capitalism" When discussing privatization. TIK has presented primary source evidence on the Economist's Article where the term Privatization first came from that the Nazis were selling Shares of State owned Banks. When the definition DemocraticMarxists01 clearly shows on screen refers to Public Traded Companies as not Private. So he debunks himself on his own video using his own evidence trying to disprove TIKhistory. Basically he thinks Selling Shares = Privatization. Public traded companies doesn't equal privatization which is why it's called Public Trading. Even if you try to call the Share holders say private interest, no one person or family gains control of a Public Business. Even Elon Musk doesn't own 100% of his business. They're not private business.
This is the reason many socialist and socialist leaning economist invented the term State Capitalism, to explain their own contradiction. I still see Socialist arguing over whether China is Market Socialism or State Capitalism for example. Which makes me think they're nothing more than just synonyms of each other.
Also btw even if say the Nazis tried to Privatize some sectors of the economy it actually doesn't change much. Lenin did as well with his New Economic Policy. Lenin literally gave individual families Farmland. Mostly as a way to reverse the agricultural disaster the new Red State was now dealing with. Lenin basically re-privatized agriculture or at least attempted to. He of course never used the word Privatization, if the term even existed yet. However, I doubt anyone would call Lenin a Capitalist for doing so. Lenin did so for economic reasons, so why says the Nazis didn't? Just because a Socialist supports some Capitalist like economics it doesn't change much. Definitely being Marx himself believed Capitalism was necessary to build the capital needed for a Socialist State, so who can argue that a Socialist wouldn't install Capitalist institution to build Capital for their Social Revolution? I mean it's definitely the reason Lenin did it, as we know he wasn't a Capitalist, not by a land slide. But he knew private imitative would increase productivity and they were dealing with famine.
Marx knew the virtue of Capitalism's ability to build an economy. So would Lenin, and so would Hitler. So I find it funny that Marxist want to die on that hill, definitely very well knowing Lenin did. CCP didn't adopt a more free market for Capitalist reasons, but to build China's shitty economy up. Not because the CCP are Capitalist but because they understand Capitalism's ability to build an economy. They did it for national interest, and few who distrust the CCP are under the illusion that the CCP will follow that road forever. With most believing that once their build that capital up, they will bring back the revolution, and in many respects they have been slowly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We can see now why TIK referred to it as a Socialist Civil War. Opposition in said Civil War always accusing the other side of not being "REAL" Socialist. We know where the meme came from. Issue is, because of their obsession and attempts to disassociate the masses don't even know what Right/Left even are anymore, and associate it entirely with Liberalism/Conservatism, then don't even know what Liberalism and Conservatism are as I've seen conservatives far more liberal than people who claim to be Liberal. These people, have turned the political spectrum into a utter mess, and I honestly think it's on purpose. I can think of no reason why Communist can be conservative according to Orwell when he referred to more conservative communist considered Fascism to the left of them, and why Gentile would refer to a Capitalist State as a Liberal State.... yet Capitalism is Right Wing? So wouldn't that imply Liberalism is actually to the right not left? Honestly think there has been a lot of misinformation by Marxist/Socialist academics for the greater part of the last century to lead to these major contradictions.
And to be Honest, they're all Socialist, just all have different ideas on what Socialism is... in turn this also means Socialist in General have NEVER come to a consensus on what Socialism really is, Marxist socialist may have among the circles of Marxist socialist, but not socialist themselves.... though I would argue that not even Marxist Socialist have come to a consensus for how many I've argued with whom have wildly different opinions on Socialism and what it is vs the next Marxist Socialist. Just yesterday I ran into one of the violent revolutionary types which advocated the murder/extermination of all capitalist. I linked him the Mr H's Shrinking Market video TIK made a long time ago because he got in a toddler style fit when I said he sounded almost exactly like a National Socialist.
Of course he replied with that the NS were Capitalist so linked TIK's review of Vampire Economy, made sure he knew that it was written by a Communist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sie1304 Ya Hitler was terrified of the Reichswehr and would remain so throughout his entire time in power. Rohem wanted to replace the Army because well it wasn't made up of the Laymen but by the Aristocracy. Again Rohem was heavily influenced by Marxism.
Hitler was kind of the same way he went through the Communist Party at one time, and based on what I've read about his time in Vienna he may have been a socialist sympathizer at the very least before he moved from Vienna to Munich. Though there isn't enough information, hitler did a great job erasing his past and replacing it with his Party Bible. Hitler also didn't like people in positions of power because of "Social Status" or "Social Class" something the Army was a symbol of, a gentlemen's club in a way.
But Hitler at least understood he needed their expertise. The Nazi party had very few professional soldiers in their ranks who had any military experience beyond middle rank or low rank officership like captains and lieutenants which are not qualified enough to command armies. Most of those were kicked out of the Army for one reason or another as well, so didn't get to adapt/train/study throughout the Weimar years and if we're talking about Rohem, they turned into gangsters who's only post war experience was beating up people in the street. It would take a generation to replace the Generals/Ranking officers of the Reichswehr, something Hitler never had time for. So Hitler despite fearing the Army Officer Corp, needed them nonetheless.
This contrast to Rohem who wanted to purge the German General Staff, and replace the Army with "Him" and his Old Comrades and yes I know the irony of my username there. Took it from the song and never really thought about it.
If Rohem had his way it would have castrated the German Military as it did in Russia under the Bolsheviks. So you can see why Hitler actually had no real choice in this matter. Rohem and his loyalist had to go.
So you can say the choice to remove Rohem and sideline the SA into a token/powerless organization in 1934 was the only real decision Hitler had, definitely once he got the backing of the Army if he did it.
I mean imagine if he didn't and Rohem launched his second revolution? There is absolutely no way the Reichswehr wouldn't have put it down, and likely then turn on Hitler and the Nazi party itself. Military Junta rule/coup.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@19DESERTFOX91 If we're going by what is only in the animated series/films, then no your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
Secondly I'm referring to a specific episode and the events in it, and the message the episode stands for. Which has nothing to do with the OVER ARCHING story of Gundam in it's entirety. Episode 4 of Unicorn is the Zeon Remnant episode how Zeon remnants are portrayed in Gundam is actually very comparable to the Palestine Israeli conflicts as of this very moment anyways.
Thirdly, despite being a Zeon Sympathizer myself, saying "Zeon Did Nothing Wrong" oh boy... it might work as a meme for some existing regimes, but for Zeon we get to see what they did in real time, so there is no wishy washy way of sugar coating their crimes. So unlike Marxist and Nazi Apologist, you cannot just twist facts and make a convincing argument about Zeon. So the meme quote doesn't work very well for Zeon. If anything the quote is making fun of denialist in the modern context. Among Gundam fans, there isn't really any denialist. Unless they have a VERY warped sense of lore.
Finally, if I do recall there was an interview with one of the producers of Mobile Suit Gundam, and yes the Palestinian Israeli conflict was one of their inspirations for the show. It isn't visible in the original TV series, but in Zeta Gundam, and later productions it's definitely there, after Tomino was given a far more free hand in production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be honest, if I saw this 10 years ago I would of felt sad. But honestly anymore, I don't have as much pity as I used to have. I spent 14 years running a Brake Press, it's very hard work, and I absolutely enjoyed doing it. I didn't get paid a lot either but it was enough. I've since moved up into management of the same company. However, it's a mind game more than anything. I didn't view it as work. I viewed it as getting paid to exercise, I got paid to take a flat piece of metal and turning into something beautiful. I got paid while doing it. To me it was a game, how good of a job could I do, and how much could I get done at the same time? I preferred perfection, and I was good at it and loved it.
Issue with people I think they look at everything the wrong way. I remember my father was shocked how many parts I'd make in a day. He expected a few hundred. I told him 700-3000 in a day counting what it was. He was shocked he was a Union man, and never fathomed such numbers. Some of the material I dealt with was 1/4 to 3/8th inch steel as well. As I said paid to exercise, and when someone says you don't need to remember math.. they're liars.
I find it funny citing a character from a video game but.. Adan from Fallout 3 had a wonderful quote when in reference to labor in general. "I'd like to be free, but I'm not. And the harder I cling to that idea, the more miserable I'll be that I'm stuck here. And this work is hard enough without extra misery. Speaking of which, I should get back to it."
It's a state of mind. Doesn't matter what job you're doing in my opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eli7801 You pretty much proved a point that those who think Palestine actually existed as a Nation don't actually know history.
For one, Philistines do not exist, just as the Romans do not exist. As a culture/people their culture/identity went extinct. We don't even know anything about their language.
Italians today are not Romans. Just as those in Israel/Palestine are sure as heck not Philistines. You can make an argument with Egypt but most Egyptians you can promise are not Ancient Egyptian nor do they preserve Ancient Egyptian customs.
The fact you tried to use that as an argument is utterly stupid.
As I already argued, the region was multi ethnic. It didn't have a singular identity. Palestinian Nationalist and Zionist have tried to create identities. Nationalism is in itself a Nation Building movement, normally created by people who want to create a "New" Nation or Identity. For example LGBT community tried to establish a Nation, even if they didn't realize it, collectively organizing with a common goal, with common beliefs, as a common body. It's no different than Nationalist who rally behind what they perceive as their Identity.
Palestinian Nationalism is a 20th Century creation in short as they created an identity. As I said, before the 20th Century, there was no Palestine. It was a region of the Ottoman Empire which Christians, Jews and Muslims all resided, of various languages, culture and beliefs.
Modern Nationalism or how we perceive nationalism as some kind of Ethnic identity is a modern concept dating back to the 19th Century. When the world started giving rise to the idea of Nation States.
The United States was founded before the idea of the Nation State. So the US as a Nation isn't an Ethnicity, or a Culture, but our Nationalism is built around Civic Nationalism, laws, ideas, and paper.
Palestinian Nationalism similar to Zionism is built around creating 'THEIR" Nation State. The Arab revolts in Palestine in the 1930s was their attempt to make an Arab State in Palestine, and they failed. Again at this time Palestine was a Colony and Multi ethnic, during their revolt they were attacking not just the British government but other ethnic groups within Palestine because their idea of Palestine didn't include those "OTHER" ethnic groups. Also, there were attempts before this Revolt by other ethnic groups in the region to join that Revolt, but the Palestinian Nationalist rejected it, they wanted nothing to do with the other people's in the region. This is sadly a position most Palestinian Nationalist movements still have, that the region is exclusively for Muslims. In spite of the historic record that it wasn't exclusive to anyone. Zionist want it to be exclusive for the Jews. So those who fight for a Palestinian State are no different than the Zionist that Pro Palestinians despise.
Issue I have though is Israel is a Multi Ethnic State in spite of it's flag with millions of it's citizens being Muslim and Christians, where as the Palestinians don't want to accept the idea at all at least those who are committing to these "Holy War." If they'd stop fighting, everyone in the region could actually live in peace. It's those who identify as Palestinian who prevent that peace. So their Ghettos are SELF INFLICTED.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly it has nothing to do with white/black but proper language. There is no difference to me when it comes to ghetto trash and white trash, if they can not dress proper or speak proper. All it does is says to me is "they don't care about themselves." Then nor should I then in turn care about them. To say "speak white" or "speak black" is automatically assuming all white people speak proper, which they most definitely do not just live in southern Illinois for a few months and you will know what I mean. There are some groups of white Americans who speak so oddly that they're almost incomprehensible.
For example some very rural parts of Creole culture in America might as well be speaking a completely different language vs most of the rest of the country, and it's almost entirely slang as they're often speaking English words but in a way that it's pretty much incomprehensible. It isn't just an issue in the USA either, some parts of Canada, and the British Ilse are just as crazy when it comes to how some people speak the English language, embarrassing actually, fun maybe... but no really some of them really should try much harder.
I mean if an Austrian German like Christoph Waltz who literally speaks a completely different language can learn how to speak Italian, French, and English beautiful, not just speak it but speak it so beautifully that his respect meter is off the charts. Sure there is an accent but he does speak clearly and often with wonderful style. Then really, everyone should at least be able to learn to speak their OWN language or at least the common language spoken by the country they live in, and spoken proper.
In short, when at school, work, or general public places, speak proper and keep the slang at home.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly channels like this exist for just about every subject under the sun. Tragically, a lot of them get away with it for quite a long time as well. They also explode in popularity because they're able to pump so many videos out so quickly, while the content creators they copy/steal from do all the work. You name the subject, from History, Minecraft, Speed Runners, etc and there are these kind of people. It's a sad truth that exist on Youtube. Some are so shameless that they steal footage directly, and claim it as their own, like Lets Plays, Speed Running, pretending they 'played' or collected and edited the videos. Sometimes they're so lazy they just swap out the audio and change the banners, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@blank9574 "Just to be clear, cuz this guy is a lunatic and I’m getting nowhere with him, this guy is claiming that every Jew in Kyiv was a partisan."
It's an issue I've had which is why even when I used to be a Fascist I never went "Nazi." The idea of Nationalism I believed in was Civic Nationalism and had nothing to do with ethnicity, races etc.
I just can not understand or fathom how anyone could sanely judge an entire people as ONE BODY. Even if their denialist claims are say "True" it still doesn't wipe away the fact that they believe an entire body of people are guilty, and deserve the punishment as the Nazis gave, regardless whether it's their watered down version of events or not. The Nazis still rounded up millions of people, took away their freedoms, stole property from them, and threw them into camps/ghettos. Whether they planned to murder them or not at that point its irrelevant. But these people seem to believe if they can prove the Nazis didn't have intent to murder the Jews, it's OKAY, which it isn't. Even in the most watered down form that denialist believe in, the Holocaust is still a crime against humanity.
1
-
@@blank9574 It's hard to convince a Classist to stop being a Classist, it's hard to convince a Racist to stop being a Racist. It's hard to convince someone who hates "The Jews" to stop hating them.
Their view of the world are often built around the idea, so it would almost require completely dismantling their world view. It's a hard thing for someone to over come. I still believed in Individualism, it's required to be a Civic Nationalist. It's that concept which kept me from falling down the same kind of rabbit hole.
I always found the greatest tragedy when reading about the Nazis, was a story told by a Jewish man, who was a boy during the 3rd Reich and Hitler. He told a story on how much he wanted to go outside and march with them. He was referring to the SA, during one of their night torch marches. For him, not being allowed to be a Nazi himself, because of something so utterly stupid. The entire movement was doomed to fail. Rejecting future Allies within their own community because of something as arbitrary as Ethnicity? Religion? It's madness. Imagine how many loyal Nazis they threw in the garbage because of their hate filled beliefs? How many enemies they created as a result...
I'm no longer a Nationalist, let alone a Fascist. I'd say I'm still Civic to an extent, but I see no reason to have any allegiance to any particular flag. I got tired to of dealing with people who can not see people as 'individuals.' I want nothing to do with ideologies that paint people as groups, including Nationality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
L Actually Sweatshops can exist in a Socialist state.
Difference between Capitalism and Socialism is as simple as Private vs Public.
Capitalism is the Private Control of Business, and Economy, allowing the natural economy to function without State Intervention.
Socialism is the Public Control of Business an the Economy. It's why we call the Public Sector the "State" as the Public Sector is the Social Community that rules over the Society.
There is no rule that one or the other can not have sweet shops. Sweet shops appear wherever there is dirt cheap labor with little to no regulations or excessive corruption, ironically, something going on in China today. =P
Only really difference is one gives power to the state, while the other gives power to the people, and no Socialism isn't the one that gives power to the people, as the power is in the hands of the state, and the state is above the people. Capitalism the State's powers are limited in a fashion that keeps the state from interfering with the natural economy, private property, and free commerce. Which limits the State's control over the people, and provides not surprisingly more economic freedom even for the poor.
Also China lifted millions out of poverty only because they opened up their economy to the world Market, ie "FREED" it's economy to the world market, ie made itself "LESS" Socialist. So ironically China's economic success today is a form of State Capitalism which isn't true Capitalism, but it's comparable to say Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany in which major trade unions or Corporations were under the control of members of the ruling party which allowed a decentralized system of competition yet the party still had access so it could steer them but they could independently decide how to reach the end of the road. Both in all three regimes at the bottom smaller business were also allowed to exist, which did mean they had a semi free economy, semi free key phrase.
It's the primary reason why every foreign company that wants to do business in China has to make a partnership with a local Chinese firm, CCP requires access even if it's a foreign company trying to open up shop in China.
Also If I recall the CCP does number fudging to hide how well it's doing economically to boot. Most China watch channels on youtube, ie those exposing lies/corrupting going on in China have already exposed the lies behind the CCP's lifting of Poverty in China. They literally lowered the bar so people who were still poor no longer count as in poverty. Which is the opposite of what has happened in the USA in which the last ten years we've lifted the bar meaning people who were once well off are officially in poverty, in spite still making more money than the old poverty line. Which is the primary reason Democrats are pushing for a $15/h minimum wage as it would put most people above the 'new' poverty line. As I said, the CCP did the opposite so they could claim inflated numbers on how many people they lifted out of poverty.
Interesting enough smudging figures is quite common in Socialist regimes as well. Nazi Germany it was impossible for business to operate because they didn't know what the material prices were for the raw materials they needed to manufacture. Combined with the party's autarky policy it almost drove the country into absolutely ruin by the end of the 1930s and was the main catalyst for the start of the Second World War in Europe. ie instead of admitting their policies were bankrupting the country they decided to invade and rob their neighbors.
The USSR for decades operated under pretty much fake data. Commissars in charged of industrial sectors would intentionally lie, inflate and deflate counting on whether they wanted more support from the state. It was so bad that it was almost impossible to calculate the value of the Rouble on the Free Market so foreign companies who did business with the USSR actually had to Barter for hard goods, none paper money to trade with the USSR. This is how Pepsi Cola ended up getting it's hands on Soviet Submarines which it sold to 3rd parties, literally a Soda pop company acquired Soviet Submarines to pay for the Soda they shipped to the USSR since the USSR couldn't pay for cash. That is how broken the Soviet economy actually was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
L Ignoring the biggest problem with Labor Theory of Value.
Risk. You can make all the predictions you wish, and forecast estimated cost ahead of time, and factor those into pricing, but as I already mentioned which that lengthy reply which you likely copied/pasted from somewhere else does not address is RISK. Hence why they're called projections and forecast, as they're still unpredictable, as you do not know how much money you're going to make off the commodities you're selling/producing any given year. So there is no fixed value, so if labor cost $15/h and they're working ten hour shifts 4 days a week, they still make their wages regardless whether the company actually makes money off the products or not.
It doesn't matter the cost of labor, labor factors into pricing but does not guarantee sales of commodities. So labor does not equal value. You can produce a hundred cars in your factory sell them to a retailer, but if the retailer can not resell those cars, they will not buy more from you. Because the retailer will avoid trying to sell the cars for less than they purchased them for. Because the value of a commodity is Subjective, the predicted price was too steep. If you think this doesn't happen definitely in the automobile industry in which it happens often, I can point to the automotive bailouts back during the Bush Jr Administration, when fuel prices went up, people did not want to buy expensive SUVs and Humvees which guzzled up tons of gasoline the automotive industry almost went completely bankrupt because they put too much stake into those kind of vehicles. Their Forecast of what consumers wanted, ie "Subjective Value" was wrong, as new factors came into play that completely turned their predictions upside down.
However, the workers who made those vehicles STILL got paid regardless of the fact that the companies they worked for were going broke, it was so bad that the US Government to keep all those jobs from going POOF used state funds to keep them afloat. Because it would of taken too long for them to change their production lines to something people would want to actually buy without additional capital up front, luckily those bailouts were loans so they had to repay them back to the state but still. It's a very good example why the Subjective Theory of Value works.
You're examples were rubbish when compared to something like that. I can even point out most recently, Disney Star Wars Merchandise sales collapsed as people lost interest in the films Hasbro still made their money off the manufacturing of said merch but the following year cut back on manufacturing of it by a dramatic amount. Disney overestimated how much people would be interested in buying Star Wars Merchandise that their over production of goods that they paid Hasbro to make flooded the market so badly and no one wanted the merch that it actually aided in making Toys R' Us go out of business, as they spent a metric F*** ton on that merch that wasn't selling. Again, Value is Subjective. Risk is real. All that merch found it's way to dollar stores being sold for pennies vs it's original price. You can not simply predict value based on a spread sheet, predictions are that predictions. Labor does factor into cost, but not value. =P
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TROBassGuitar At least one of us has confidences. Otherwise you'd have no problem crushing every single point I made. The one person that tried did nothing but throw random insults, or copy/paste other people's work and since scuttled away after he ran out of people to give him answers. He had no confidence, and I could imagine how much anxiety he had. His final comment being a joke that I easily crushed without a problem, and I didn't need to look at someone else's work to to it, mean while much of it was literally copied from what seems to be an essay based on the format it was written.
BTW: That guy "L" deleted all his comments. He failed that badly. xD
Confidence comes from knowing the sources, I've read Fascist/Marxist/Socialist and Capitalist literature. I used to be a Socialist myself, and since moved away from the ideology almost entirely, and it took me about 14 years since collage to finally drop Socialism in it's entirety. It's a broken concept that never works because of the very points that Socialist often use to declare that it's necessary. Is also it's biggest fault, yet Socialist are subline to it. That fault is "GREED." Socialist often claim capitalism is doomed to fail because of Greed and Selfishness. But they often fail to realize that Socialist States are run by people as well, the very same kind of people who are just as greedy and just as selfish, but unlike Capitalist Economies the power is no longer in the hands of the people but the state, and the people are slaves to the totality of the state, socialist are fool enough to believe Socialism is people power, but Socialism is state power. It wants to bring Society back to the times when the state truly ruled, the times before classic liberalism brought people freedom to own land, property and have a choice in their own destiny. This freedom of property, land and the right to prosper (Make money) they literally call Capitalism.
There are reasons Hitler got himself a mansion on top of an Alpine Mountain with a closed community built around it. Stalin had a vacation home in George with Gold Trim on the walls. Issue is Socialist states are just as corrupt if not worse than Capitalist ones, and unlike Capitalist ones the people no longer have the ability to take control, as they surrendered it all to the state. You see this in the USA in which politicians have multi million dollar homes despite supposedly being civil servants. A lot of them live in gated communities were they don't even have to really deal with the 'people.' They despite being servants of the public as they claim are selfish and greedy, and they gain their wealth through the state, money we give them, they get wealthy off our backs and they often do not even have to work to do it, unlike a business man who still has to work. Just get elected and make promises they often never keep. Ya, totally can trust in the State to do the right thing when the people who run the state are always selfish/greedy.
Capitalism promises a weak state that can not force it's will onto it's people by way of law, a state that can not interfere with the natural economy, free commerce and private property, all true capitalist states for example have laws that protect private property right down to law enforcement not even being allowed to enter without a judge ruling otherwise. Does that create an atmosphere that is unfair? Yes, but so do all systems. There will always be haves and have nots, the only difference is how much power do you give the haves? Socialism gives the Haves all the power, whether they believe it does or not, because the haves can influence the state far more easily than the have nots can, and more easily can the haves influence the have nots to do what they want, it's much easier for the haves to influence the state to force the have nots to do what they want. And if you give most of the power to the State the Haves will manipulate the State for their own ends and no one can do anything about it. That is true Tyranny.
There is a reason I call the Great Reset that many corporations want to happen "Corporate Socialism." As they believe major business/corporations around the world should work together to create a better world and rebuild the world economy with them at the helm. Does that sound good for the common people? Would it be fair? It definitely doesn't allow the free market to function the way it should because the free market doesn't require oversight to work. So they're definitely not advocating Capitalism.
Issue is, the only people who want Socialism are Corporations, Politicians who want voters and power, Ignorant college kids and educators < who do not have real jobs. Academics operate outside of economics, and most do not know how the real world actually works yet dictate to children how the real world works. It's tragic that it takes so many years for the brainwashing to wear off, and it's the primary reason most college kids are pro Socialist, but by the time they're in their 30s/40s half if not more stop being Socialist for obvious reasons. They grew up.
1
-
@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 That is the Marxist definition. Socialism pre-dates Marxism. Marx was a classist. He viewed history through Social Classes, his definition of Socialism was a system in which workers controlled the means of production, but those workers also create a Ruling Body, and by default become the State. So even with the Marxist definition it still goes full circle back to State control of the Means of Production.
There is a reason both the Fascist and Nazis considered themselves half way between Capitalism and Communism, because they were Socialist. Yet Socialist deny that very concept because they don't know what Socialism actually is. =P
Websters:
Socialism
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Webster's includes the Marxs definition but you've already posted it, but it makes it clear that it's Marxist definition. Why? Because only Marxist Socialist believe in that definition, and people who are not who do were convinced that was the definition by you bet? Marxist Socialist.
Commune/Community is the Hierarchy of Society, and the Hierarchy that rules society is the State. So even Communist nations are Socialist. Fascist are nations ruled by Corporations/Trade Unions on behalf of the State. Yet they're still Socialist because those Unions are organs of the state, and the state controls those Unions, regardless what some Socialist say, they're not Capitalist regimes. Even in Germany the major Corporations that they created were owned by members of the Party, ironically a similar situation to what you're seeing going on in China today actually.
State
: 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
Among many other definitions which pretty much state the same thing. A community or the social hierarchy that rules over society.
In other words. You can argue that Socialism is the Public Control of the means of Production. Which can be a Commune, a Workers Union, a Federation of Unions, Corporate (if the Corporation is the ruling party in society), among many other possible ruling bodies.
In short. Socialism is state control of the means of production.
1
-
@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 Leading Authority on Marxism. <<<
You just spelled it out right there. Socialism pre-dates Marxism. You're referring to Marxism, not Socialism. Marxism is a Class version of Socialism, but isn't the core concept of Socialism. Of course a Marxist would define their version of Socialism as Socialism.
Yet you missed the earlier point entirely. Even if it's Worker's control, the workers are the State. If a Commune governs itself, it's a State. If the Worker's are the governing body of Society THEY ARE A STATE. How blunt does one have to explain the basic concept of a State, or a Nation. At least in theory. Even then in a large scale say a Union of a Federation of Trade Unions ie Factory Workers, they would still be a state.
So even if Socialism is Worker control it still circles back to the State. It's circular logic to claim that it's worker control because it still goes back to the state. Because they are the state. This is why Anarcho-Marxist are a joke or phrases like Libertarian Socialist are literally oxymoronic terms.
Soviet Union being a good example, at least ideally during it's post Lenin/Stalin eras when it threw out the dictatorship, and allowed the Soviets (what they called trade unions) to rule. Technically the Soviet Union was the Marxist ideal Socialist state, as the Federation of Workers Unions was literally the Soviet Union. The Bureaucracy you're complaining is what happens in a State, regardless when it grows to such a large size while still trying to rule in such a fashion. Without a free market you have to have no choice but bureaucracy.
Also you're opinion of Fascism is wrong, and a gross simplified. As George Orwell said. "... it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions that neither Fascist themselves, Nor Conservatives, Nor Socialist of any Colour, are willing to make." This was late in Orwell's life.
What he meant when he said "Nor Socialist of any Colour." Was that Fascism is a variant of Socialism, and Socialist hate it when someone says that. If you actually know what Socialism actually is, but being you belief in a false definition of Socialism of course you're not going to get it. BTW George Orwell was a Socialist, and one of histories most well known anti Fascist from that era. He wrote Animal Farm and 1984 during the last few years of his life as a warning of the dangers of Socialism, he lost faith in Socialism and the Socialist movement by that time in his life, all socialist regimes became totalitarian dictatorships before he died with no real positive examples. Pity he didn't get to see a post Stalin USSR, it might of perked him up some.
I'd highly recommend looking up a video by the history tuber named TIK called "FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism" It goes into quite a lot of detail on Fascism, and what it actually is, and that is isn't Nazism, nor Marxism. But it's still a Socialist ideology, and like a few other of his videos on this kind of subject are perhaps some of the best I've ever seen. Some of them have 40,000+ word scripts, and dozens of sources per video.
1
-
@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496
Oh god, not that nonsense again.
Just because you get paid to work for your employer does not mean you're being exploited. Your BOSS owes you nothing, you work for your employer willingly. You're not forced at gunpoint to work the job you're working, you're not a SLAVE, and you're not being EXPLOITED. If you want to get paid more ask, if they will not, find another job, or start your own enterprise yourself. If you don't have the capital to do so then work hard, even multiple jobs if necessary and see how shit really works. If not, don't complain if you're poor.
The only reason moronic Marxist believe you're being exploited is because you believe in out dated economics much of which long proven false. Labor Theory of Value being the backbone of this nonsense. Value of your work can not be calculated by a spread sheet. Which makes it impossible for an employer to know how much money their company will make any given week or month. Labor Theory of Value relies heavily on the value of production being equal to the amount of work put into what was produced, which anyone who has ever actually worked in their lives knows isn't true. Without that Fallacy the whole Exploitation myth falls through the floor. Because you still get paid regardless whether the company makes money or not that given week or month.
You're also using a equivalency. If a Capitalist becomes part of the state then they become part of the State. Regardless whether you call them a Capitalist or not they forfeit the right to call themselves a Capitalist because they joined the Public Sector vs staying in the Private Sector. Any company/business that uses the state to gain unfair advantages within the free market are not Capitalist. Just look up the term Corporation as a good example of this, corporations are very exploitative of the state because the state uses corporations as well, they're co-responsible and often co-dependent of each other.
Google:
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law.
Websters:
Corporation:
: a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild
: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state
Doesn't sound like a Private Business, or a Capitalist. Ironically Corporations are just another term for Trade Unions but for rich people. When they become a collective group, they forfeit their right to be considered a private company, and form a public company, so by default they're no longer capitalist as Capitalism requires some form of private ownership and private enterprise, without that it's a form of collectivism. There is a reason they call it "Going Public." As they left the Private sector economy. All Corporations are mini Socialist states within the greater State. It's why even in the USA corporations are favored, most notably last year Walmart could stay open but a private stores were forced to close during the pandemic. The state could control/watch/monitor a corporation better than it could the private sector. Why? Because all Corporations are organs of the state, regardless what some Marxist taught you in school.
Ideally a Capitalist will rarely if ever gain enough wealth/power to influence the state, at least enough of the state to be Tyrannical. They may hold power locally within the towns/cities they operate in but rarely does a Private Company accumulate enough power and wealth to be a threat to the people. A Corporation can, as they're a collective of many companies, with hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees counting on their size. But for any company to do this they have to forfeit their private ownership. Corporations can often be owned by hundreds of thousands of people through stocks/shares, and the closest thing they have to private ownership of any kind is when individuals own a large portion of shares to earn some kind of representation of the company's board. And yes all companies do operate like Mini States. So I go back to the false equivalency claim from earlier, it really stems with the Private vs Public Sector. YES it's possible for a Capitalist who owns a private business to gain enough wealth/power to influence the state but it's VERY rare definitely these days when they have to deal with Public corporations, it's almost impossible for it to happen now days. Privately own companies/business are going extinct, and not because of Capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, I get custom built machines, if that qualifies as pre-built. I don't trust pre-builds. I like being able to select exactly based on the selection they have available what is going to be in the machine, even then I stick with reputable sellers like DigitalStorm, Xidax. I actually just the other day ordered one from Xidax for the first time, the experience with their Sales Rep, and Support was wonderful, and being they're based in the USA gives me more confidence. Over all, all the parts they allowed me to choose from were pretty good ones, when I looked them up, so I have high confidence in what is going to be delivered. When it gets delivered, I ordered it with a 3060ti, which is on Backorder, so it maybe a month or more.
I don't find it an issue not building my own machine, I honestly prefer someone who knows what they're doing doing it. I've seen even professionals like Linus make mistakes that caused thousands of dollars worth of damage to a system. A mistake I much prefer a Seller to make vs me making as they're liable to still give me the product I ordered in spite of the mistake, and with warranty, if they messed up and it fails on me when I'm using it, well I'm still not out of pocket, they still are. This happened with my last machine, they put a faulty power supply in it, ie one of those rare moments of a PSU failing within a few months of ownership, they replaced it no expense on me, worked fine after that, 6 years later that PC is still running without issue.
So Pre-builds are bad, if you're getting one from Walmart, or Dell, you really have to do some homework if you're going to get one built for you, or you're going to buy a pre-build. Not all sellers are asswipes in short, but... it will always be more expensive than getting it done yourself, but I think the extra cost is often worth the ease of mind. I think since 2005 which was my first gaming PC I've only ever had three parts failures. Two PSU Failures and one GPU failure. PSU failure on the first was my fault the fan broke, and I never replaced the PSU and it over heated and died. Second was replaced because of the warranty from the seller. GPU that failed was I think about 4 years into my first custom built PC I purchased, never bought from iBuyPower ever again because they gave me a off brand GPU, which likely lead to it's failure.
1
-
1
-
@@NORNISSE83 So he is Libertarian. Left Wing Libertarianism is a Scam because it's Socialist focused, Socialism is anti Liberal, anti Individualism. So all Left Wing Libertarians are built on an illusion of Liberalism, and Libertarian Values they support are always '2nd' to the Collective Nature of Socialism, so Socialism first, Libertarianism Second. But Socialism enslaves people. So the very idea of Libertarian Socialism is itself a Contradiction, because those who advocate Libertarian Socialism don't understand what Socialism is, but the illusion version they believe in their heads. So the only real Libertarianism is Right Wing Libertarianism, supporting Liberal Economic theories of Private Enterprise, Private Property, Private Business. There is a reason Geovanni Gentile the Father of Fascism called the Capitalist State, a Liberal State, he did so critically, not supportively. REAL Libertarianism has nothing to do with the Left in short. Only fools think that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@Foxarium Well that was a load of garbage.
Italian Fascism is the "Realization" of Fascism itself. THEY INVENTED IT. The Nazis didn't call themselves Fascist, evolved independently, and built their system off the Nordic Social Democratic Model, sure they borrowed from the Italian Fascist but so did they also borrow from the Marxist. Hitler himself even stated Fascism may work for Italy but will not work for Germany.
When the Germans took control of Northern Italy in 1943 they didn't re-establish the Italian Fascist Party, but created a completely new government under National Socialist beliefs.
The Nazis also oppressed and arrested the Fatherland Front leaders, ie the Austrian Fascist Party.
The British who adopted Italian Fascism vs those who adopted National Socialist beliefs also clashed with each other in Britain.
These are not the same ideologies. Claiming your a Fascist doesn't change that. Definitely being most modern Fascist have been poisoned by post war Nazi and Fascist Larpers who sometimes even belief Marxist propaganda about Fascism. Most famous example of this is National Bolshevism which literally just recreated Nazism, because they assumed Nazism was Capitalist at it's core. So removed the "Capitalist" elements which never existed to begin with.
This same confusion is the primary reason the British Union of Fascist and the Imperial Fascist League basically went to war with each other in Britain. British Union of Fascist adopted the Italian system while the Imperial Fascist League Modeled themselves off National Socialism. Both ideologies directly clashed with each other. The only reason the Imperial Fascist League called themselves Fascist was because in Britain everyone called the Nazis Fascist. So similar to the British Fascist (another earlier group) they called themselves Fascist without realizing what Fascism was, btw the British Fascist under Rotha Orman were literally pro capitalist feminist who were anti Marxist, they never bothered to learn what Fascism was but can be best described as Larpers. Which is a common thread.
You even see this today with the book Socialism of Duty, where the author literally uses Julius Evola as a bridge to marry Fascist and Nazi beliefs together... basically EXACTLY WHAT THE MARXIST DID... like Umberto Echo, and the author of Socialism of Duty considers himself a Fascist, yet believes Marxist propaganda on Fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wind Rose If you're arguing why medical care is so expensive in the USA vs elsewhere it has nothing to do with Private vs Public Healthcare. It's why The Affordable Care Act didn't fix the issues, and not a single politician has to balls to address the problem, so they throw bandaids that mask the problem.
Issue with American healthcare is because of a massive explosion in uncontrolled pricing because of how our Insurance system and medical care in general are handled, in conjunction with medical care equipment, and medicine being in control of a handful of very powerful large conglomerates which are basically Medical Trade Syndicates. This was laid bare as bones during the whole EpiPen scandal when it was found out the prices of that medical product was intentionally inflated by 400-600% and because it was a necessary life saving device hospitals and citizens were forced to pay for it at that exaggerated price, and being there was ZERO competition as the producers were working together to inflate the price artificially it was impossible for a natural market to function, no competition means no price war, no price war, they could charge literally whatever they wanted for it. This is a serious issue in American medicine as much of the medical supplies and drug manufacturing is in the hands of a few, and they work together. In short it's a form of monopoly something that is technically illegal in America, but yet since it's a multi billion dollar industry almost no politicians in America are willing to touch it.
So say even if the USA went for a Public Medical care option it wouldn't fix the problem, but only mask it, the State would have to constantly increase taxes to keep masking it as cost will still continue to swore as these companies to keep their investors happy must ALWAYS keep making more profits higher than what they earned the year before. You would literally have to go after the medical supply/drug manufacturers before you could ever tackle the very question of a public healthcare system in America, and until that does happen I will be 100% against such a system as it would only hide that problem. It's why despite supporting Obama through two elections I still think his greatest failure was the Affordable Care Act. It was a bandaid, and nothing more.
I could get into how bad our Hospitals and Clinics operate, how bad our Insurance system is but when compared to what I just mentioned they're pennies when it comes to the main problem.
You can argue that it's the fault of Capitalism, but the US Government's job is to allow Capitalism to function when conglomerates create monopolies the Government has failed as one of their jobs since the Victorian era was to keep Monopolies from forming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucarioshipper4498 Not a big difference really. Alt Right is also used as an excuse to minimalize and dehumanize liberalism on the right. Using a label that makes it sound 'bad." then in turn then can call it Far Right, Dangerous and all kinds of other things like they like to do. Because everything is far right apparently. CNN was trying to paint Javier Milei as a far right extremist that will destroy Argentina. Go figure. Though calling everything Far Right Extremism has been a tactic since before the advent of Fascism itself, which is why Fascism is generally considered Right Wing because when it rose up of course they would call it Right Wing, they call everything they don't like Right Wing, regardless. Fascist reject both Left/Right of the political spectrum btw. They want nothing to do with either which is why they consider themselves 3rd Positionist. But of course Leftist don't want people to know that.
This is why my Favorite history Tuber has abandoned the Right/Left political spectrum calling it pretty much nonsense.. as it's so filled with inaccuracies that it should be thrown out entirely. Favorite example is the fact the Horseshoe theory exist, and its because academics and activist use it to explain how two ideologies like say Italian Fascism and Bolshevism are so similar to each other yet some how "Polar" opposites because of course one is Far Right and the other Far Left. But if you know the history of Fascism, of course they're similar they're sibling/cousin ideologies, Fascism literally branched from National Syndicalism and the Syndicalist branch is a Branch of the Marxist family tree. Both are "Cults of the State" as well. Only reason one is labeled as Far Right is because of how many are flat out lying about it, or have their heads in the sand in denialism. As I pointed out to one person it's why you have to look for Actual Realism to find Fascist ideas on Actualism and it's excluded from a lot of articles on Actualism itself, bury it so no one can understand Fascism in short. So if you read Gentile and see him talk about Actualism and you look up Actualism you don't find what he means by Actualism so easily. Sadly they've done this with a lot of subject matter. Bury the past, and paint it the way they want people to see it. This is also why many of them still rely on terrible sources like Umberto Eco to define "Fascism" despite the fact the game lied through his teeth and it's easy to prove he did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They're Black Supremacist, a movement that came out of the 1960s. By Black Nationalism. CRT is part of that movement. Basically, they're using Critical Theory, ie Marxist Critical Theory which requires you to be a Activist. They look at history entirely through the lens of "Race" with the goal of finding proof even if scant. Basically they're acting like Himmler's SS Historian/Scientist/Archeologist when looking for proof of Aryans. They set out a GOAL before finding Evidence and all Evidence must support that goal. It blind them from the truth. Actually I would say it doesn't blind them, they know the truth, it just blocks them from telling the truth. So they lie.
This is why people who are Marxist are Class focused. Everything about Class, class this class that, yada yada. Well Racial Socialist, like the Nazis, and now days Black Nationalist, and CRT do the same thing but instead of Aryans vs J**s it's now Blacks vs Whites. Same concept different victims/villains. Basically it's Racism replacing Classism but using Marx's Critical Theory.
It's entirely activism, which is why they're so intellectually dishonest. It's like when reading the historian Richard Evans, or most recently Ishay Landa on National Socialism. They use Marxist Socialism as their foundation on what Socialism is, which is incorrect as Marxism is a version of Socialism but isn't the foundation of Socialism, but they use examples of their opposition to Marxist Socialism, ie Labor, Workers, Social Welfare (ties into workers ie wealthy pay for work's healthcare because workers are at the bottom of society) etc etc. Which isn't Socialism. But they use these examples to say Hitler wasn't a Socialist, Landa uses similar examples to claim Spengler wasn't a Socialist as well. All they prove is that they're not Marxist Socialist, which anyone who reads their works would know, Hitler never claimed to be a Marxist Socialist, he spent much of his time and writings trying to prove he wasn't. Spengler never in his entire career claimed to be a Marxist, or a Social Democrat he in turn tried to create a new form of Socialism, Prussian or German Socialism, in opposition to Marxist Socialism. Of course Spengler wasn't a Marxist he never claimed to be and was in open opposition to it. In this context, regardless how good of historians Richard Evans and Ishay Landa are, they're critically wrong because their conception of Socialism is bound to the idea of Marxism. They don't seem to realize Socialism is Social Control, and Social control can be mean so many different things as it just means Society, you can have almost any society. So just because they're against creating a "Worker's State" or in opposition to "Labor" doesn't mean they're not socialist, they're just not Marxist.
This is why this is actually quite dangerous. Hitler replaced the Marxist Class Theory with a Racial one. Anyone who studies Nazism would know this but it's flown over people's heads. Now days we live in an age in which Aryanism is replaced with skin color nonsense. I've seen people going so far to claim the darker a person's skin the more human/civilized they are. That is how insane some of these people are becoming. They WANT human civilization to be founded by 'black' people, so they seek evidence to prove it was. It's no different than the Nazis trying to find evidence of their superior ideals (ie not superior ideals). As I said before. Their Activism is above Truth. If activism is above truth, you know they will not actually tell the truth. This is why you have people try to paint European history, middle eastern history as black dominated history, and white people came from the North Men (Scandinavia) and conquered it all... because they see history as a skin color.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reminds me of the Soviet Union. Many Socialist to this day claim, the USSR had Zero Homeless. They ignore the fundamental issue that it was Illegal to be Homeless in the USSR. If you were homeless you'd be arrested, deported, forcefully immigrated, and generally treated like a stray dog. At times multiple families had to share and apartment. USSR needs people to work in an Iron Mine? Ship them off to a Labor Colony so far away that they will never find their way back to one of the major cities ever again. How the USSR treated disabled Veterans from WWII was just as horrible. A guy in a wheel chair in the street missing both legs poor, with no money, can not work? Two policemen would pick them up, put them in the car, and they will never be seen in that city ever again.
These regimes are not paradise. They're not Utopias. They're facade. How was that quote from the HBO series Chernobyl go? "Our strength is the illusion of strength." ie it was a show, and didn't actually exist. In actuality the Soviet Union was extremely poor, suffered from horrific inflation kept in check by State Price Fixing. When the USSR collapsed, and the Ruble had to compete in the world market, it hyper inflated in less than a decade to an extreme that something that cost 1 ruble in 1991 could cost hundreds of rubles 7 years later.
Sadly the current war in Ukraine is a result that the damage such facades can cause. Many literally elected a Dictator into power with the promise of bringing back the Good Days, those "Facade" Days. Because they couldn't stomach the economic reality of their country and looked back at the facade they were bombarded with as better times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I honestly thought of a obscure American film called Rough Riders. Based around the story of Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders during the Spanish American War. I really like the movie, but often forget about it as it isn't a film anyone else talks about, so I often forget I own it. I like the film a lot mostly because, one it's a good movie, and secondly, it makes the USA look like a nation of over patriotic war mongers, which.... well it's the Spanish American War, that isn't very far from the truth. This was during the down of the 20th Century a period the USA really tried to push for control of Latin and South America, and to force European colonialism out of the Americas, aggressively. Excuses were made which lead to the war with Spain. I really love the credits at the beginning showing the News Paper Articles showing a propaganda build up which eventually did lead to the war. Justification lets say.
The movie sounds a lot like a "MERICA" style movie until you start noticing how much of a Satire Film it is about the USA. Which is why I like it. I get that sense of patriotism, but everything wrong with the USA at the time, is well, on display, and not hidden.
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
-
@wombatsgalore Could they have is a better question. They'd likely get arrested the moment they entered the country as a possible spy. Then again Mussolini was less oppressive than Putin. Also Mussolini was kicked from power by his own Party when the King turncoated and denounced the Party and Mussolini. The Italian National Fascist Party booted their supposedly all powerful all encompassing dictator from power as a last ditch attempt to keep the party in power but it was too late as the Italian King was forming a new government in the south without them, oh the irony. Mussolini would later be put in charge of a puppet state in Northern Italy but saying he was in charge is a bit of a stretch.
So you're better off saying 1940-1943.
I mean it's nuts, Russia is literally banning VPNs now keeping it's people from seeing outside opinions, and people are cheering that Tucker is going to talk to Putin to get "Putin's" opinion when... Putin isn't even allowing his own people to have opinions. It is literally equivalent to interviewing a mob boss which you know is going to blame police for violence and not his cronies. You can not take "Putin's" opinion seriously as a result. Sadly everyone should know that, but apparently people care more about political divides than logic. I'm a right wing libertarian and I think Tucker interviewing Putin is stupid as F***, as nothing good is going to come from it but some "Putin" is "Jesus" cronies on the internet cheering.
I know for years Putin was held up as some messiah against blue haired people, but jesus that doesn't mean people should be siding with him and yes they're siding with him, they WANT his opinion to be validated, because they WANT to justify their opposition to supplying arms to Ukraine.
Basically America has way too many Charles Lindberghs right now, where some of the things they say about supplying arms to Ukraine sound good when taken out of context but are absolutely horrifying when in context. Charles Lindbergh had some amazing tear jerking even anti-war speeches before the USA entered WWII, but when you take it into context that he was also a member of the American Nazi Party for a time, had sympathies for well.. the baddies. It really wrecks the legitimacy of his 'honesty' behind the message he was presenting with those anti war speeches. Sadly too many Americans are basically being Lindbergh all over again and many of them likely don't even know the historic similarities in their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because the Ukraine government doesn't support Neo Nazis either. They sidelined almost all of these extremist. In all respects Communist and Nazis are the same thing in the long run... and calling one far left and the other far right is utterly stupid.
Also when refering to the Russian Separatist. I guess Ukraine is fighting against the very kind of people you claim they support. Last line is actually quite comical. Remember these are the people Russia is backing. =P
"Far-right nationalism and neo-nazism
Russian ethnic and imperialist nationalism has shaped the official ideology of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.[173] Far-right nationalist groups have played a greater role on the pro-Russian side of the conflict than on the Ukrainian side, especially at the beginning.[124][173] Leaders of the Donetsk People's Militia are closely linked to the neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters.[173][174][175] A former member of RNU, Pavel Gubarev, was founder of the Donbas People's Militia and first "governor" of the Donetsk People's Republic.[173][176] RNU is particularly linked to the Russian Orthodox Army, a religious ultranationalist unit which is part of the Donetsk People's Militia.[175][177] Other neo-Nazi units include the 'Rusich', 'Svarozhich' and 'Ratibor' battalions, which have Slavic swastikas on their badges.[173]
According to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, members of European far-right groups receive all-expenses-paid visits to Donetsk.[178]
Some of the most influential far-right activists among the Russian separatists are neo-imperialists, who seek to revive the Russian Empire. These included Igor 'Strelkov' Girkin, first "minister of defence" of the Donetsk People's Republic.[173] The Russian Imperial Movement has recruited thousands of volunteers to join the separatists.[177] Some separatists have flown the black-yellow-white Russian imperial flag,[173] such as the Sparta Battalion. In 2014, volunteers from the National Liberation Movement joined the Donetsk People's Militia bearing portraits of Tsar Nicholas II.[179]
Other Russian far-right groups whose members have joined the separatist militias include the Eurasian Youth Union and the banned Slavic Union and Movement Against Illegal Immigration.[175]
Another Russian separatist paramilitary unit, the Interbrigades, is made up of activists from the National Bolshevik (Nazbol) group Other Russia.[173] An article in Dissent noted that "despite their neo-Stalinist paraphernalia, many of the Russian-speaking nationalists Russia supports in the Donbass are just as right-wing as their counterparts from the Azov Battalion".[180]
In July 2015, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, said he respected Ukraine's far-right party Right Sector "when they beat up the gays in Kyiv and when they tried to depose Poroshenko".[181]
In April 2022, several news outlets noted that the leader of the Donetsk People's Republic, Denis Pushilin, awarded Senior Lieutenant Roman Vorobyov a medal, while Vorobyov was wearing patches affiliated with neo-Nazism: the Totenkopf used by the 3rd SS Panzer Division, and the valknut."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rxvmt2538 You do know both Russia and China are Empires right? Russia still occupies a wide range of territory and people's against their own will/wishes pretty much from the Euro Mountains and eastward. Heck even many Ethnicities in the the European part of the Russian Federation do not want to be part of Russia. Even Belarus, but sadly Belarus is a dictatorship and it's people have no say over it. Main reason it's not involved in the Russo-Ukraine war is because it would lead to open revolt in Belarus.
China has done the same, aggressively occupied and still occupies many regions, and gives those people no political representation whatsoever. But the bullet when they dare to protest against their oppressors.
I mean what do you think Russia is doing right now in Ukraine? Russia isn't there to be 'friends.' Ukraine posed a serious economic and geopolitical threat, with untapped natural gas and oil reserves found in the early 2000s. But Russia has tried to block any foreign investment into Ukraine to tap those reserves, when Russia lost political control of the country she invaded in 2014, and again in 2020. Now it's a full blown drown out war of a scale Europe has not seen since WWII.
Also you're forgetting China's aggressive behavior toward it's neighbors? The Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan. Forgot what happened to Hong Kong already? Where citizens of Hong Kong were stripped of their political freedom and autonomy? Do you people even realize what kind of regimes you're advocating as "Friends?"
Sorry but China and Russia as also bullies so stop being a hypocrite. Ironically a vast majority of wars the USA fought that made it look like a "Bully" had nothing to do with resources but Geopolitics during the Cold War, preventing an Autarky Empire (USSR) gulping up the world, heck the USA even got the Chinese kind of on it's side by the 1980s against the USSR. Save until the 21st century, even then that's only two wars, ones a vast majority of Americans have opposed. Which is why the USA is in a war fatigue period where so many Americans are furious that USA may be brought into another conflict even though it would be protecting our existing allies.
1
-
1
-
6:54 TIKhistory actually challenges this ""Defying" Hitler part. As there is evidence that proves Hitler approved the evacuations. Many German officers after the war tried to pin Germany's military failures on Hitler alone so post war lets say smudge their accounts of these events into 'their' own personal favor, pinning failures on Hitler to make their post war memoirs look better. During TIKhistory's Courland Pocket series he actually points a lot of these issues out. There are actually very few German generals who wrote memoirs who didn't do this, which lead to a massive consensus that Hitler denied retreats but only because the evidence recorded by these generals is faulty.
Best evidence for this is actually General Ferdinand Schörner himself. Who was given command of the Baltic forces before the "Pull" out attempt in the Baltic States. Ferdinand Schörner was willing to murder countless of his own soldiers if it meant following Hitler's orders. Yet for some magical reason Ferdinand Schörner was pulling troops out of Estonia, and Latvia into Lithuania. Something he wouldn't have done without Hitler's orders. Strange isn't it? It heavily implies despite what people like Doenitz says, Hitler did try to evacuate the region.
There are actually table talks with Hitler and Doenitz on record as well where Hitler and Doenitz discuses using the navy to pull people out, and from what is written in the minutes Hitler wanted to prioritizes pulling civilians out before the Army. Which means Hitler was welcoming to the idea of retreating from the Baltic. Ironically those same minutes Doenitz also tried to convince Hitler to hold onto the Baltic States as well because Doenitz submarine training fields were based in those ports as well, so Doenitz didn't want to lose his submarine ports that were out of range of allied bombers. So ironically Doenitz is claiming Hitler didn't want to retreat, yet the minutes in their meetings prove otherwise, and in fact Doenitz was the one trying to get Hitler to stay while HItler wanted to get his men out of their after Finland bailed on them which gave HItler no reason to hold onto the Baltic States anymore.
Basically TIKhistory found out Hitler did actually approve of the evacuations but prioritized Civilians before military personnel, though some military personnel did get evacuated along side the civilians when the pockets shrank in size and required less personnel to hold the lines as more people were pulled out of the pockets. Reason millions of military personnel were trapped in the three large pockets in East Prussia Memil and Courland was because, well the German Marine Fleet and Navy just didn't have the capability to evacuate that many people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@friedricengravy6646 It's not collective punishment, Millions of Palestinians do not live in Gaza, over a millions Palestinians live in Israel itself. So regardless what Palestinian Nationalist are saying, Israeli isn't committing genocide. Civilians die as a result of them being stuck in a Ghetto, drop a bomb someone innocent is bound to die when those firing at Israel do so from civilian sectors, and it's a Ghetto of their own creation because of terrorist to boot. Basically if Palestinian Nationalist didn't blow up buses, murder civilians, fired rockets, killed innocent people, those walls around Gaza and West Bank wouldn't exist. There would have been peace generations ago.
Wars are not clean, and if people want there to be no wars, well people need to stop starting them. Palestinian Nationalist have been the root of all those conflicts, dating back literally to the 1936 Revolt in which they tried to remove ALL the Jews from Palestine. This revolt is the primary reason Israel actually existed, it gave the native Jews and Jewish settlers to arm themselves, against the Muslims in the region. The very fact that the Jews in Palestine offered to JOIN their Revolt to remove the British Colonial Government, but the Arab leadership rejected this offer, it was and has always been Palestinian nationalist wanting NO Jews in Palestine. The moment people stop supporting the Palestinian State, and the Palestinian Cause the sooner peace will come.
1
-
@friedricengravy6646 Well you don't go from being a Marxist, to a Fascist then to a Libertarian without realizing everything you believed at given times of your life were "Frauds."
I'm not surprised when people point out Antisemitism on the Left either. It's has always been there. Much of the left's entire belief structure is built on it's foundation, just often different words are used. Like International bankers, International Capital, Stock Wallstreet Fat Cats, The Capitalist, the Money Changers. etc etc.
As Marx stated The Jewish faith is Money, and all Money is Capital, so Capitalism by Marx own words is the Jewish Faith of Money, you don't have to be ethnically Jewish to practice it either according to Marx. As he put it, not me. All Socialism today is built on the very foundation of Antisemitism, as it's built on the stereotype of "The Jew." Marx just replaced it with the Capitalist. It's why his primary book is called Das Kapital "The Capital." ie "The Jew."
Difference between Marxist antisemitism and say Nazi antisemitism is definable as well. Marxism it's religious, Nazis it's ethnic/racial. Marxist like Marx himself believe a Jew is okay if they abandon their faith, as Marxist believe as "Money." Nazis believe Jews to be the source of Selfishness in society, evil of capitalism, the self seekers who put their own good above their communities/people, and it's hardcoded in their blood and can not be changed. As a result Nazis rejected Marxism because they see Marx who was ethnically Jewish as a "Jew" regardless, and is corrupted. So Marx's entire ideology its corrupted in the eyes of a Nazi, so must also be purged.
So both Nazis and Marxs view Judaism as the source of all Evils. Just Nazis are more up front about it. Both however build their entire ideology off of the "Stereotype" of the Jew, not reality. So ironically both ideologies are Frauds as a result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you missed the part where TIKhistory said "Because perhaps he changed his mind?" When making a similar argument toward one of the author's almost confused attempt to explain these events.
When I used to be a Fascist it only took a single moment for me to change my mind, and become an anti-Fascist, even though for years I was a die hard supporter of it.
Took me only a moment to switch from being a Socialist, to a Libertarian as well post those prior events.
Doesn't matter what he believed in April of 1919, because as TIK said "Because perhaps he changed his mind?" Just about the most beautiful quote when referring to his reaction to an author over thinking something.
Regardless of TIK's personal beliefs he presented a very well drawn out scenario, and the early socialist history of many of the Nazis and SS's founders. One that isn't trying to pretend they were always on this "Reactionary" side which sadly many try to play it off as, and ignoring that many of them were once supporters of the movements they eventually opposed.
Issue is we don't know what Hitler believed in early 1919. However, there is something that makes me believe he was a Communist in 1919 willingly. Hitler was a common patron to a popular communist hot spot Coffee house when he was in Vienna. One that famous Marxist including Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and not surprisingly Eisner visited. It was a pilgrimage location for Socialist across Europe to hear Socialist speak, and give speeches while enjoying a cup of coffee similar to the beer halls in Munich. This very fact alone makes TIK's position on this subject VERY plausible.
You can easily argue away that by the end of the People's Republic of Bavaria and Bavarian Soviet Republic, that Hitler's inaction could can easily be chocked up to being by this point disillusioned with the movement and it's failures. For the same reasons on why the People's State of Bavaria collapsed to begin with and saw a short lived regime change. What better spy, post Bavarian Soviet Republic than someone who was already an active member in the movement prior, whom no one would suspect as well?
Honestly it makes a lot of sense when you break it down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no such thing as 'white privilege' there is only 'privilege' and it knows no boundary based on sex, religion or ethnicity. Privilege goes to anyone who started at a higher level in society than the person below them. Your ethnicity, religion or sex does not factor into this, outside of your family's history. There are more poor white people in America for example than their are Africans, but there are also more white people than their are Africans. But according to these people being white gives you special privileges, but if that was the case there wouldn't be poor white people, when there are rich minorities, and the USA is filled with rich minorities. You do not have to look hard to find examples of wealthy Africans, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and just about any group you can think of. If white privilege existed, none of these groups of people would stand a chance as long as there were 'poor' white people, as whites would come first?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ethancoster1324 Even if what you said is true it's semantics because in both cases the State is in Control. So functionally the same thing. I said State Corporatism hoping someone wouldn't be stupid enough to try to make the "Err private businessman/ceo is really in charge" fallacy argument. Because in defacto the State is in control of the Corporation. Even for example like in Italy and Germany where the businessmen still technically ran the business, they were still functionally nationalized by the State and were state employees in function.
Even in Official Corporatism, when not even associated with Fascism is a State centric form of Corporatism. The Scandinavian Model for example, most Corporations are owned by the State. It's a Corporatist model as well. USA even has some state owned Corporations, most famously the Federal Reserve. There area few more which are basically puppet Corporations like Diary Management Incorporated (Fake company owned by the government that manages and twist the arms of all diary producers in the USA) which basically turned every diary producer in America into a borg corporation of the State, meant to look like private business but are in actuality are not. Ironically if Cheese is involved in the USA, whether on the store shelf or the hamburger at Mcdonalds the Diary Management Incorporated has it's fingers in it. They do it to keep dairy farmers employed by forcing cheese, cheese! CHEESE! with everything.
However, back on topic, Metatron even goes over this with his Nazi Left/Right video, how private property existed ONLY IN NAME in Nazi Germany, because all property was functionally Nationalized into the Party, ie the Nazis paid mostly lip service to private property ownership. Fascist in Italy did the same thing. No different than how the Communist pretend to fight for the workers while enslaving them. It's lip service.
In this case it doesn't matter who pseudo owns them the, workers or the businessmen and I put a heavy emphasis on pseudo ownership, ie not really ownership as they're basically become state employees. In both cases the State was the true owner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aero.l Technically wrong. There was a Jewish Population in Palestine before Palestine became a Colonial State. There was a Jewish population in the region before the Arab Revolt of 1936, and before Jewish immigration into the region with agreements by specific parties, including many Arab officials.
The Arab Revolt in particular many within Palestine knew it was going to happen. Jewish leaders even tried to join the revolution, to force out the British Colonial government. Arab Higher Committe who were the main leaders of these revolts rejected this alliance. Jews would become their primary target during the Revolt right along side the British Colonial Government.
So even before Israel existed. Palestinian Nationalist targeted Jewish immigrant, and native Jewish Palestinians. Expelling of "The Jews" has always been a goal of Palestinian Nationalist and has not changed even into the 21st Century.
This hostility is what lead to the formation of Jewish Militias, and helped fuel/accelerate the founding of a "Jewish State" as to the Jews, everyone was against them. It isn't some grand conspiracy as so many try to paint it.
This is actually primarily why I blame Palestinian Nationalism for the position they're in today because they created the whole mess that they themselves despise. If it wasn't for their hostility, a Palestinian State likely would still exist, just with a large Jewish population.
Palestine as we know it today is also a 20th Century Creation. The British Government drew the lines on the map. Technically and ethnically Jordan and Lebanon are no different than Palestinians. So technically there are Palestinian States. But since Palestinian Nationalist grew their movement out of the region the British called "Palestine" as the quote goes when it comes to removing the Jews from Palestine, no Jews from the Sea tot he River. Basically no Jews allowed at all throughout the entirety of the whole region.
Also many claim Israeli was some crazy conspiracy backed by the west, which is far from the truth. When the Israeli State was publicly announced internationally, no western power wanted to support it. So much so that the Israeli government was forced to buy weapons from Eastern block countries. For example in 1948 they acquired 25 Czech built BF109s known as S119s, which were purchased at a ridiculous price to boot. Much of their weapons also came from captured German Equipment supplied to them not surprisingly by the Eastern Block Countries. The Soviet Union's support of Israel would change eventually though as they switched to supporting the Arab States for economic/political reasons, while the west eventually supported Israel out of fear of total Soviet Domination of the region. But that support came at the 11th hour, not during Israel's foundation.
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
-
@Scatmanseth Yes but even the Church schemed to destroy entire kingdoms. I mean the 30 Years War was literally divided along religious lines. Mostly done to crush the rise of Protestantism and Lutheranism in Central Europe. Which were a threat to Rome. Basically a Internal European Crusade. Population decline in Central Europe ranged from 30-60% making it one of the most devastating conflicts in European history, borderline genocide, all for the sake of preserving the Catholic Church and it's follower's position of power in the region.
So there were many of the wars against England between France/Spain because the English dared to go against the Church and the Church was the body pushing for those invasion attempts. There was plenty of scheming back then in short. So it wasn't like it couldn't happen today. Church rarely upheld the morals it claimed to stand for, if it risked losing it's centralized control of Europe at large. Definitely during it's golden years when it controlled almost every aspect of society, from education, architecture, art, music and had more power than kings.
I honestly don't care for Nationalism, or Internationalism. To me they're two sides of the same coin. But I do agree, the larger the Community being governed the more complex and less efficient the system eventually becomes. To me the concept of a State is a necessary Evil, and Nationalism has it's uses, works well as a glue to hold people together when necessary, but it shouldn't rule people's lives/decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Elyseon If you miss the nuance then you can make that claim. In spite of how the series is meant to parody history right down to an ideological level. It just replaces things like Marxism/Nazism/Fascism with Zeonism, and Aryan being replaced with Newtype theories. There is a reason the founder of Zeon looked like Karl Marx.
I guess the best way I can sum it up is with Gundam Unicorn, episode 1-3. Protagonist is first seen going through a regimentation of how evil the Zeons are. By episode 3 he is a prisoner of the Zeon and is housed with a Zeon family of which the son of the father of that family talks about how bad the Federation is, his father looks disgruntled as if he knows his son's spouting would upset the protagonist and some of the things his own son was taught was a lie. Protagonist is taken away by one of the Zeons shortly after and spoken to about faith. Throughout those three episodes the protagonist went through propaganda, exposed to enemy propaganda, and finally one of them told him the truth and that indirectly that "truth, a person's truth is their faith in what they believe is the truth." For him, it was what he grew up with, for that boy it is what his Zeon father told him was the truth but truth is subjective, it can change at any time, so it's our faith in what we believe the truth to be that is the real truth, it's why people are so pigheaded and often unwilling to accept other's truths.
Just one of many threads within the story of just that one MSG short series. And btw they made a short series addressing the cool uniforms and awesome robots trope already back in 1989 called Mobile Suit Gundam 0080, which the entire story was directed towards people who missed the entire point of the franchise and only focused on cool robots, and space battles.
1
-
@Elyseon If you miss the nuance then you can make that claim. In spite of how the series is meant to parody history right down to an ideological level. It just replaces things like Marxism/Nazism/Fascism is Zeonism, and Aryan being replaced with Newtype theories. There is a reason the founder of Zeon looked like Karl Marx.
I guess the best way I can sum it up is with Gundam Unicorn, episode 1-3. Protagonist is first seen going through a regimentation of how evil the Zeons are. By episode 2 he is a prisoner of the Zeon and is housed with a Zeon family of which the son of the father of that family talks about how bad the Federation is, his father looks disgruntled as if he knows his son's spouting would upset the protagonist. Protagonist is taken away by one of the Zeons shortly after and spoken to about faith. Throughout those three episodes the protagonist went through propaganda, exposed to enemy propaganda, and finally one of them told him the truth and that indirectly that "truth, a person's truth is their faith in what they believe is the truth." For him, it was what he grew up with, for that boy it is what his Zeon father told him was the truth but truth is subjective, it can change at any time, so it's our faith in what we believe the truth to be that is the real truth, it's why people are so pigheaded and often unwilling to accept other's truths.
Just one of many threads within the story of just that one MSG short series. And btw they made a short series addressing the cool uniforms and awesome robots trope already back in 1989 called Mobile Suit Gundam 0080, which the entire story was directed towards people who missed the entire point of the franchise and only focused on cool robots, and space battles.
1
-
1
-
@kkang2828 Nonsense. Large scale war crimes require the state to be involved, so hence are organized. Deliberate bombing of cities, is a war crime, and there is no way the state wasn't involved because militarily the army is an extension of the state.
There is more than enough evidence that the Holod***or was conducted purposely by the Soviet Union to thin out the population of Ukraine which suffered almost 90% of the casualties from it. Post war resettlements, mass arrest and ethnic cleansings of the Baltic States, and the De-Germanization of eastern Europe which the Soviet Union conducted the largest ethnic cleansing programs in human history during the periods following the war with between 8-14 million people from multiple different ethnicities were uprooted from their homes and transported west to Germany or east to labor camps/cities all against their will. Where it's estimated 800,000 to 2 million of which died as a result.
I'd suggest looking up TIK History's 3 part series on Operation Keelhaul, a moment in which the British and Americans proved they were just as horrible as the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany. Were we by force arrested millions of eastern european nationals on behalf of Stalin at gunpoint and forced them to go back to the Soviet Union, even if they were generations removed from the Soviet Union ie were never actually a citizen of the Soviet Union. Soviets also wanted all Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians returned as well. To the USSR anyone who surrendered or fled the Red Army were considered traitors. Witness testimony by many American/British soldiers involved said they saw or heard shooting shortly after dropping these these people off. Wasn't just men, but whole families rounded up.
Don't get me started with China.... which hasn't had clean hands for over a century now.
That being said though. We are all guilty in most respects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WarH It's China, Corruption is the Economy. Same problem the Soviet Union had. It's a symptom of Socialist regimes and their top down nature.
When bureaucracy is the only means of getting anything done, it 'requires' under the table bribery, to cut through all the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense. As a result it breeds an environment of corruption in almost every aspect of society.
I mean there is a reason the Former Soviet Union got taken over by Organized Crime after the fall of the Communist Government. Who do you think had all the wealth? Had all the power? Had all the resources to do that in such a tight fisted system? Those who were outside the System, the Criminals. The Black Marketers. Those who could get people whatever they needed in a system which everything was rationed by the State. When that system fell, they took over, they had the money, the man power, the strength to take control and they did, and the 1990s became known as a time which the Russian Mafia ruled the former Soviet Union. To some extent they still do as the Wagner PMC leader is a former Mafioso, who knows who else under Putin's rule are former Mafia men despite claiming he crushed the mafia.
Same issue persist in China. For generations she was a tight fisted regime. Still is to some extent. To get anything done, and I mean REALLY done requires corruption. Which is why I said Corruption is the Economy. Even if the Corruption hurts the people the Regime claims to support as it sucks those resources away from where they were meant to go, but if that corruption didn't exist those resources likely wouldn't of made it there at all as no one would of had incentive to do so.
People think Capitalism goes away in a Socialist regime, but it doesn't. It just takes a different form. While law abiding citizens suffer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dimarusanov6107
MBT-70 is basically an Abrams, so I hate to burst your bubble. There are only a few minor technological differences, but the Abrams was a superior tank when it was introduced. Most of the features that the MBT-70 had that didn't make it into the Abrams design were unnecessary, including the complicated suspension which allowed the vehicle to rise/lower/lean forward/back. Losing the Autoloader didn't make the Abrams an inferior tank either.
I really don't get what Commiboos are so obsessive with autoloaders. Autoloaders were dropped by Western Designers for a reason at the time anyways they were experimented with for decades during the cold war with countless designs from most powers, including France/America/Germany, but with only a few rare exceptions, were never adopted.
The concept has come up many times but there are practical reasons they were abandoned. First and foremost how much autoloaders are really just unnecessary, as a well trained loader works just as well. Only advantage with an autoloader is a smaller turret/tank, but a smaller turret/tank also means less equipment options, ammunition, and worse, modifiability over time, I mean Abrams was introduced in the 1970s and with modifications is still superior to anything Russian currently fields.
Russia chose an autoloader to lower the number of crew, and the need of training a loader. As well as the benefit of smaller tanks as a result. But over all, that's really the only advantage it gives Russian tank design. As rate of fire really isn't better.
No better example than the Blow Out Hatches on Western Tanks western tanks are large enough to have them. All munitions are stored in contained parts of the tank so if they blow it will not kill the crew, and their are hatches designed to blow off the tops of the turrets, venting the blast out of the tank away from the crew compartments. Again, compare that to every Russian tank currently in service. The ammunition storage, and crew compartment are literally the in the same space. They're smaller tanks but the size limits space for ammunition. This is why they're death traps.
Also about your claim about if the USSR didn't collapse and they introduced more advanced vehicles as you said they would, West would of just acted in kind don't you think? Being the USSR was twenty years behind the west when it comes to Micro-Processors, without access to the world Market like Russia has now... had now.. the USSR would never be able to keep up. She murdered her own domestic computer industry and opted for reverse engineering western Computer technology by the 1970s which took years to do, which means she would of always been behind the west by 10-20 years when it came to electronics. So I honestly don't think if the USSR was still around it would magically make superior tanks, or really superior anything. Actually during the last twenty years of the USSR they were always behind the west technologically. They fell dramatically behind once the computer age kicked in. I doubt they'd ever been able to keep up. Definitely with the mostly closed economy the USSR had, let alone western blockage of specific goods/technologies. Heck I call the USSR the Copycat king for a reason. So many famous examples of vehicles/aircraft that they required capture/purchase and then reverse engineered just to keep up with the west throughout the 50/60/70s. Even their first micro-processors were reverse engineered from a British Company which sold Russia some Computers. Being how fast chips were evolving and relying on copying rather than designing their own they'd be in the same position China is today, relying on inferior micro-processors that are home brewed, or stealing/copying foreign ones transistor by transistor which they were only able to do for so long, now that we hit the 2000s and the technology is literally out of China's league and you can not just copy them anymore and only a few companies in the world can make modern micro-processors of the standards you have in your phone or laptop, and none are in China.
About gun size, that doesn't matter. Ammunition that they fire is all that matters. If size was all that mattered then every tank in the world today would be driving around with a 350mm Howitzer.
No better example than the fact the most effective anti armor rounds most tanks fire at Sub Caliber Sabot rounds. Sub Caliber as in the projectile that penetrates the tank's armor is tiny when compared to the bore of the Gun that fired it. So unless you're relying on none kinetic energy anti tank rounds, or ATGM's fired from tank barrels, the size of the bore doesn't really matter once you go up to a specific size. Even right now every time Russia upgrades it's armor, western countries just redesign their munitions to counter it. The current Super Sabot for the Abrams at least according to the US Army is more than enough to handle any Russian tank currently fielded. Despite using a gun that dates back to the 1970s. This is why Russia resorts to active protection, intercepting rounds or at least attempting to, as being as bleeding honest as possible no Russian tank can take a Sabot from an Abrams. Let alone the bulk of Russian modernized retrofitted tanks which are very modernized in spite of the M on their Number.
So honestly, I don't know what you're getting at. None of your points actually are real points, and some of them are actual issues for Russian tanks not benefits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dimarusanov6107 "Russian tankers in WWII who fought in M4 regarded M4 very high and on the same level with T-34 but much more comfortable (I don't know why Americans blame M4, it was superb vehicle for a country with almost no experience in tank construction). If you read German memoirs the have very high opinion of T-34"
Ya and German Memoirs also claimed they were fighting 10-15 to 1 odds as well. Would you really believe Germans? They come up with any excuse they can for losing the war, including T-34 = Great Tank. "We could of won if we had T-34s to." Actually something Guderian put in his Memoirs actually. But as the youtuber/tank historian Chieftain said a few times that you'd rarely find someone who drives a T-34 that would smile, it's an awful experience being in a T-34. In short those Germans who were praising it, never used a T-34, never road in a T-34, only fought against the T-34. That and for a few years Germans had to choose between using a Panzer III, or a T-34. Panzer III though being an excellent tank, wasn't exactly as well armored nor has nearly as big of a gun, yet still won most of it's engagements against T-34s... and yet still Germans sufferer from T-34 envy?
Actually, TIKHistory's video series on Stalingrad is quite interesting. As according to him it didn't seem to matter what kind of Tank the Soviets used in 1942, as it seemed the Soviets were losing T-34s at roughly the same rate they would lose other vehicles, including T-70s. Making the observation that armor/gun size at least at this point of the war didn't factor at all in Russia failure or success on the battlefield. Which shouldn't be as T-34s on paper at this time were vastly superior to what the Germans were using in that area. Conclusion, tank is only as good as the soldiers, artillery and aircraft backing it up.
I wish I could remember the historytuber who stated how bad the T-34 was at times, but they talked about an account by a Russian crew how they were literally driving over German positions and getting shot at by very pathetic 3.7cm AT Guns, sure, they were surviving, but they literally couldn't find the Germans who were shooting at them, and eventually their tank was disabled. Not exactly a great account by a Russian crew. T-34 didn't become a reasonable tank until the T-34-85 saw it getting a completely new turret that actually functioned well enough for the crew to do their job. Even then the loader was treated like dirt and didn't even get a seat. But at least the crew were no longer blind. Want to know why Pz38 and PzIIIs won most engagements vs T-34s? Ya that whole vision issue I just mentioned. Despite on paper that shouldn't even be possible for a T-34 to lose vs 3.7cm Pop Guns. Remember when I said I thought the KV-1 was a vastly superior tank, I mean it for a lot of reasons. And I love my KV-1.
That being said. I do agree with those Russians about the M4. It's a fine tank. I used to be in the M4 sucks bandwagon until you realize just how much more advanced of a vehicle it was even compared to the supposed 'German Supremacy" tanks. Just compare a M4's Transmission to a Panthers, it's insane..... thought Germans were good at automotive stuff?? Apparently not transmissions. Once you start finding out about that kind of stuff it's amazing how much nicer the M4 was compared to most other nation's tanks at the time. Ya it had it's issues, like being a tall tank, but that was by design so it could fit through train tunnels... I know... weird...
1
-
@dimarusanov6107
1. I don't have those statistics, history tubers have them. Lazerpig, The Chieftain, TIKhistory, among others.
Lazerpig is the most amusing to watch though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIZ6PFYUM5o he really digs the knife deep for T-34 fans, and yes he does talk about the T-34 loses, and how unimpactful they were on the first two years of the war. Around 2000 of which lost in 1941 alone. Btw he also makes fun of Wehraboos in the same video often. Because wehraboos also prop up the T-34 myth as a scapegoat. 19 minutes in he states 54% of all T-34s lost in 1942 out of 6000 lost, were destroy by Panzer IIIs using a book that was written using Soviet Statistics.
2. The Panzer III was an excellent vehicle. Just about everything that would make a modern tank functionally was there already years before most other countries would do the same. It was better than the Panzer IV, which is a tragedy as the Panzer IV would take all the glory all because it already had a turret large enough to mount a high velocity 7.5cm gun. At was all about cost/resources, easier to up production of a tank that required almost no modifications to put a bigger gun vs heavily modifying a better tank at greater cost to do the same.
3. KV-1 wasn't actually discontinued the IS-1 and IS-2 literally use a modified KV-1 Hull. By name it was. Also the only reason the KV-1 was discontinued was because it was found that it was just as likely to be lost in combat as a T-34, as by the time it was discontinued it's armor really didn't stop most German anti tank guns by the later years of the war, so German 75mm could kill a KV-1 about as easily as a T-34 so what's the point making two tanks? ie it was retired not because it was a bad tank, but because it was more expensive but didn't survive better to compensate for the expense. So similar to the Panzer III it wasn't because it was a bad tank, or an inferior tank, it was all about cost. Like the Panzer III the KV-1 lived on as as self propelled guns, like the Su-85.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sidecontrol1234 Of course. There is a reason the Palestinian Flag is nearly identical to the 1914 Arab Nationalist Flag. Ironically that Arab Nationalist Flag was designed by British officer Mark Sykes. The whole rise of Arab Nationalism was fueled by the British to undermine the Ottoman Empire during the Great War. The whole Lawrence of Arabia story you know.
National Identities in short are "Created' they don't' just magically exist. This includes Israeli Nationalist. This is why when I say Palestine is just a figment of people's imagination, it's true. They didn't sprout from the soil. But it's true with all Nations today. Nationalism lead to the chaos of the Post WWI era as well. Same period where Arab Nationalism skyrocketed just like it did everywhere else. After the Great War, the winners of that war basically demanded that the people of the world identify as a "Nationality" and tried to build Nation States rather than the people existing under say a Monarchy which is none National in nature.
This was the winners of the Great War's solution to hopefully prevent future wars... well it backfired big time with endless wars post.
So now millions of people across Europe, Asia, and Arabia now had to identify as a Nationality, a Nation that didn't exist before in many cases prior, with wishy washy borders that were impossible to define without leaving entire ethnicities in lands of other majorities. Which is the root of all conflict in Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia and Arabia. Even the recent conflict in the Eastern Europe, is fueled by it. As it was impossible to draw lines that would please everywhere, definitely more extreme nationalist elements that formed during these periods.
Today nearly all Arab countries use a flag using the Arab Nationalist Flag colors or a variation of the Arab Nationalist Flag itself like Palestinians do, they only moved the swapped positions of one of the bars. The end goal was to create a Arab Union of States. The existence of Israel is an affront to their original goals because it's smack dab in the middle of the Holy Land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
btw interestingly enough supposedly, how the whole safety test goes down historically and shown in the HBO series is actually Soviet Propaganda. I remember one historians pointing out they used a book by a man who was a historian associated with the government, who whitewashed and pinned the disaster on those operating the power plant and glosses over the State's involvement in forcing the safety test to begin with one that had genuinely failed many times already. For example how the government knew the safety test was never finished and were actually pushing them to finish it, twisting their arms you can say. the whole it was a 'secret' among individuals was wizzled into the narrative to protect the "State's" responsibility. Among many other things.
I mean you see this actually in your description of events. It was supposed to have been done right (on paper) but yet officials in Kyiv were asking them to delay the test, why do they need to do the test if it was done? Doesn't this imply the State knew it had never finished and are telling them to delay the test as well? I always say, look for contradictions, seek out those contradictions, and you can very well find out who's lying or not. Because if there is a contradiction then something isn't right in the narrative.
This book was used by the HBO crew to piece together the events of the disaster itself and the official show trails. So ironically trying to let's say avoid soviet propaganda, they accidentally used a piece of soviet propaganda in their story. Because they didn't know the credibility of the author they used wasn't lets say great. I don't remember the author's name or the book, I've not read it myself, but it's an interesting note to make.
Kind of like how Band of Brothers is based on the book Band of Brothers written by Stephen Ambrose and Ambrose himself is now known as a semi fraud as he often cut corners, and made things up. This is why so many accounts in the book and TV show ended up being quite wrong despite attempts by HBO to make the TV show as accurate as possible, but because they relied on Ambrose's faulty work for the show they still got a lot of things wrong, like not little things but major things like characters, and who died and didn't die etc.
Fun fact, and one not brought up in the series but the high range decimeter was under lock/key because well in the soviet system theft even in a facility like a nuclear power plant was common. Because stolen goods are worth more on the black market than rubles, and you could find more on the black market than in state owned stores. So the whole system basically encouraged theft if you wanted to buy anything really. Nurse steals medicine to get new shoes, and someone comes by with a say decimeter to get medicine they need for old grandma.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Starving billionaires. Exactly why Lenin heavily inflated the currency, to destoy capital, force people to stop using money, it ended up just putting people into absolute poverty, and starvation. TIK explained it well, money holds/last longer than eggs, and potatoes. Barter requires something to trade, farmers have it the worst as what they create, doesn't last forever, sometimes not even a week. So what do farmers barter, spoiled milk, rotten eggs, moldy vegetables? Money/Capital was the greatest invention that humanity created.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Technically yes. State owned Utilities. (Power/Water). State Owned Roads. State Owned Medicine. etc etc. Example that was used when I was in highschool was how France, the Government owns the Electrical Utilities, same story for the State of California as well, Water and Power utilities are owned by the State of California.
State Education
State Hospitals
State Roads
State Water
State Power
State Regulations
State Police
State Fire Departments (1840-70s most fire departments went from private and were converted to public by their local cities)
etc etc etc
Taking control away from the private citizen, and into the hands of the State. Why? Socialist believe the private sector isn't responsible enough or too self, and specific aspects of society should be government/owned by the state on our behalf. So despite what some Socialist say, they're pro State.
That is the most mild example of Socialism. Totalitarianism is when Socialism hits the most extremes, when the State pretty much owns everything. Hence the name, Totalitarian, Total Control. You have no home, you live in an apartment or home with the State's regards, ie the state built it, and allows you to live there. Totalitarianism is impossible without Socialism. So if someone calls a country Totalitarian they're defacto calling it a Socialist state whether they realize it or not.
Good example, you can look up the history of the development of modern Fire Departments. They started out often originally as private or volunteer brigades. They were later collectivized into the hands of the local cities and became State owned Public Services. Which became pretty much a standard world wide. Some of the earliest examples even date back to the days of the Roman Empire. In London in particular people paid a subscription so to speak which was part of their property insurance plans, which the insurance companies would pay private fire brigades for their services during times of fires. This was before the City ever took control of Fire Fighting.
This is why Socialist praise State works programs by Mussolini and Hitler, and other Social programs, in spite denying they're Socialist. They call them State Capitalist, because they're not socialist yet state control? Yet they praise their social programs..... heck even the original Star Trek had an whole episode which praised the Nazi Germany's economy from the 1930s, and Gene Robbenberry was an avid Socialist, which is why he made Next Generation's Earth literally a utopian socialist paradise. Just one of those funny things, even Bernie Sanders mentioned Hitler's social programs during one of his campaign speeches, it's kinda a socialist meme. "Lets praise Nazi Social programs" then "Deny they're socialist." Was always a funny thing when I was growing up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be honest, associating a business man with Corporation is kinda ironic. A Corporation is a glorified Trade Union. Collectively owned by hundreds, if not thousands, and in some cases millions of people. At the top of that ladder is often a CEO, sometimes the majority share holder, or someone just appointed to lead the Company. A Corporation in this sense is a collectively owned business, it's even used as another word for Syndicate by Fascist Italy. It's origin is from the 19th Century with the introduction of Corporatism, which was an alternative to Syndicalism, one that included business owners rather than excluding them like Marxist Syndicalism advocated. This is why if you look up the definition of Corporation most of them including some form of definitions that include Trade Guilds, Trade Unions, but when you think of them objectively, that is exactly what a Corporation is. It's no longer a privately owned company, and it's why it's called going "Public" when a Corporation is most often formed.
Which is ironically why in spite of common myths/conception, Corporations are not an example of Capitalism.
It's just a trade union which gets official recognition to act as one Body, one Corpse (Were Corporation Comes from One Body), one Person, one Man, rather than being a collective, ie the collective is represented by this Body. In a Corporation it's the Board that runs the company and the CEO is pretty much elected by that board, so ironically it's an example of a State within the greater State.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang Because that would require critical thinking to realize that conundrum. They don't want you to think, just react. So when the Politician says, you do. So when they say Ultra Far Right Wing, you're expected to believe them, meanwhile it's drilled into your brain that Right Wing = Bad. So every time they say Far Right it isn't really whether it's Right Wing or Not, they just want to scare you away from whatever they're pointing the finger at. What they're pointing the finger at may genuinely be right wing, but a lot of the times isn't. It's just what they want to scare people over.
I've honestly gotten tired of Far Right being used in the news, or by politicians anymore. It's become the "New" Fascist. What is worse, they create phrases like Neo Liberalism, or Alt Right to explain when the Right Wing doesn't act or look like the "Stereotype" they teach their Sheep that it is. So when REAL Liberals who are on the right well spout liberalism, they call it Neo Liberalism for example, it isn't "REAL" Liberalism they would then decree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think a lot of these late casualties can easily be contributed to the total collapse of the German Army Group Center during Operation Bagration. The Soviets nearly surrounded but mostly destroyed German Army Group Center in 1944 leaving a huge gap in the German lines, and they did this so fast that no one could of stopped them. The Soviets used overwhelming rocket and artillery followed up by a massive armored assault and nearly destroyed Army Group Center. It's often been described as Germany's Greatest Military Defeat. Unlike say Kursk which is propagandized as an amazing Defeat, this one literally broke the spine of the German Army in the East. Causing a massive frontal wide retreat, desperate retreat to new lines before the Soviets had a chance to exploit the breach. It was a very costly retreat, as the Soviets launched local offensives in just about every single sector.
1945 can easily be explained because of the massive disparity in numbers by this time, on top of that the German Army was also heavily reliant on Conscripts and Volksturm. For example out of the official troops defending Berlin over 80,000, half were Volksturm.
You also have to remember by 1943 the German Army had used up all it's well trained Infantry meant to support it's armored offensives. By Kursk for example they were pulling men out of field hospitals, and yet still some armored divisions went into combat without infantry support by Panzer Grenadiers.
It makes complete sense that the German Military wouldn't be so successful late war. I think anyone that would view this in the context of a "myth" have a warped sense of reality. At this time the Germans were a Defeated Army, they were of course going to struggle greatly. Numbers do not lie. Battle for Berlin, 140 some armored vehicles vs around 6000 soviet vehicles. less than 200,000 men manning Germany's last major defense line vs 2-3 million. The Germans were going to get walked over, definitely when you take account most of the troops available were poorly trained, and even in civilian clothing.
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
-
@jimohara Don't know where you get those numbers. At it's peak in late 1944 like 1.3/1.4 million Axis troops primarily German were facing the west in both Italy and on the Western Front. Compared to around 2 million holding the Eastern Front, with the Eastern front also covering far more ground the Red Army was actually facing a smaller troop density than the west late in the war. So in late 1944 there wasn't much of a difference in Strength both sides east and west were facing. Take to heart the USSR also mustered roughly double to fighting force as the west deployed by late 1944 though they were grossly under equipped when compared to the west, who could count on having almost anything they wanted including tank/artillery/air support often only a phone call away. Also forgot to mention that the vast majority of the troops on the west front were support personnel, so. Only a minority of the allied forces were fighting personnel, small minority. Which is why the US Army relied on a hand full of specific divisions who did most of the actual fighting like the 1st Division for example, which a German General quoted in saying that they knew were the Americans were going to push from by just identifying where the 1st Division was located.
Also you're last few questions are irrelevant really. If the Red Army didn't' take Berlin the west could have, if they wanted to. The West front completely collapsed by then.. In fact the Red Army launched it's attacked on Berlin in a half hazard Fashion because they were afraid the west would reach it First as prior to the west front had already collapsed and before a single Red Army soldier crossed the Oder River, the German Army in the Rhine river valley had already surrounded in mass. So there was nothing stopping the west from Reaching Berlin. This is why Zhukov was keen on using wave tactics at the Seelow Heights. The Red Army was in a hurry. Though I guess lucky for the Soviets, the allies had no plans of to captured Berlin and stopped their advanced and waited for the Russians to finish taking the rest of Germany.
Yes.. the allies had to wait on the Russians. Allies had occupied the agreed upon territory, and didn't advance beyond it. This is why saying "Russia took Berlin!" is irrelevant as the allies had already agreed that since Berlin was in the Russian zone of occupation for post war, there was literally no point in advancing on Berlin and let the Russians do it. Ironically though American army reporters dashed through German lines on Jeeps and were able to get to Berlin without much effort to film/report on the battle. Meaning the Americans could of easily if they wanted to Reached Berlin without much effort, if a bunch of US Army uniformed reporters could get there within a day.
What I'm getting at is. I don't' think you actually understand what was going on during WWII. =P
1
-
@jimohara You're strawmaning the argument. It has nothing to do with quantity of forces, if you're going to go by numbers then the Red Army looks pathetic 11-14million Russian Military Deaths vs 1,100,000 German East Front KIA. So if you're making that argument jesus christ it doesn't help you in the slightest.
I presented evidence to the contrary of your original statement as well. That 8-10x the German forces didn't fight on the Russian front. Maybe if you're talking about 1942/43 sure.. but there really wasn't any other fronts in Europe at the time outside of Africa, and that front because of the environment couldn't support a large scale war. So it isn't relevant.
If you argued that say 70-80% of the German casualties were on the East Front. Sure. But I'd just argue that the German Army wasn't as hyped as it was claimed to be anyways so that wouldn't work either. Either away, the Red Army has never been on par with the west, not even during WWII, not even during the early Cold War. It was all a myth propped up by POST War communist, and POST War Nazis and Western Leaders ate it up like candy.
By the 1980s technologically the USSR was lagging behind considerably as well. For example, people say the T64 was the most advanced tank in the world, it had an auto loader. Ignoring the fact most countries experimented with autoloaders during the 1940/50s and very few of them adopted them because they were not practical, and those that did many phased them out for practical reasons later on. Even today a lot of modern tanks do not have them, and very few western power's use autoloader tanks as their backbone for good reasons. I can easily point to the Gulf War when American M60 which are older than the T64 were defeating T-55, T-62, T-64 and T-72 tanks in Iraq, and yes despite the Abrams being a thing at the time the US Marines were still using M60 Tanks, and they didn't suffer a single tank lose during the campaign despite engaging Iraqi armor. Basically any advantages these soviet designs might have had were none factors, so subtle that they didn't really matter, as foreign tanks, even models as old as the M60 could still knock them out. So ironically meaning most Soviet Tank designs post T64 are not that hype. A Romanian has done a number of videos on Russian tanks and modernization programs on such vehicles as well, and I love it when the words "Is it that bad?" or "Most Useless Tank Ever" appear in the titles. Btw the Most Useless Tank is about the T-64B, which he noted the T-64 had it's turret replaced with a T-55 turret.. because Russia is cannibilizing older models and frankensteining them together and throwing reactive armor on them and calling them modernized.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism offers Security, and Stability for those who have neither, at the cost of Freedom/Individual Liberties. Offers, being promises, though history has shown it rarely achieves those promises. On top of that, People love Socialism because it also promises fairness/equality, at that same cost, and people normally don't realize how much of a cost that is until it's too late. However, for Socialism to ever stand a chance at working it requires giving power to some form of centralized authority to cease land/property/capital/resources, which means stripping civil liberties. But once that body of authority takes power they rarely give it up, and now after all those liberties are gone, citizens now become slaves to that authority. This is where the promise often turns into a nightmare.
As no matter how preachy the socialist is, they're still human. They may not fight for money/capital, but they will fight for an office chair, a higher position of authority for higher benefits. In turn oppression is guaranteed, and I'd argue even if Capital/Money is not involved, you will never rid society of that sense of selfishness that Socialist accuse capitalism to be dominated by, as in a socialist system those selfish tendencies don't disappear, people just find other means to accumulate wealth, stealing from their trade unions, bribing officials with a bottle of vodka, resorting to dealing with Mobsters on the black market to get medicine, and trading other capital to get that medicine. It will never go away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US Imperialism? Yet US isn't the one invading Ukraine is it not? Wouldn't this be Russian Imperialism? How does this "MAGICALLY" get flipped around backwards? Also if that president was "Neutral" as you call it why would he flee to Russia exclusively? You already admitted he was Corrupt, why was he Corrupt? Because he was paid for by Putin perhaps? That he was a stooge? Golly..
He cancelled a trade agreement through executive authority that Ukrainian Parliament agreed upon democratically. Only then... did the people REVULT.
I mean seriously US had little to do with it, the trade agreement was with the EU, the USA isn't the EU, nor is it part of the EU. Don't get NATO and the EU mixed up not even all EU members are part of NATO and you would know that if you cross referenced the NATO/EU Map. THERE WAS NO EVENTUALLY! That is what we call "SPECULATION."
"10 years later, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe with an unprecedented migration crisis, has lost between 200,000 and 500,000 young men in combat, with as many maimed, and it has lost 1/3 of it's territory, including prime agricultural lands, and now will probably be raided by vulture capitalists at Blackrock and the companies they control." I wonder why? Oh Russia invaded Ukraine's industrial heartland, occupied Crimea with one of it's largest trading ports, conducted war on it's soil for years leaving even some unoccupied parts of the country unusable. YET you're blaming the west for this. I should say "Hello MCFLY!? HELLLO?" NO seriously, Get your head out of the sand please. I'm not even talking about 2022. Want to know why Ukraine's economy isn't as strong as it was pre-2014.... Points to Russia
The fact you think this is the "WEST's" Fault is madness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ComradeHugo I wouldn't say Russia has that expertise though. It's Aviation is kind of a joke right now both civil and military, and even Chinese citizens are mocking Russia's poor military equipment wondering "Why are these guys our ally?" They were all "GO RUSSIA" when the war started but that tune has changed.
There was a wonderful report that showed Russia only produces domestically 14% of the parts used in Russian military equipment. With not surprisingly it's biggest two trade partners for those components being China and the USA taking up a lion's share. Meaning Russia isn't relying on it's own expertise, but foreign expertise for it's military equipment. This is also true about Russian Aviation, and Space Program. Russia isn't the 'self' relying Soviet Union.
That being said, I'm pretty sure that 14% likely has changed since the war has started, because this evaluation was done with captured Russian equipment, surviving drones, cruise missiles that didn't explode, tanks/armored vehicles etc... coaming over them to find out where the parts used in them were made, the findings were pretty lets say very interesting, honestly I didn't expect it. Lead to a few scandals for how much "USA" was slapped on some things. But I'm pretty sure that from equipment made pre-war.
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
-
@lp59pete Conservatives in Hollywood are excessively oppressed that they have to skit around questions during interviews, to avoid being caught saying the wrong things. Having the wrong opinions can cost you your career. So they often have to keep those opinions to themselves. Did she exaggerate by using that example? Most definitely, but she isn't that far off. She isn't the only one in Hollywood to use that analogy as well, Tim Allen, Clint Eastwood have also said it in the past comparing how oppressive the left is in Hollywood to the Nazis.
And when I mean she isn't that far off. In Nazi Germany having wrong opinions didn't see you dead outside of the Night of Long Knives which saw many political rivals of the party murdered. I can list off quite a few high ranking officials, generals and politicians in Germany who were well sidelined, or forced into early retirement for having 'wrong think' in the regime. Some even voluntarily retired out of protest yet nothing happened to them. Unlike the Soviet Union which execution was the most common practice against people who went against the party. In Nazi Germany you most often just found yourself removed from any position of authority. So the oppression wasn't as harsh/soft.
Hence why I said she wasn't that far off. The form of oppression seen in Hollywood is very comparable to how the Nazis silenced members of the regime who spoke out, many of which even survived the Valkyrie bomb plot which saw the largest removal of political rivals in the regime since the Night of the Long Knives.
Though what I think these people are getting at is, Hollywood since the 1970s has grossly pushed towards the left, and it's only gotten worse and worse with each generation. If you want to know what I mean this critical video sums it up quite well, and even presents a few plausible reasons why that isn't some loony conspiracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRVgsn59WSs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I think people have an unrealistic expectation when they enter the workforce. There are a lot of factors that will decide whether someone raises through the ranks of a company/business.
1. Growth: If a Company is Growing your chances are higher, if it isn't growing, well you're waiting for older employees to either retire or well by the farm. This is actually a big reason why you can work your life away and go nowhere. Definitely if it's a stable company that doesn't have high growth or decline periods. Stable are very safe business to work for but promotions can be rare. This is actually why I decided not to join any Unions, Unions have a seniority system, and you literally have to wait your whole life just to have a chance to not be at the bottom of the Union. Unions rarely grow, and often turn into exclusivity clubs as a result.
2. Location: If you're part of a large Company that is Growing, but working at a location that isn't expanding, good luck, because now you're stuck with #1 again.
3. Qualification/Knowing: Even if you work a long time at a company, you may not prove to your bosses that you're qualified to take other positions. You may very well be qualified, but they never notice, you might as well not be qualified. It's actually why getting to know your bosses is actually important. I don't mean going out golfing and having dinner and such, but if they don't know you exist or you keep your head down, good luck. That is how Cool Rick got promoted while Stiff Rick on the Assembly Line didn't. If you know your Rick/Morty Episodes. This is where social skills actually come into play big time.
4. Attendance: You'd be surprised that this is likely one of the most important ones. An employee you can not rely to be there on time, or when scheduled might as well not be there at all. It's actually why in school it's heavily encouraged to have good attendance. Heck college you can get dropped from classes for missing too many days. This is intentional. It seems to be the one many struggle with the most. I know it's the most common reason for termination where I work.
These are personally the most important factors in deciding whether you will raise through the ranks. I hit all 4 of those factors quite well where I work, and after 14 years I went from a temp employee to upper management. Being part of a 125+ year old company at that that has been growing over the past thirty years. Recently started remodeling the main offices because the office was too small for the amount of staff required to operate our facility.
#4 is in my opinion the most important personally. Out of 14 years, I've never been late, once. I've missed days but I've gone whole years without missing a single day of work. Because I have such good attendance, they take my word for it if I can not come in for whatever reason. I'm just that reliable. I don't even take vacations because to me a hot bath or glass of tea is better than going to Disney World. I actually remember my boss asked me what I thought the most important virtue for an employee was, and I told him attendance. They can not do good work if they're not there, you can not make a schedule if you don't know when people will come in.
That being said, you can kind of throw all these out the window if you're self employed.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rirtunsasgi2626
"Cold shutdown
The difference between a normal shutdown and a cold shutdown is essentially in that the fuel has gone completely or almost completely cold.[6] In a typical shutdown, regular levels of coolant are still required, and the fuel remains reasonably hot, as it continues to react. In a cold shutdown, the coolant system is typically lowered to pump water at atmospheric pressure, and the reactor vessel remains below 93 °C (200 °F), and water passing through it will not boil.[6]
A cold shutdown is typically employed when operators need to access the reactor vessel for maintenance, fuel replenishing, or when the reactor has suffered damage of some kind that requires repairs. When a reactor is in cold shutdown, the fuel and control rods can be safely removed and exchanged, and maintenance can be performed. However, once a reactor has gone into a cold shutdown, it requires more time and energy to restart the reaction than if it had been hot.[7]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dx3217 BS honestly. You can make a good story with a protagonist who isn't a hero. Look at anime Youjo Senki alternate reality WWI with mages, the main character is literally called the Devil of the Rhine, and for good reason, she is also called the Fairy by her own side. So they let you see the character from both perspectives, in the war. Most of the antagonist in the show are Hero Stereotypes as well, with the movie literally having her face down someone named Mary Sue. The protagonist is a terrible human being, but as a soldier she gets results. So the Generals ignores the bad. What I really love is the struggle between collectivism and individualism presented in the story, with "God" pulling the strings while the protagonist absolutely flat out rejects him saying people don't need God. A feud that cost the lives of likely millions as God becomes petty and tries to force the protagonist out of fear of her own life to worship him, in spite of how many deaths are caused. Causing a beautiful clash of two evil forces, the protagonist and god itself. There is a reason I use that character as my avatar.
Issue with films is rarely do they have the balls to make a movie that might have you sympathize with the devil to to speak. Dawnfall did it, heck Man in the High Castle technically does it, most of the villains in that show are amazing, and you can often sympathize with their decisions in spite of them literally being the text book definition of war criminals and tyrants.
So ya, it's just bad story telling. I think the biggest issue is "Nationalism" and Nationalism is just the concept of the Nation, say the "Black Nation" when it comes to say The Women King. Feminism is Female Nationalism for example, which is why Feminist films are often so terrible. When someone makes a film for the sake of their "Nationalist Religion" it often by the very nature of wanting to absolutely please their own Nation, leads to cringe. People forget Nations are not borders, Nations are a people, an identity. It's why it's called a Nation State, it's a State made up of an Identity. This is why Marxist Internationalism is literally Nationalism, because it's about creating a world wide Worker's State, but the Worker's are the Nation, are the Identity so Marxist Internationalism is literally Worker's Nationalism. The fact that Anti-Nationalist, Marxist, Feminist and whatever they want to call themselves don't seem to realize they're all Nationalist, they just worship a different Nation.
However, nationalism leads to horrible cringe in stories. Too afraid to offend the audience they're trying to please. Which in turn often leads to lazy stories, and horrific stereotypes of heroes/villains built on the foundation of their stupid world view.
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
-
Issue I have with "Anti-Zionism" is Zionist were an international Governing Body that represented the entire Jewish Community across the world. So saying you're Anti-Zionist is admitting you're antisemitic from that point of view. Often the same Anti-Zionist Conspiracies are also adopted by groups who are openly anti-semitic, like the Nazis. Like the World Jewish Cabob pulling the strings of political leaders around the world, that isn't a "NEW" conspiracy, it's been around since the 19th Century. It's the reason phrases like the Money Changers, and International Bankers exist, they're synonyms for "The Jews." Issue is people hide behind other words, so they can not be called antisemitic but the same rhetoric is almost always there.
I'd argue that Marxism at it's core is also antisemitic because nearly all there stereotypes they've adopted to describe The Capitalist are built on Christian Stereotypes of the Jews. In fact the fundamental difference between Marx's antisemitism and Hitler's antisemitism is Marx was against what he believed to be the Jewish Faith (Money) and anyone who practiced it whether ethnically Jewish or not are basically just as guilty which was Marx's whole argument in the essay On the Jewish Question. Hitler on the other hand blamed Jews for their Faith in Money corrupting Society, and took Marx's views on their association with Capitalism to a far more extreme level. By purging them from Society his people would be immune to their SELFISH Poison, and become SELFLESS Aryans who place the community above their own interest. Hitler in Mein Kampf literally stated her realized he was at war with an international stock exchange capital run by the Jews because he read Marx. So Hitler's Antisemtism budded from Marx's antisemtism. This is why when I see Marxist revolutionaries siding with Palestine on this issue I kind of have no choice but to raise an eyebrow on their sincerity.
As a result Marx's most famous book Das Kapital (The Capital) can be also described as (The Jew) in a round about way, as Marx said all Capital is Money, and that Money is the Faith of the Jews.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@copomer9203 Race Marxism in a nutshell Gentlemen. Last time a people believed the world was built on the foundation of Race, it ended very bad for roughly 40 million people.
There is no Racial World Order. It's the same kind of nonsense National Socialist believed when they believed J**s had taken over the world.
Example, if this was the case, then why would the British Empire provide Education for Black South Africans, and Indians? Ghandi was educated in Great Britain. Why allow the people you want to rule get an education? Getting an education is a threat to collectived groups wanting to rule over other groups.
The fact that the fastest growing economies are not in the west also disproves this notion. Mean while entire regions of Europe are in poverty, like Spain, Greece, much of Eastern Europe. If the world was built that way everyone else would be in poverty, western peoples would care about elevating western peoples first, but they don't. Commerce, Trade and Wealth goes were opportunities lie, and Opportunity is color blind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TIKhistory I think accurately described Churchill as an idiot. I often compare him to Britains 1930/40's Donald Trump. A man of personality which was able to draw people at a whim. Which I guess made him a good politician, being that is a positive attribute. But honestly, it doesn't make someone smart. I've even gotten to a point that I think even Hitler was a far more competent leader, and even military commander than Churchill, because at least Hitler made some actually good strategically sound decisions during the war, despite the massive amount of criticisms he often gets thanks to the "Madman Hitler Card" that often is used as a Get out of Jail Free Card by Wehraboo Historians. Though I agree on that nation during the last year of the war, when the man started losing touch with reality. But that also coincided with the German Army falling apart and literally relying on him for every major decision, would drive anyone insane.
Prior to that the man actually made sound decisions, often with advice, and was pretty darn well informed, you can tell why he went absolutely insane trying to hold all that burden as it kept stacking as the German Army kept crumbling, more and more of that burden went onto his shoulders. Then after the assassination attempt when he literally couldn't trust any of his Generals but those who were yes men. So few after the fact would oppose him or give him sound advice. Gotthard Heinrici's account of his last meeting with Hitler tells like a horror story, the man was mentally drained almost a zombie.
For example his obsession with Fortress Cities cutting the allies off of deep water ports for most of the 1944 period, which most definitely delayed the western Allies by Months. As well as Hitler believing they needed to prioritize capturing of Soviet Oil Fields, but ironically in this case he listened to his generals and his generals ended up being wrong, so they lost their chance by prioritizing Moscow in 1941 being a great example when the war could have gone better if Hitler chose to ignore his generals and not side with the OKH's plans. Meanwhile Churchill's meddling in North Africa is almost scandalous causing horrific results like Operation Crusader battles which under hindsight the British should have never lost holding most of the cards on the table.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I always ironically try to tell people. Socialist want to bring back Feudalism, and they don't' even realize it. It's ironic because Capitalist were the original anti Statist. They were the ones who made the shops, made the artisans, the smiths, the carpenters, the Merchant Class. They were the ones who set up shops inside cities, did the trading, traveled long distances to make great wealth, and actually made kingdoms wealthy, and were taxed by the Nobility and the Kings, while the Surfs/Farmers were metaphorical slaves who were provided for, by their land owners as long as they worked the fields and grew the crops.
When the cities turned industrial it wasn't the Nobility/Kings, but the Smiths/Artisans/Shops that grew wealthy and powerful, Surfs/Farmers no longer had to be slaves to the nobility and moved to the cities to work for the "bousqasie" which literally means Townfolk. This was the rise of the Middle Class, self made individuals without noble titles.
It ironically was the Capitalist/Bousqasie that gave the poor, enslaved farmers a chance of a better life, a freer life, yet some how they became the new enemy. Once the Kings/Nobility were deposed as centuries passed as both the surfs and nobles became reliant on the merchant class/middle class/bousqasie/capitalist, and the Surfs had to fend for themselves, they became resentful, in spite how much the bousqasie helped them overcome their bondage. It was easy working on a farm almost always having food, but in a city you had to earn money and buy food, work hard. The "workers" rejected this, and are now ironically wanting to bring back a Feudal Nanny State, where someone provides for them, as long as they work, but now it will not just be fields of potatoes but everything.
That is why I say Socialist want to bring back Feudalism. They don't realize it because they actually think the bousqasie/capitalist are their enemy, when they were the ones who actually saved them. They're no longer slaves because they have a right to choose their own path in life because of the capitalist. You have a choice who to work for, what job you accept/take, if you don't like it you can look for another one. The only thing that binds people today is their fear of taking that leap, that risk. You get a job, and you stay there, you complain about how you hate that job but don't try to find a new one? You're not a slave, you're not forced to stay, and that business will never get more tolerable if people blindly stay there, it will be forced to change when no one wants to work there, or it will go out of business. Leave, find a new job, it's risky, but that is how you make bad capitalist change into good capitalist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's more than just getting it. It's a fact of life.
For example, a farmer who raises pigs is able to gather food waste, ie rotten food, or leftovers from food processing, and feed it to their pigs, instead of having it all be thrown into a dump. All those calories are rescued because a farmer raises pigs, and those pigs in turn feed people. Imagine how much food waste there is a year? Imagine if we fed it to pigs? How much more calories would be available for humans?
There are so many examples how livestock helps the environment, and humanity in general even beyond food in which we'd have to resort to synthetics which well are often petroleum based to replace. Leather, gums, gels, among other things. Nothing from livestock goes to waste when they're processed, including the bones. Unlike agriculture in which up to 30% or more of crops grown eventually rot and get thrown out before anyone buys/eats. Imagine, 30% of all the farmland basically wasted annually.
Worse yet, livestock doesn't even require feeding often. Cows do not need to be fed grain heck lawn clippings even work, pigs can survive off almost anything as long as it's edible, food waste reference already mentioned as a great example.
Let alone a pound of meat provides considerably more calories for a human than a pound of any vegetables can ever hope to, even high starch / calorie cereal crops can not compete with protein.
British government learned this during WWII when they decided to use grazing land for growing potatoes and actually found out they needed to grow considerably more potatoes to feed people than the meat they just denied them by taking away sheep/cattle grazing fields. Growing crops is just that much more inefficient.
I hate to say it, but eating meat saves wildlife, saves the world, and saves humanity at large. You have to be an ideologue to think otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is the same feeling I had when my PS3 broke. I sent it in to Sony and they replaced it, without recovering any data, despite calling it a repair, they didn't fix mine, but gave me an alien device. I had no way of getting it back either. I had a second PS3 eventually break, ironically the one they replaced mine with, about a year and a half later. I spent months trying to get progress in some games I lost back to where they were definitely one that was multiplayer focuses with a dying player base, meaning if I lost it again I may not ever be able to get the stuff I earned in that game back. This time I sent it in to a proper repair shop, I looked around on the internet for anyone who was professional and found a group who specialized in fixing XBox 360 and PS3 consoles (that generation of gaming consoles were notorious for breaking, so much so I've not bought a video game console since). They fixed this PS3 proper, literally, right down to replacing chips, and resoldering. They even increased the fan speeds to help insure it stayed cooler, by setting the min temperature the machine had to be for the fans to cook into overdrive.
I will say, NEVER send your broken electronics back to the companies that make them. They care too much about spreadsheets to care about consumers. Maximum profit for least expense is how they operate. I have no faith in them doing consumers justice. Find a private repair shop, even if it may cost you a few hundred dollars, for a product that may no longer be valued as such. Never know, some day that machine you hold may be a collectors item one day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warreneckels4945 Tragically for Marx his ideas do not really factor into real world application. Which is why I often tell people there are pretty much two kinds of Socialist. Dreamers, and Pragmatist.
Dreamers being those who believe in People like Marx as if it's a religion. Then Pragmatist people who actually understand the flaws inherent in socialist doctrine and try to take a more practical approach, because there are serious issues within socialism.
Best example is, Economic Liberalism (ie Capitalism) which leads to greater efficiency, reduced cost, and greater abundance. Which in turn = greater prosperity for the Working Class, and the Poor. So no Revolution. Revolutionary Socialist for almost two hundred years keep spouting it's the dying Days of Capitalism, but then Capitalism never dies, I wonder why? Perhaps because Capitalism isn't actually in crisis as they believe. In fact most of the Violent Revolution that happens in the 1920s was entirely the result of impoverishment brought about by WWI, not Capitalism itself, public States made the people poor by throwing away capital to wage war at the expense of the people. So ironically people were revolting as a result of the public sector states, not the private sector economy the state rides on.
Pragmatist understand this. Which is why Social Democracy is more popular than Socialism itself. Even the Democratic Party of America is technically a Social Democratic Party even if they don't openly admit it. Social Democratic movements believe you can reform the Capitalist system, and turn it into a Welfare State, with a Capitalist Economy to pay for Social Welfare. It sprouted originally from the Marxist movement when Marxism kept failing in Practice in the 19th Century. Many Marxist eventually split from Marxism and started forming their own socialist movements, including Social Democracy and Syndicalism, among many others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Skipped over one of the most important ones, known as the Oster Conspiracy. Reason it isn't known is because the trigger that was required for it to be launched sadly didn't happen. It wasn't an assassination per se but more so a full blown coup back in 1938 during the Munich Crisis. The trigger was war. Those involved needed Hitler to look like the aggressor for it to succeed and the Munich Crisis was the perfect opportunity. Interesting enough some of the same supporters during the Oster Conspiracy were also later involved in Valkyrie.
Basically both Britain, France were mobilizing and plausibly even Italy were willing to fight with the allies against Germany if they invaded Czechoslovakia. Some don't remember but this was before the Axis was formed and it was actually the conclusion of the Munich Crisis with Mussolini acting as the middle man during negotiations that actually brought him and HItler closer together as Mussolini was convinced the West were spineless and made terrible allies, he spent years trying to ally with the west against Hitler before that point which is quite interesting. Prior to that Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party were kind of hostile toward the Nazis, definitely after what happened in Austria which was a pseudo protectorate of Italy at the time, ie Italy but when it was annexed "legally" Italy wasn't in a position to do anything about it as a result of years of fighting in Ethiopia and Spain. Other parties like Yugoslavia, Romania and possibly even Poland likely would have also joined in against the Nazis as well. The war would have pretty much ended right there.
Oster Conspiracy was going to use this danger, and Hitler dragging Germany into that nightmare scenario as a justifiable reason to remove him and his Party from power. It every likely would have succeeded. Tragically after the Munich Crisis ended Hitler's popularity actually skyrocketed, he just annexed territory without firing a shot, and challenged the west now 3 times without consequence. Though it wasn't exactly an assassination attempt as they wanted to put Hitler on trial, the officer who was going to arrest him agreed among others involved that he'd ignore that order of capture and shoot him anyways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly, it isn't easy to get good information on the Post WWI Recession that hit the industrialized world between 1918 and 1920 caused by the war and later the Spanish Flu. But I've read it was a catalyst to the 1929 crash only a few years later. I've read though that in the USA in particular the US Government introduced subsidization to industrial goods like oil, and steel, among other things, as well as Federal Loans, which is the primary reason for the Roaring Twenties as a means to help bounce back from the First World War, and the poisoned economy the world faced at the time as a result. However, if it's true the US Government actually caused the economic bubble, not Laissez-faire Capitalism.
It lead to over production of many resources including petroleum, it led to massive price falls of these industrial/consumer goods on the market itself. Which is the pin that eventually pupped that bubble. Meanwhile in Germany the German government was borrowing heavily from countries like the US to bolster it's own economy, through public works projects, and welfare programs, which also gave in spite of the contrary belief a short period between WWI and 1929 an economic boom within Germany as well I know economically in Germany the 1920s. Supposedly the German government was in so much debt by the 1929 crash that all the gold reserves in the USA couldn't pay Germany's bills, and being most of that debt was to the USA the US Government ended up fitting the bill because Germany couldn't pay. So right when the US Government needed the money the most, well it had lend it out to a regime that couldn't afford to pay it back.
I heard during this period Keynes also lost half if not more of his fortune even before the 1929 crash, as he foolishly invested in foreign currency, including the German Mark. He pulled out of the market before 1929 which has lead to some people making silly conspiracy theories about him, or his defenders saying he's brilliant as he predicted it, when no, he just failed that badly at judging the market, and was pulling out coincidentally before the crash.
I'd love to know if this is true or not, as a vast majority of places I look up, don't talk about at all what the Federal Government was up to, and the Federal Reserve's activities economically during this time period.
1
-
1
-
5:04 seems a historical fault that many fail to realize how powerful the unifying force of Nationalism actually is. It's actually why so many former socialist abandoned the Internationalism of Marxism, and adopted Nationalism. They saw what happened during the Great War, and how the Worker's Revolution didn't come to end the war, not until years later with millions dead and millions more starving to death did any kind of revolutions start, primarily Russia/Germany.
The Italian Fascist were pretty much just National Syndicalist, Mussolini himself was kicked out of the Communist Party because he wanted the party to follow a more Nationalist route, Lenin was actually very angry that they kicked him out as well. He believed Mussolini was the only man in Italy who could lead a revolution, so Lenin was not surprisingly willing to accept that perhaps a pro Nationalist Communist Party in Italy would of been fine as long as it was under the Communist Banner. USSR and China both have gone into pro Nationalist phases on and off so Nationalism isn't completely incompatible with Communism. But that one difference was enough to get Mussolini thrown out of the party in Italy.
Where as the National Socialist took Preussen Socialism and merged it with a race instead of class focused version of Marxism, ie no longer fighting for the international workers, but fighting for the ethnic race which was the Nazi's Nationalism, their idea of the Nation was the race. Interesting enough like Mussolini, Hitler was also once a member of the Communist Party in Bavaria, even elected to represent his regiment in the Bavarian People's State and Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1918 and 1919. Basically he was elected by his peers in a Communist government.. something he completely leaves out of Mein Kamphy chair, for obvious reasons. As in the 1920s he was trying to distance the National Socialist Party from almost everything Marxist, in spite of his past history. Interesting know, Julius Schreck and Sepp Dietrich were also members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, both key members of the SS later on in history, of course this is completely absent from say Wikipedia. I love how WWI ends, 2 years pass between 1918 and 1920 which they mention nothing about what Schreck did on Wikipedia for obvious reasons.
It's actually a fundamental difference between Nazism and Fascism, and it was their ideas of Nationalism. Were as an Italian Fascist would view the race nonsense of Nazi Germany as Nonsense because a nation isn't a specific ethnicity but a collection of different groups with similar national goals, and that nationalism is the glue that brings those groups together. A Nazi's idea of the Nation and Nationalism is literally the ethnic group, or race. A lot of people don't realize that Fascism and Nazism are fundamentally opposed in this respect.
s
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Answer the question, for the same reason Putin believed the west wouldn't get involved in Ukraine. The Ukraine War is as much a failure of the west as it is Putin's bad decisions. It's a similar situation with Taiwan. Instead of openly claiming that if China invades Taiwan, it will mean WAR with other major powers, those other major powers tip toe around the issue of Taiwan's independence, out of fear of War, and pretend she is a country without openly claiming she is... I don't consider that dealing with a delicate situation but pandering to an aggressive power.
This is the same reason Chamberlin made so many mistakes, he wanted to avoid war, but doing so made himself look weak. This is why Hitler believed he could get away with invading Poland.
How we cowardly response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, among other border conflicts since 2008 with other neighbors like Georgia, gave Putin the idea that if he invaded Ukraine, he'd likely only face a lot of political sword rattling, and sanctions. Because just like leading up to WWII, the west were too afraid of war that they made themselves out to be weak.
This goes back to the quote by America's first president George Washington. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Price Fixing Destroyed the Economy of every socialist government that has ever existed. Even mild socialist governments. Reason why is the state often resorts to subsidizing because business can not operate at the prices the State demands, so the state jumps in and pays the rest. This is why I'm against Subsidization and State Price Fixing. Subsidization is a less extreme way but it often mask the true value of comodities that are being subsidized at the expense of the taxpayers, ie taxpayers are still paying those higher prices but.. indirectly. Price Fixing is perhaps the worst thing any government can do. It's often used to mask inflation and allows states to be irresponsible as heck. IN the end you end up with the Soviet Union in the 1980s, where everyone had money but nothing to buy with it, everyone was rich on paper when it came to rubles, but nothing to buy it on, so were in actuality poor. When the Soviet block countries entered the world market in the 1990s they suffered hyperinflation, all those rubles that piled up in people's bank accounts were open to be spent, and prices skyrocketed, all because of state price fixing masking inflation. The currency was hyperinflated before the 1990s, the 1990s just ripped the bandaid off. But because of price fixing people didn't realize the currency was hyperinflated in the 80s.
The Nazis solution to hyperinflation/price fixing was exporting Inflation. They invaded other countries, stole commodities and exported inflation to occupied countries. All so they could keep prices in the home country low.
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
-
@brien144 And if your peers hold a collective bias? American history had that issue for years, I mean Lost Cause Revisionism used to be considered fact among many American Collages, with even Woodrow Wilson who was a collage Dean before becoming president endorsing it. just because popular consensus is one thing, that doesn't mean that one thing is actually right. I mean until there was absolutely irrefutable proof a majority of paleontologists considered the meteor strike to be fantasy. As a dino nut we still have many of them intentionally lying/bending the truth just because they like the idea of a fuzzy T-Rex.
TIK has found many examples within the books he's used where authors have misquoted, omitted and in the case of one flat out fabricated or worse not even understanding what they were actually putting into print.
Good example being The Vampire Economy, the communist who wrote it had no idea what he was talking about, but the book is a great source only because it shows how the German economy was actually working in real time ie a great first hand account, but... despite all the nationalization, he still considered it capitalism, despite capitalist crying/suffering under the NS bureaucracy he still called it capitalism. Which is just fundamentally wrong.
TIK brings this subject up in his Section 8 of his Hitler's Socialism video, despite mountains of evidence that says otherwise, authors will still call the NS Economy Capitalist. Showing multiple quotes from Richard Evans that within a single paragraph he contradicts himself, while also getting Socialism and Marxism mixed up. Meaning Richard Evans doesn't understand what he is actually talking about or, he is intentionally coming to the wrong conclusion so his readers do.
I mean how else does Gleichschaltung (Synchronization) get turned into Privatization? Which is the word that got translated into Privatization. Someone somewhere falsely translated it, and since spread throughout the English literary world falsely, and who knows what other language's translated theirs from English literature. Now somehow the NS are considered the inventors of the word? Seriously? That shouldn't happen. But it has....
I've come across it as well. Socialist calling Communism Totalitarianism and Communist calling Socialism Totalitarianism. Two socialist clicks accusing the other of being totalitarian while theirs is anti state.
TIK's primary argument that Socialist do not know what Socialism is, because they've never come to a consensus on what Socialism is, seems to be very real. Which is why I run into so many people with wildly different views on socialism, including people who seems so confident in it.
I've seen former Soviet Citizens getting banned from Socialist/Communist Reddit because their Soviet definition of Socialism doesn't match what modern socialist view socialism. Even modern Socialist views are mixed and not united. He posting tons of evidence that modern socialist collage kids have no idea what they're talking about and spends much of his time giving as accurate of a picture of the soviet union as possible. Ushanka Show, great channel by the way, he is now a Libertarian Socialist yet despite being a Socialist he gets attacked/banned by Socialist on Reddit, amazing, all because he tried to dispel their fantasy.
In TIK's Weimar Hyperinflation Part 2, he literally finds the marxist author of the book he was citing much of the time omitting without citing part of one of Rosa Luxemburg's quotes. ie he removed part of her quote without citing he did so, so his readers wouldn't know he removed it. Be surprised how often that happens. Of course it's a dastardly part of her quote that makes her sound like a Loony as well. Because she literally said "Dictatorships of the Proletariat is a democracy in the socialist sense." He omitted that part. Which is ironic because it sounds a lot like the same rationale used by the NS and Fascist when calling their regimes Democracies.
What I'm getting at. I don't think the Academic community actually knows what they're talking about. If they don't know what they're talking about how can peer review even work? Worse some most definitely falsify what they're writing, yet their peers mostly agree with them so don't care. They live in a fantasy land that isn't reality when it comes to the practical application of Socialism. Because of this, they see socialism in practical application that doesn't turn out the way they dreamed so utterly REJECT IT. Because their idea of Socialism just doesn't work and a practical application will never turn out the way they want it to. So their "Dream" of what it is isn't reality, because of this when they see socialism in practice they don't even know how to identify it.
Which circles back to TIK's claim "Socialist do not know what real Socialism is, if they knew, and understand basic economics, they wouldn't be socialist." < Which I think he got from Thomas Sowell. Which is why I stopped being a Socialist myself, I grew up, saw it's falsehoods, and lost faith in the adult children who champion it who clearly do not live in the real world. Based on his "Leftist are not stupid" video He jumped ship about a year after I did. btw it's nice of him to actually defend Leftist, I know many and I do agree with him they're not stupid, just misinformed.
I have an uncle/aunt who are collage professors, worked for one as an assistant in my collage years, and even helped one get elected in local office post retirement. Well you get to know these Academics personally, you know they're not really anything special. Most of them come right out of an academic setting and straight back into it, they never get real world experience prior to becoming members of the academic community. This leads to a feed back loop and if you have people getting misinformed, only to go right back into that loop, it creates generations of professors who do not know what they're talking about. hehe
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johannhawk8471 The Italian Fascist were Syndicalist later turned Corporatist. They believed in the concept of State Owned Trade Unions. Which means economically the Italian Fascist actually have a lot in Common with the "Nordic Model" that modern Leftist advocate is a great system. Again though Politically the Italian Fascist were also against Liberal Democracy, they viewed the modern State, ie the Liberal Democratic State a Capitalist State and were openly hostile toward Capitalism.
The only reason Industrialist were supportive of the Italian Fascist was because they stepped away from Classist Principles of Marxism, and were no longer supportive of the Class Focused Worker's Revolution. Mostly as a result of Mussolini's influence over the Fascist Party which he didn't found btw. Mussolini through his observation during the First World War saw that Nationalism seemed to rally people together far more effectively than Social Class. So started advocating when he was still part of the Communist Party that the party should adopt a Pro-War position and rally the people that way, also hoping the war would weaken the current ruling State in Italy. Eventually Mussolini was kicked out of the Communist Party, and comically Lenin wrote a letter to the Italian Communist Party on how pissed he was that they did that. Because Lenin believed Mussolini was the only Socialist in Italy who had the temperament to launch a Revolution.
When Mussolini took over the Fascist Party (Fasci literally means Bundle and was an Alternative to Union in Italy, the original Fascist Party was an International Anarcho-Syndicalist Party). Mussolini dropped the International Party of the Party's name, and advocated to creating a New Italian National State under Syndicalist principles. Using Nationalism instead of the "Worker's Revolution" as the Glue to hold the movement together. He was very successful as well. he turned against the Worker's Revolution and crushed workers Unions when he brought stability to a very unstable Italy post War. After showing his Black Shirts were doing what the Italian Government was failing to do he marched on Rome and took power. Basically launched a bloodless Revolution, King was still in power but the State that ruled the country was now Mussonlin's.
As the Italian Fascist movement progressed throughout the 20s/30s they eventually switched from National Syndicalism to their own ideas on syndicalism which would be Fascist Syndicalism, which eventually just evolved into the adoption of Corporatism or as Giovanni Gentile stated "The Corporate State" as the State was at the top of all those Corporations. Rather than crushing the Capitalist out right like say what the Bolsheviks did, they forced them into State owned Trade Unions with the promise they could still run their business but now on the State's Behalf, gave the State control while keeping Industrialist some what happy for the most part. This is why the Austrian Fascist of the 1930s were also Corporatist, and so would be the National Socialist Party in Germany. Which is why Business remained mostly intact under their rules and eventual regime collapses, because they were incorporated into the State but not managed by the State. The Nazis used the term Gleichschaltung: Synchronization to describe this process, which business were Nazified so to speak to make sure they were operating for the good of the Nation/People vs the owner's own personal interest, the owner could still operate as long as they toed the line so to speak. That is how they viewed what a Mixed Economy should be.
This is actually why I shake my head when people say these regimes were controlled by Capitalist, when they were literally run by people who believed the State should Monitory/control Capitalist for the good of the Community.
Nazis in particular literally believed Capitalism itself to be J**ish, and were very hostile toward it. They were not hostile toward private property, just hostile toward exploitation of capital in a way that hurt the people.
So in almost all respects. Fascist/Nazis were Socialist. Just not the same kind of Socialist as say a Marxist Revolutionary.
I forgot what book it was, but I remember the author stated "The Nazis were not against Marxist principles, but were against the Marxist movement itself because they believed it was a conspiracy controlled by the J**s." Basically the Nazis believed the J**s were using Capitalism to cause Class Conflict, which in turn they were then using the Classist Revolutionary movement to gain power throughout the world. Basically they believed in a conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
@johannhawk8471 Issue with My Kampfy Chair, he likely lied about his entire time in Bavaria. If he was in the Communist party why would he admit he was willingly?
based on what information is available, he was elected twice into the Communist Party as a representative to his Unit. His unit was Socialist leaning, so he wouldn't of been elected into that position twice if he himself wasn't socialist leaning. When the Freikorp showed up however Hitler insisted that his unit stay out of the fighting though. Which was either a sign he lost faith, wished to preserve the lives of his friends or himself, or was never a die heart supporter but we don't actually know. Being he willingly risked his life later during his Munich Beer Hall Coup, he definitely wasn't a coward so that one can be crossed out.
However he was elected as a representative for his men for the People's State of Bavaria and later the Bavarian Soviet Republic. So not just one government, but two Communist Governments that lasted almost a full year collectively, so it was more than just a month, even if he wasn't a part of it during the entirety.
However, we do know Hitler himself didn't become a spokesmen until he joined the German Worker's Party months after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, a Party that was openly Nationalist, Anti-semitic, Anti-capitalist and Anti-Marxist, yet was Socialist. It already even before Hitler joined it, had all the hallmarks of the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
It is very likely that Hitler was a Communist, but changed his views after joining the German Worker's Party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodrigorafael.9645 He isn't tricking anyone. Only people who burry their head in the sand think they're "NOT" Socialist in turn the sheep that follow their writings.
I'm honestly tired of hearing arguments which use "Marxist" Socialist ideas and counter pose those ideas to prove the Nazis are not Socialist because the Nazis were opposed to some of those ideas. Which ONLY PROVES THEY'RE NOT MARXIST which is a big DUH.
This is why he resorts to COLORs. The word "Color" is used as a alternative to "Socialism." While the other Colors are "Colors" (Socialist) they're not the same color (same kind of socialist).
Marxist influences socialist do not have a monopoly on the term socialism. Definitely being the term had existed before Marx. Even when Marx was around not all Socialist movement's followed his beliefs. Conservative Socialism or Bourgeois Socialism didn't just vanish from the world. When I mean Marxist influenced, ie I'm referring to class Conscious Socialist. Which can include Social Democrats, Marxist, Communist, Syndicalist, Democratic Socialist, etc etc.
I mean the very fact that many denialist are now resorting to calling the Nazis a Cartel and compares them to a Mafia makes me fall over laughing. As the word Cartels and Syndicates are Synonyms of each other. Unions, Cartels, Syndicates, Soviets, Leagues, Cooperatives, Corporations, and many other terms often used to define a "Union" of sorts.
So ironically when they use the word Cartel, I go "DUH!?" But that doesn't change a thing really. Just makes me laugh at this bad argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised. The Nazis didn't dismantle the old Weimar State entirely and kept much of it's structures intact including a lot of it's laws. The Nazis were technically willing the work around the 'old system' while building their 'new state' slowly over time through Synchronization or Coordination, however you want to define Gleichschaltung. Unlike say Bolsheviks which would just rip everything down and start a new, basically believing a new foundation was necessary so the whole structure had to be torn down first.
So I wouldn't be surprised the post war transition from the Nazi's State would also see some of it's laws. Definitely being the Nazis were obsessed with welfare, health and social laws, some were not terrible laws either. So would have instituted a lot of positive laws alongside their nefarious ones.
I always viewed the Nazis like a "Racist" version of the Independent Socialist of 1919 from the Socialist split that happened that year, not Marxist but not Social Democrats either who they viewed as enemies.
13:55 not exactly true. They Nationalized Unions under the German Labor Front. That is a whole can of worms to talk about but. They didn't abolish Trade Unions, they just Nationalized Trade Unions into the "Party" ie the New State. They were even allowed to form Worker's Councils and every City technically had one of which would represent the local workforce within the DAF. Union's that refused to become part of the DAF were brutally crushed with most of their leaders put into prison. Basically not joining the DAF wasn't an option and they made it quite clear in 1933. DAF would eventually become the largest and most powerful organization within the Party itself, I think what 80+ Million members? More than the Party. It wasn't some side show like some historians try to claim either. It had real power within the Nazi State, and dictated wages, who could work where, and working conditions, etc. They'd even force business to build daycares, gyms and other facilities for their workers.. ironically most never had time to use them because they were often working 10-12 hour days. But who said Bureaucrats were smart?
Günter Reimann's book the Vampire Economy talks a lot about that period. Reimann paints a picture that business owners were actually terrified of the DAF. Being Reimann was a self proclaimed communist in hiding during the 1930s. I find it interesting that he would put so much into the Vampire Economy that makes the DAF look like it had absolute power over the business man. Reimann actually expresses a point often ignored about the Nazi's views on the economy in how the Nazis basically crushed the Private Sector, turned it into a servant of the Party. Reimann's book is the pre-war period as well btw. So you can not blame it on "War Economics."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d.c.8828 "Allow me to preemptively state that defensive violence in the face of territorial conquest is justified."
I do not see why anyone would think otherwise. So I don't get what the point of that statement is.
"Organizing collectives and having a known "leader", figure, or spokesperson, is not the same thing as centralizing power."
Centralized Power is a result of Organized Society. A Collective will always result in the creation of Centralized Power. Maybe not right away, but it is an inevitability. So the only way for Anarchism to work is to not have a collective, and to have no organized society. Why I said it is a contradiction is because, most Anarchist are Collectivist, which is the contradiction. If you're part of an organized society you're not an Anarchist.
However, the concept of having a Collective will result in creating a Social hierarchy, which in turn will create Centralized Power, and it only gets worse when said society gets larger, and larger. As it becomes next to impossible for individuals within said society to have any real possibility of representation in that hierarchy, and that doesn't matter whether it's a Monarchy, a Dictatorship or even a Democratic or Republic system, you will not be represented, as you're at the very bottom of that social hierarchy.
As I said though, hierarchies will always form, even within a collective. Very simple example a union gets large enough the workers have to have some form of control/management of some kind, even if it's elected among themselves who will be in charge of paper work, and maybe representation when communicating with the outside world, those people get a fancy office chair while the workers who elected them bones wither away while mining as a small example.
USA being a pretty darn good example of that actually. America was founded by people who wanted no centralization, the very first iteration of the USA was a Confederation for example as an attempt to hopefully not have centralized power. However, it didn't work out very well. We in turn created a Federal Government but one with a lot of checks/balances in some hope it would keep those in power, checked, or locked in a way so they couldn't gain absolute power. Which is how the USA operated for relatively a century afterwards. Yes there are many in the USA who want to erode those checks/balances and it's sad to see. Most of them really have no effect on curving power anymore.
Despite this... people still fled the eastern United States to the western territories to escape an unfair system. Long before the erosion began. Because, despite being a collection of States, internally all those mini states also developed social hierarchies. Land was scarce, you had to play by rules you may not agree with created by people you may of never even supported politically among many other things. People, a lot of people didn't like it, it wasn't the freedom that the American Dream promised. In many respects it shows how unfair democracy is, for those who are not represented ie those who fail to gain a voice politically in said society. I hate to quote a character played by Mel Gibson but "An elected Legislator can trample the rights of a man as easily as a king can."
I will circle back to the beginning as a reminder. If a Social Hierarchy forms, you will have centralized power. It doesn't matter what kind of system you're living under either. This is why Socialist systems turn into tyrannical systems. As to have a socialist system you to put society in control of the state, in who runs a socialist society? Those at the top of the New Revolutionary movement, or "New Society." Because? Even within a Socialist movement you have a social hierarchy. Despite that a socialist movement is supposed to be a populous movement, or a collectivist movement, in which everyone should supposedly be fairly represented, but never is. Because push comes to shove, individuals in society are selfish and greedy, if you have a choice between a office chair or a shovel you will take the chair, and you will do whatever you need to do to ensure you get that chair. This goes all the way to the top of society.
^ Actually why I laugh my ass off at Socialist who call Capitalist greedy. I would just reply "And Socialist are any different?" History has proven that socialist are literally no different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just An Observer On The Internet Well that is nonsense. Do you really think there is a possibility of having a Just Hierarchy? That is hopeless romanticism. We humans are too fickle for that to be a possibility, it's impractical to think it would be. The concept of a Hierarchy literally prevents that.
Good example being, a phycological analysis of most political is that they're narcissist self obsessed people, getting higher up the political ladder isn't for the people but for their own EGO, Putin is a good modern example of this, as well as Trump, both narcissist, ego driven public figures which their followers who support them view them as the highest of society, ie best of society and drool over them... yet... in most cases these narcissist political figures don't even give a crap about their own followers just use them for their own ends.
Similar analysis of CEOs is that they're psychopaths, often to rise to a ranks of a business as large as a multi national corporation pretty much requires a person that willingly crushes their rivals with no mercy, no remorse, which often leads to psychopaths getting to the top of the social ladder of major corporations as more morally excellent people are the ones they crush and exploit. But partners, including other stock holding employees don't care they just care about how successful the company is so if that means said individual can get away with absolutely destroying the lives of their rivals.
These are not good qualities but yet seem to be universally common among Public Figures, and yes CEOs are public figures. You see it in Hollywood among writers and actors as well.
So... yes people who rise up the social ladder rarely if ever do so for good reasons. There is no Justice, and having anything but an unjust hierarchy is literally a pipe dream. I mean it's why Twitter emotionalism is a joke that people often make fun of as again, ego driven narcissist constantly finding battles to fight for to make themselves feel better than they are, because they enjoy the social recognition ie narcissism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The moment they showed a Shoe maker in charge of an entire factory, not even related to shoes just because he was a loyal communist party official sums up why a system without merit can be quite dangerous. People will still fight over who gets to sit in the chair and getting a new office/position, but with at system that has no real means of calculating efficiency, you never actually know if someone actually does a good job or not. The Socialist Calculation Fallacy is one of those issues, when you have a closed system like the USSR running off a fiat currency while all prices are placed by the state, you have no real means of calculating value, if you can not calculate value you in turn have a system that mask inefficiency because they actually can not rate how efficient they are actually being. So all those glorious Soviet Union statistics people often post by that rule are arbitrary, made up, if not guess.
This is why the Soviet Union was renown for being cheap. The only way it could trade was using rare metals, or barter. Meaning getting knowledge, and material was very difficult so everything in the USSR was made to be as affordable as possible, but they couldn't ever tell if they were being efficient at it. Which is how you end up with a Tank factory making washing machines on the side charging a years salary for said washing machine, or why a grocery store would be almost completely devoid of products for soviet citizens to buy. Yet some how, reports showed Soviet citizens were better off then American citizens in the 1980s?
As the Soviet Worker's saying goes "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." Because they were paid a lot of money but they had nothing to spend it on. So the money was worthless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627 You're basing you're entire perspective off Marxonian Theory. Socialism isn't Marxism, though Marxism is Socialism. But judging what Socialism is by Marxism is a huge fallacy, and it's one too many make. Socialism predates Marx himself, and Marxism wasn't the only branch of Socialism in the 19th Century. Mikhail Bakunin being a good example, and a huge critic of Marxism who is also the primary foundation for Modern Libertarian Socialist he was also against the idea of the Working Class being the only Class to be part of the Social Revolution meaning it Bakunin's ideas were not exclusive to "Labor" or the "Workers" as well as many none Marxist Socialist.
This means SOCIALISM isn't about the Workers or Labor, only Marxism and branches of Marxism like Syndicalism.
Socialism isn't about the Workers. It's about Common Control, and Common Control is whatever said Socialist movement wants it to be as long as it's Community, or Society in Control, it doesn't have to be about the Workers. In the context of Italian Fascism it was Nationalized Trade Unions in control of the Central State, similar to the Soviet Union.
This is why when saying the Nazis were not Socialist because they were against the Workers is a serious fallacy. I would argue it's a double fallacy as well because they created a State owned Labor Union, they didn't abolish Trade Unions, they Nationalized them in to the German Labour Front (DAF). Which was a single large state owned trade union, and no business could operate in Germany without hiring workers from that Union, which also means they pretty much eliminated Wage slavery by using the state as the State had absolute say on wages, no longer could the employer dictate on the value of the worker.
Similar to when Marxist claim the Nazis were against Welfare because they abolished the welfare state. Which they didn't btw, they Nationalized it. The reason people think they Abolished it was because they closed down all the OLD Weimar Republic and pre-Weimar social programs, but they didn't close them down they turned them over to the Nazi Party. People don't know but the State and the Party were Separate in 1933, it was the Nazi Party ruling the State, but the Nazis wanted absolute power. To have absolute power they closed down most state welfare Programs but then incorporated them directly into the Nazi Party itself as separate entities ie Corporations that the PARTY OWNED and controlled. In short they didn't abolish welfare, they put it under new management, took it from the old State and gave it to the NEW STATE which was the Nazi Party. A none violent revolution as the Nazis would call it. Revolution is a change in government, and most of the Nationalization that went on under the Nazi Regime was called Privatization and Synchronization. Privatization as it was put into the hands of the Party, and Synchronization as those elements that were not put in direct control of the party were made SURE to operate in tangent with the Party's wishes. ie Synchronized.
In turn it's all State Power, State Control. There was no Capitalism in Nazi Germany in Short. Despite the word Privatization being used it was none Private. If the Party is the Private Entity then the Soviet Union was also never Socialist as the Party owned everything as well. In all respects, the Nazis didn't lie to the Workers, they lied to the Capitalist. It's a great example why Marxist live in a backwards reality. It wasn't the end stage of Capitalism, it was the rise of Socialism, but one for a Racial Community not a Worker's Community.
When it comes to Fascism itself, ie Italian or Austrian Fascism to be precise. Which is distinctively different from Nazism. I think it was Giovanni Gentile the Marx of Fascism who called the Capitalist State an Liberal State, and in turn an Aristocratic State. He said this in direct opposition to Capitalism itself. Despite the Italian Fascist used the Monarchy as a Tool, their Intellectuals were devoutly critical to the old Liberal Economic system that Marxist call "Capitalism." They even used the same term Capitalist to describe it. Like Marx he was also a Hegelian, ironically a lot of Socialist intellectuals were. Including Spengler who wrote the book on Preussen Socialism. Interesting enough, Spengler called the Nazis Bolsheviks in disguise after they took power in Germany and turned on the pro private property aspect of Spengler's Preussen Socialism, despite originally supporting them. His last book he ever wrote before he died was in opposition.
If you don't know what Preussen Socialism is, basically through Nationalism everyone would willingly do what is right for the betterment of society and the state, to sum it up. Negating the entire need of a social, or political revolution at all. No need for worker's revolution if business owners treated their workers right, no need for a revolution of the state when everyone in society worked for the betterment of man. He was an ideologue, and foolish romantic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627 Last famine to happen under the pre-Soviet era Russia was absolutely dwarfed by the famine of 1919-1921, which itself was dwarfed again by the 1932-1933 famine. You're using a false equivalency fallacy. Unlike the prior two the 1932 and 1933 famine was Deliberate as well. Though some would argue the 1919-1921 one was deliberate as well, being it was also caused by the Red Army looting/stealing from peasants food/grain, as well as waging a direct war against the farmers. Which actually lead to a few small rebellions.
However the 1932-1933 was absolutely without question deliberate. Enough documentation exist to prove so.
Secondly Stalin lived like a king. He was the State, all the wealth of the Soviet Union, was under his fingernail. even if on paper he owned hardly anything, in practice he owned everything.
But you failed to notice the point I was making. Stalin was the State, on paper her owned hardly anything, but in practice he owned everything. What was that his Potsdam trip in 1945, tens of thousands of red army troops acting as escort, multiple armored trains, multiple booze filled saloon cars among those trains. The man knew how to waste the nation's resources on his own behalf.
That being said the fundamental flaw of State Capitalism or the use of the term is still there. Stalin was the State. Your attempt to defend the USSR as not being State Capitalism despite it's exploitation of Capital among it's own people for the ends of the State and it's leaders because of a technicality is why State Capitalism is just stupid. Issue is State Capitalism can be easily applied to all Socialist regimes when looked at critically. Definitely if you use Marx's Definition of Capital, which can mean literally all commodities, which would include a grain of rice, or wheat. Any Accumulation of Capital by way of the central state would in term be State Capitalism and all Socialist regimes are guilty of it. Otherwise they'd never have the capital to trade between other Socialist regimes, or with capitalist regimes.
Also to hammer home a contradiction between Stalin and Hitler. Stalin publicly didn't consider his wealth his, but issue is, nor did Hitler. On Hitler's death he gave almost his entire fortune back to the Party, which most of that fortune came from to begin with. He didn't view it as his. Even his private villa was a gift originally. And Stalin himself also had Villas, of which like Hitler he openly shared with other party officials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627
"Russia today is no way compareable to the Soviet Union"
Actually it is technically better. Russia is one of the biggest exporters of grain and corn, during the USSR the Soviet Union required imports to feed it's people. Economically Russia is stronger in 2010 (Post 2014 F***ed it all up) than it was in 1990. Russians just don't feel it because of how heavily state subsidized living was in the USSR. This can be best explained with how horrifically the Ruble Hyper Inflated in the 1990s. It was already inflated before the 1990s but because of Price Fixing, non one could tell outside of seeing empty store shelves in most towns/cities outside of major cities. Each year post 1991 the Ruble inflated, by 1998 it was like 600-800% less value wise than it was in 1991. 7 years... so something that cost 2-3 rubles say in 1991 cost 600-800 and at times 1000+ Rubles in 1998. Why? Because the Market decided prices now, not the State, and the State lied about what goods were actually valued, and after decades of Currency Inflation, the Ruble was that worthless. It wasn't capitalism, but the failure of socialism that reared it's head in the 90s, as capitalism showed Russians how bad they actually had it in the USSR. Sadly Putin hijacked Russia and it's people will likely never see the economic freedom they deserve, just lies about how good the OLD TIMES were.
" yes challenged it won the space race"
Oh boy, I guess Nazi Germany was the greatest thing ever for having the First women to fly a Helicopter, Rocket aircraft and Jet Aircraft. ya we know Nazi Germany wasn't the greatest. Nor being the first at anything makes something better, definitely when it's something that is a Total Waste, like the Space Race. It was Prestige, as worthless to a nation's economy as the military.
Prestige is Prestige, it's worthless if it doesn't make the citizen's lives better. Examples:
Soviet Space Shuttle Buran. Mericans have it so must we! Can't let them show us up!
Tupolev Tu-144: Basically a soviet clone of the European Concorde, with shitty engines that would require it to get an overhaul almost every time it flew. Great Prestige points though! Monkey See Monkey do.
MiG-23 and Su-24: This one is funny, they wanted to make VERY fast jets, so they copied the American F-4 Phantom's intakes. Right down to the bolt, including the blades used to cut carrier netting despite neither of those aircraft ever being planned to be used on carriers... they didn't know what they were for but assumed they helped it go fast! We Aviation nuts get to have fun making fun of the Soviets for it though.
Examples above on how much the USSR really cared about prestige, so much so they blatantly copied other countries. Even though it didn't really do anything outside of making them look good inwardly.
"supported so much resistance against imperialism"
By invading Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and Hungary (twice). Among other.
Also BTW Backing Rebellions to cause major regime changes around the world to create more Chess Pieces on your Team on the board is Imperialism. So Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, all those Communist uprisings in Central West and Central East Africa. List goes on and on. All Soviet Imperialism. I mean it's not okay when the west does it, but man some how it's okay when the USSR does it.
"great education and health care even on just that shows how it helped its citizens" Yes which is why the USSR had the largest HIV outbreak in European history, because their medical system was SOOOO good that they couldn't afford needles, so would wash/reuse them. Let alone not recording Births as Official until they were 8 weeks old, to deflate the infant mortality rate on paper.
Also about "ZERO" Homeless, it was illegal to be homeless in the Soviet Union. During Lenin/Stalin they fixed this by creating Communal Housing. Post Stalin it was mostly multi generational house holds, and communal housing. By the 1980s despite all the apartments built some people still lived in communal homes with multiple families. You didn't have a choice, you'd be arrested if you dared live outside the Soviet housing system regardless, and forced to live somewhere by force. So homelessness was masked, because unlike say in the USA if it was like the USSR, the police would literally walk into a shanty town and arrest everyone and force them to live in public housing even if it meant having half a dozen people living in a 1-2 bedroom apartment. Not a great solution but it definitely allows the State to claim Zero homelessness because technically there was no homeless.
1
-
@mattysav4627
Yes, Autarky, the goal of all Socialist, including the Nazis. After Stalin's death the USSR pushed toward importing food, and not just food but other consumer goods, and that wouldn't change even up to the collapse of the USSR. So if the Socialist goal was self sufficiency, they failed. Yes Russia post USSR did become economically stronger. Again you don't grasp why, and how because you have socialist rose glasses on.
And yes, there is far more economic freedom in a free market society. You're mixing up economic security with economic freedom, and ignoring economic mobility entirely. I doubt you could own a Ferrari in the Soviet Union, or a 3-4 bedroom home. I doubt you'd be able to buy a $3000 Dollar high performance computer if you lived in the Soviet Union if the USSR still existed and functioned the same way today as it did then either. Sure, you'd get that 1 Bedroom apartment which you'd have to share with other family members. But security isn't prosperity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627 Just did. Laughed my butt off when he devalued the value of labor when trying to counter argue the variation of the value of a laborer.
However, he is quite wrong. Rarity and Use Values are subservient to the Subjective Theory of Value. Though Rarity and Use effect Value they're still slaves to the subject views of the buyer REGARDLESS. Best example is the Painting example he uses. Just because it's rare does not mean it's valuable. All paintings done by hand are unique and hold the same Rarity no two paints are the same.. but it's still up to the individual's assessment of the Painting that dictates it's value. Something as simple as a name attached, history or even a subtle flaw can have a huge impact on how someone values it. A rusty sword from 2000 years ago might be priceless to one person and scrap metal to another. It's rarity is off the charts, it's historical value is without question, but I know I'd throw it away. Use value suffers the same flaw. The mud example, mud does have a use value, adobe structures for example, yet perhaps some prefers wood? You could sell them mud, but another person who adores the idea of an adobe home would jump on the opportunity. Again Use is Subservient to Subjective.
Then he literally devalued labor value. In an attempt to claim labor time value can easily be calculated, ignoring that even simple jobs like flipping burgers still require skill, and fortitude which can vary greatly from person to person. Making it hard to calculate labor time value. He dumbs it down and dismissed the working man as nonthing more in the modern age as a gear in a machine as if he's never worked a day in his life.... what a joke. There is a reason in my town most people go to the Subway Sandwich shop on the west end of town vs east.... better staff, less f**kups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martigrey5872 I honestly wish that could be changed, but after seeing Battlefield V..... well it's a huge step backwards for WWII based video games. Wolfenstein doesn't count as it was never meant to be taken seriously. But even back in the days of Medal of Honor, they still attempted to portray the war as best the could as authentically as they could with the resources they were limited with, while still making an enjoyable experience. By the time Red Orchestra came out, I was really hopeful WWII games would just get better, and better. Which hasn't be the case, as they've degraded, with only a few multiplayer focused games like Post Scriptum caring, but there is no story, no characters in that kind of game, which i is a major downer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stefanodadamo6809 It's very believable BS. I mean Metatron's video on the Nazis Left or Right was pretty on par with what TIKhistory was saying in his "Hitler's Socialism" videos.
Which I find quite amusing being the only historytubers I've seen who disagree with those views are ones who have self proclaimed as say "Anarchist" or "Marxist" or "Socialist" or like the OwningDishonestShill a blog style propagandist. I've found it kind of funny I've not seen one youtuber successfully challenge these views.
Even Fredda failed at a fundamental level of instead of refuting TIKhistory he spend most of his time trying to paint him as a Libertarian as a method of discrediting him. As if that kind of argument works, it only works to convince Socialist and Statist, in turn it doesn't work because I'd personally trust a Libertarian over the latter any day because Libertarians will crap on both Left and Right equally and TIK does that a lot definitely the UK Left and Right. Even Fredda's video on the 3rd Reich and Capitalism missed the mark by miles. Even Metatron's short video points out so many examples why Fredda's video on Nazis and Capitalism doesn't work, let alone TIKhistory's dozen videos on the subject. It's not hard to even see why Fredda's arguments didn't work, as one he thinks the business men were in charge, which they were not, and he somehow thinks a political party is 'private' which also doesn't work.
I know some point to the TimeGhost video, but that video ends up being just a Hjalmar Schacht pretending to be a "Nazi Economic" video and pretty much ignored EVERYTHING ELSE.
I think the only thing I've seen where TIK/Metatron would most definitely disagree in would be Metatron seems to support the concept of "Generic" Fascism, which is something TIKhistory hasn't exactly accepted. TIKhistory tries to separate Fascism from National Socialism and Marxist. Based on what Metatron said, Nazis, Italian Fascism and the USSR were all "Fascist."
Outside of that, how they 'functions' from what I've seen Metatron is mostly in alinement with TIKhistory's points.
Metatron and TIKhistory are not the only historytubers who've brought up these things.
FeralHistorian is another example. He would call Fascism and Marxism Cousin ideologies. Though he only focuses on history when woven into pop culture films/books. But he's also a history teacher as well, similar to Metatron.
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
-
1
-
In short Conspiracy = Rawr Rawr Capitalism Bad, see proof it's bad.
Be surprised how many conspiracy theories are built around this concept. The Money Changers, International Bankers, the Capitalist, the Jews, Wallstreet Fat Cats, the R family which I'd love to type but oddly triggers YT Bots... however, all are essentially the same conspiracy like nonsense that fuels collectivist movements. Wonder why the Penguin was made to look like he did with a big nose/rich guy suit? Why both Nazi and Socialist propaganda always portray the enemy in business suits and big noses? It's ironically all the same nonsense, and it's so ingrained into our pychy that it allows conspiracy theories like this to thrive.
You know pulling the strings, financing the wars, manipulating everything. xD
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Issue they ignore is oil/fuel shortage grounded (Coughs) Ported most of the Italian Navy, and much of the Kriegsmarine throughout most of the war. The Italian navy the most, as it was pretty much a none factor for much of the war. Italy cared more about how many ships they had vs whether they could operate them, when the war started, Italy's naval strength was paper, and paper alone. They had the ships, but they couldn't use them. Similar issue with the Soviet Army with Tanks/Planes, they had more tanks/planes than any other country, but not the pilots, crews or support structure needed to operate them, which is one of the main factors why the Soviet's Tank Arm and their Airforce were so worthless in Operation Barbarossa. ie Soviet Officials cared more about numbers on a spreadsheet and how big they could make them rather than whether they could logistically operate those forces to begin with.
By the time of Operation Barbarossa the Kriegsmarine were given lackluster support resource wise, and the surface fleet were almost entirely restricted on their operational use, and it only got worse as the war went on as well, with most of their surface ships spending more time in port than doing operations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Upper Echelon Gamers
1. Bethesda yet again Microsoft Favoritism. Remember those Timed DLC Exclusives for the XBox 360/PC and PS3 users had to wait almost forever to get content for Bethesda games? Rockstar did the same thing. It isn't a surprised Bethesda has also come out accusing Sony of being a "Bad Boy" when it comes to Crossplay. (Just like Rockstar who also has a Pander to Microsoft history). Very dishonest of Bethesda. Dare I say, money being passed under the door?
2. The timed Intervals as dishonest as it is, are also likely to limit user playing time. The game likely lacks content. If you let people play as long as they want a lot of users will run out of things to do, they don't want youtubers likely reporting oh how boring the game will get. So if they limit play time, BETA players will not have enough time to finish anything. Get some hype out there, sell sell sell, then release. Use Stress testing as a "Lie" to cover it up. It's a sign this game is going to have problems within it's first few months on the market when it opened up. But they want to create a hype train to sell as much as they can before it falls.
3. They're charging $59,95 for a mostly recycled game with no voice acting at least in a serious fashion. It's a balls cheap game compared to their last two games, and people are being convinced to spend up to almost $90's on special editions while being a "Gaming as a Service" model. Dare I say it, this is as scum bag of a move as what EA does, and I mean this literally, not metaphorically.
4. Perk Card system was likely originally meant to be like EA's Card system for their games... but ya SWBFII fallout likely changed their plan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'd hate to burst people's bubble, but this engagement should be technically practically impossible. The rear armor of a Tiger II is 80mm's sloped at the same degree as the frontal hull armor with all weak points like the exhaust having additional armor to well keep them from being weak points. It's effective armor protection from the rear roughly as effective as the frontal armor of a Tiger I in short. Technically penetrating the rear armor of the Tiger II with an American 37mm gun even with the best ammunition available to the crew, at point blank range is "IMPOSSIBLE."
The rear armor of a Tiger II or Tiger I isn't a weak spot, often stronger than the frontal armors of most other tanks. It's a myth, in which mostly comes from the fact German medium tanks like the Panzer IV, and Panther do have very weak rear armor. But for the Tiger II it was stronger than the frontal armor of most tanks, ie sloped, and 3 inches thick. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger II also didn't have exposed fuel tanks in the rear, in which many models of the Panther did, which would allow even weak anti tank weapons to cripple a Panther from a shot in the rear, heck even machines guns.
The only possible way this could have of happened would of been if the exhaust didn't have it's armored plating protecting the points in which it protrudes through the armor, or if the 37mm gun was fired downward from an elevated position against the engine deck being the engine deck on top of the tank was thinly armored. EITHER that, or it wasn't a Tiger II that the crew of the Greyhound actually knocked out. It's common for Americans to misidentify enemy vehicles. It's very plausible the Greyhound likely took out a Panther instead. which would still require 'balls' to attempt. Normandy is a good example of this. Allied troops reported hundreds of claims of Tiger Tanks being reported, and destroyed, but the total number of Tiger I and Tiger II tanks that fought in France in total were fewer than 90.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ulfric Stormcloak I think is a 'con.' If you remember how he killed the High King well, according to all the witness it wasn't exactly fair, nor did Ulfric allow it to be. Unlike all Duels you see in Skyrim in which are normally conducted fairly, Ulfric did not do this when he challenged King Torygg. When you have the option to take an axe provided by Jarl Balgruuf to Ulfric, ie Balgruuf decides to challenge Ulfric in the same fashion, well Ulfric refuses. Which in turn means Torygg was a more honorable man than Ulfric, he willingly accepted Ulfric's challenge, and paid for it with his life, as Ulfric, well cheated, and struck him down the moment he stood up and accepted the challenge, instead of taking the fight say outside into the courtyard he acted in a fashion that would completely catch Torygg off guard. All Ulfric cared about was that Torygg said 'yes.' With that he could use the challenge as propaganda for his own purposes. Another reason I hated this man, well during the peace talks in the game he instantly makes demands, despite that they're peace talks. He wants to use the talks to gain land, a dishonest move. Oh, lets not forget when I first visited him, he threatened to throw me in the dungeon, and his general was very hateful toward my character because she wasn't a nord. Sorry to say, I do not understand why anyone would side with this man. You run into plenty of NPCs which paint Skyrim's problems as Ulfrics fault. Including the enforcement of the Talos ban which the Empire didn't enforce in Skyrim until Ulfric and his cohorts started making a big fuss about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesmackenzie1536 To sum it up from that link. Women work force in Germany during the war years, and remember 1939 didn't see any real big change from 1938 and from prior pre-war years. This includes agriculture, industry, and commercial, and state positions.
Total
May 1939: 14,626,000
May 1940: 14,386,000
May 1941: 14,167,000
May 1942: 14,437,000
May 1943: 14,806,000
May 1944: 14,808,000
To sum that up. About a 5th of all women in Germany were in the labor force. Who knows how many more unofficially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've gotten to a point that I now consider Nationalism to be a variation of Socialism built off of old Utopian and Conservative Socialism which pre-dates Marxism. Reasoning why, is Nationalist care about the National Community, everything is fine as long as it's part about of the National Community. Land/Property must be owned by people within the National Community, and Nationalist are completely fine with Land Appropriation as long as it's for the sake of the National Community. Good example in the past few years is how Donald Trump threatened to Nationalize TikTok, with the promise of re-privatizing it instantly after into the hands of an American company. All that mattered to a "Nationalist" is that a company that was part of the "National Community" controlled TikTok. Reason why say Marxism is about all Land/Property must be Nationalized, or Socialized as Marxist assume that the Working Class do not own Property, or at least Property that is Productive, and to own said property would Forfeit you being a "Worker." So all Property must be Socialized. This actually makes that Mine Kampfy chair quote of Hitler make total sense "Marxism is anti-property, true socialism is not." I think Hitler was referring to Pre-Marxist Socialist, and seeing how Nationalist behavior towards property rights, ie it's conditional, as long as you're not hurting the National Community, Nationalist can sound very socialist went they want to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheSuperappelflap Issue is prior to the Revolution the Russian Empire was already privatizing farms into the hands of small families. Not Serfdoms. Though Serfdoms still existed, it was being done to lessen the threat of rebellion and increase Russia's grain production. If this continued it would of been far better off for rural farmers in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. But then the Great War came along.
Not surprisingly after the Revolution the farmers continued working the lands they owned or rented treated as their own. Lenin tried to recollectivize agricultural which failed horrifying with famine. So Lenin resorted to what the Tsar did, with his New Economic Policy he REPRIVATIZED farms, giving the land back to individual families. Of course Lenin did not dare call it Privatization. 🙄
Stalin came around and reversed Lenin's New Economic Policy, and well the results were horrible.
So no, it wasn't good for poor farmers. They were among the biggest resistance to the Revolution. Because the Bolsheviks aim to take their land, take their tools, take the cows, take their pigs. Etc. You literally couldn't own too many cows or you'd be punished. They destroyed Russia's agricultural capabilities. Watch TIKhistory's video, it's mind blowing the amount of falsehoods Commiboos believe in.
1
-
@madarssvikis7483 Well the issue with the USSR was it's lack of ability to trade. Ruble wasn't exactly considered reliable as a currency outside the USSR as the USSR operated outside the World Market, ie it was a closed economy so no one outside the USSR knew how much a Ruble was worth, though I'd argue those inside the USSR's government likely didn't either because without a market it's hard to tell what anything is worth.
So the USSR had to trade for goods from abroad by other means, means that could be valued outside the USSR. Gold, Silver and Platinum being good examples, either that or other things, weapons, tanks, planes, grain, or general commodities. It's how Pepsi ended up with Submarines which is always a funny but kind of sad story when the State has to pay for Soda pop by issuing payment with Submarines. Heck it wasn't just submarines but other ships as well, Pepsi technically had it's own small naval fleet by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
1
-
1
-
WWII one is quite annoying. USA in particular was fighting a two front war, well technically a three front war.... well technically a four front war.... well technically a five front war... sorry I'm just remember all the regions/fronts that US Army, Navy and Army Airforce were directly involved in since 1942-45, being the USSR didn't get involved in the war in a big way until 1941 the USA was less than a full year behind the USSR in entering WWII. USA in particular, we were literally fighting all across the world from Alaska to the Pacific, South Pacific to mainland Asia, North Africa, Italy, Western Europe. To say the USA jumped into the war at the last minute so it could wave the Stars and Stripes is insulting. I would never say as an American that the Russians didn't play a big part in WWII, it would be stupid of anyone who would dare to say so. Anyone that says the USA didn't play a big part in the war is an IDIOT, and there is no argument that can say they're not if they think that is the case.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Class of 03, I came out of highschool a Fascist, a proper one, one of my best friends ironically was a Marxist, we influenced each other's views quite heavily. If it wasn't for our arguments/debates I'd likely never came out as a Fascist.
I knew what Italian Fascism was, and knew Nazism had little if anything really to do with it. I disliked the idea of any version of Socialism which divided people based on some social construct like social classes, ethnic groups, religion. etc I was also against the idea of democracy, I think the last two American elections shows exactly why I'm not exactly pro democratic.
So... Fascism was just about the only Socialist Option that worked for me. It's ideal of using Nationalism to Unite people under a Socialist system was to me just about the only way it could work at all. I'm dumbstruck that people think Fascism is a form of Capitalism. Fascist never at any time in their history considered themselves Capitalist.
I've since stepped away from such Collectivist "Idealism." You get older you wise up, and I came to realize just about the only way for people to truly be free is allowing people the freedom to be an individual, outside of the collective group, outside of the system. Such freedom would be impossible, no matter how idealistic you are, in any form of collectivist society, including Fascism.
What I find the most comical, Fascist always claimed they were somewhere between Capitalism and Communism. Communist definition of Socialism = "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved." Being Fascist considered themselves between Capitalism and Communism, wouldn't that mean by the Communist/Marxist definition of the post Leninist period, that Fascism is Socialism?
Though I would say today I'm more of a Libertarian. I went from a Fascist to a Civic Nationalist, and eventually became a Libertarian. Talk about a dramatic shift in opinion since 2003.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlietheron8947 TIK doesn't misinterpret Socialism. Socialist Misinterpret socialism.
You forget, that Socialism in the 19th Century was not a unified ideology, nor did socialist themselves really come to a conclusion on what Socialism actually was. It's why you have so many contradicting sometimes even hostile movements all calling themselves Socialist. This was even before the National Socialist ever exist.
TIK's interpretation of what Socialism is comes primarily from Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism,. which are STATE CENTRIC Socialist movements. Which if that is what Socialism is, then Fascism and Nazism fall perfectly inside that kind of Socialism.
Even today Socialists as a group have not come to a conclusion on what Socialism even is. I run into so many self proclaimed socialist who have contradictory ideas on what Socialism is. Some of which actually support TIK's idea of what Socialism is, just they deny his evidence, I've seen the arguments. I mean you even just tried to do the same thing "Dismiss the Nazis they can not be trusted!" Even though TIK has presented so much evidence of Nazi Socialism that it's kind of a joke to say the Nazis lied about being Socialist. Heck in some of his later videos it's seemingly more likely that Nazis lied to big business, not the workers. Shock
Even the Finnish Bolshevik which TIK has posted a few times and himself made a video response to a few of TIK's videos idea of Socialism, is very similar if not identical to TIK's. Just he dismisses TIK's findings.
UshankaShow a former Soviet Citizen now a Libertarian Socialist uses the EXACT definition of Socialism that TIK uses, and is openly against that kind of Socialism, wanting a more libertarian society with a capitalist economy but just with social welfare.
Then you have Animarchy another Youtube channel run by a Socialist who literally spits in the face of all State centric Socialism and considers them not real Socialist. Which I'm using him as an example for that whole contradiction thing, and literally thinks Anarchy is some how Socialism... Showing 3 different Socialist channels all which are different kinds of socialist and are openly critical toward the other.
1
-
@charlietheron8947 TIK literally quotes one of TheFinnishbolahivik comments on his videos with the screenshot to prove it, and he straight up said Socialism is State ownership. Ushanskashow who was a former communist not by choice but... also said Socialism is State Ownership. In fact he says it a lot. Ushankashow despite growing up in the Soviet Union was banned from the Communist Reddit group because he would answer questions about the USSR that well the moderators of that group didn't like.
Reason why is Fundamentally all Common/Social/Group control is State Control. It's quite dishonest of any Socialist to say otherwise. Society is too complex for there not to be some form of centralized authority. Unless you want to de-evolve society itself to a far more primitive state which will lead to the deaths of billions. When you advocate for Social Control, that Centralized Authority will be the primary body that dictates over it no matter what.
I mean, how does the Group take control of the means of Production? It would require some form of authority, and then enforcement, it would require a State. Enforcement would be needed as well as you will have to police to people to prevent capital gains, which is why groups like the Soviets dictated how many cows you could have, too many cows would equal you're too wealthy and a hoarder, or capitalist pig... Socialism in practice requires a State and is State Socialism. Ideologically it may not, but ideologically vs practicality are two different things. Ideologically every Christian must be pure, but in practice all Christians are sinners. I mean why do you think every large socialist regime goes through massive teething issues, sometimes mass murder and starvation, or total economic collapse? Because the Ideology doesn't blend well with Practical reality. So must adapt/change itself to work. So in Practice, no Socialist State will be the Ideal Socialist State it means Ideologically Socialism WILL NEVER BE what Socialist want it to be. So when you see something you don't like it's not real socialism. But in reality it IS SOCIALISM. Because Socialism in Practice vs Socialism in Faith are two different things.
In reply to your bullets.
1. So the Soviet Union were not Socialist for murdering/arresting countless people? Removing entire groups of people from society? Mass forced migration, mass arrest, mass killings, forced starvation. Ethnic cleansings on a scale that would make the National Socialist blush. I mean you do know the largest ethnic cleansing in European history happened under Stalin's watch right? Estimated between 10-20 million people were uprooted from their homes by the glorious soviet union. Large numbers of which were forced to migrate to Labor Colonies in the Middle South and Far Eastern provinces of the USSR so they were out of the way of the "Heart Land" so the Glorious soviet people could have their Worker's paradise with some homogeny ethnically/religiously to boot. PS, this started with Lenin, just Stalin was the biggest implementer of it, and it didn't end after Stalin's death either.
2. Actually Hitler did, TIK provided proof of the Nazis Collective Farm Program, and the Nationalization and Socialization of Business and for everything not directly controlled by the state was forced to follow the will of the state, as Hitler called it Synchronization ie putting in line. I mean some of this stuff is basic shit... yet socialist are blind to it. I used to be a Fascist because I KNEW Fascism was a form of socialism, not because it was in opposition to socialism... and that was back in 2001. Since I've abandoned nationalism and socialism neither are appealing to me anymore. I would highly suggest looking up National Syndicalism, or Fascist Syndicalism, Fascist Corporatism, or just Corporatism in general. So you understand why when Fascist talk about Corporations they're not talking about Private Ownership.
I mean the fact you people don't understand Corporations, and why it's called "Going Public" when a company Corporatizes is beyond belief, and actually blame it on Capitalism which is more comical. You explain Corporations with terms like Crony Capitalism ie a State under the control of Corporations/big business, when actually Corporations require the cooperation of the State to even exist to begin with and that is BY LAW they can not form without the blessing of the State. It isn't the Corporations that Control the State, it's the Corporations controlling entire sectors of the economy on behalf of the State, and the state can prosper off it. It's easier to regulate/tax large corporations than smaller private business. About private ownership, Corporations are also collectively owned by millions of people, so I guess by Collectivist Dogma all Corporations are Socialist entities. In fact I think one form of Common Control called Equity falls in that category.
1
-
@charlietheron8947 sighs Corporatism: "Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American legal and pop cultural parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. However, the Cambridge dictionary says that a corporate state is a country in which a large part of the economy is controlled by the government.
Corporatism developed during the 1850s in response to the rise of classical liberalism and Marxism, as it advocated cooperation between the classes instead of class conflict. Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism, and Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy advocated the collective management of the economy by state officials by integrating large interest groups under the state; however, the more democratic neo-corporatism often embraced Tripartism."
Honestly like how Wikipedia removed the Syndicalist section of their article on Corporatism, yet forgot to remove it from it's related ideologies list. Corporatism branched off Syndicalism... but they sadly since removed that bit. I guess more people are catching onto it so they decided to scrub that association.
Also wasn't privatization. As he actually says in this video, you people claim you can not take the Nazis at their word when they say they're Socialist yet you openly say it's okay to take them at their word when they use the word Privatization.
Similar to when the Nazis dismantled the Weimar Republic, they didn't dismantle the State, they put it under new management. Privatization was a term used, but it was actually a reorganization, and Nationalization, but under a NEW NATION. When the Nazis took power in 1933 they didn't control everything, even after Hitler was given absolute power, they chose to in turn weed out all elements of the old government by literally dismantling it. This Privatization everyone screams about was literally the Nazis taking organizations, and putting them in the direct control of the Nazi Party. As Richard Evans quotes they were sold or handed over to organizations within the party itself. TIK Literally list a large percent of those organizations.
They didn't shut down unions, they nationalized them directly into the party. They didn't shut down welfare or charity, they nationalized them directly into the party. List really goes on and on, and he list a large chunk of it.
The Nazis use of Privatization wasn't Privatization. Being the Nazis were the new State, it was really Nationalization. As TIK described so well "It was a slight of hand." It's ironically why Nationalization and Synchronization are the proper terms to use to describe their "Privatization."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlietheron8947 That is a catch though. Corporations couldn't refuse to cooperate. The Nazis abolished private property rights in 1933. Meaning the State had all the legal means it needed to nationalize any business it wished which did not cooperate with the wishes of the central state, and it did when it wanted to. There is no better example of this when Hugo Junkers refused to hand over all of his patented aircraft designs to the newly established Nazi Regime. If it is like you said, he could of just "NOT" cooperated... issue is he didn't cooperate and the government took his business from him and handed it over to a party loyalist.
Even I.G. Farben being another good example, they supported many political parties leading up to the 1933 election, including being the largest contributor to the Nazi Party. But this was entirely tactical, a common practice many companies still do today, which they will often donate to opposing political movements hoping regardless which wins, they will have enough favor to have some sway over them. Despite I.G. Farben being a POST child of anti Nazi Socialist and their evil corporate greed, they often ignore the fact that the company was forced to let go of a large percent of it's board members because they were Jewish. Even though the Nazis promised when getting their support that they wouldn't well purge the company... so ya they lied to I.G. Farben. I mean if I.G. Farben had successfully BOUGHT the NS Party, you'd think... that it's leadership wouldn't of been purged by that said same party which they supposedly had bought with evil capitalist money.
Issue is, people don't realize that Fascist Corporatism is a TOP DOWN system, the STATE has absolute authority. So NO Corporations don't own/buy out the state and NO, they couldn't just refuse the cooperate.... in a Fascist Corporatist system. Even in Italy this was the case, it was a heavy top down state run system.
1
-
@charlietheron8947 I like how you bring up points that TIK has absolutely crushed into fine powder in later videos.
I'd highly suggest watching TIK's videos, as every point you made are addressed and crushed multiple times throughout them.
HItler's Socialism Counting the Denialist Arguments (Every point you made is in this actually)
Hitler was a Communist in 1919 (you he got rid of the socialist is laughably destroyed in this one as well, as he said, there are a million counter arguments to it)
The Revolution guaranteed inflation - BankWars: Weimar Hyperinflation Episode 2 (same story, seems socialist don't even know what factions in Germany were even socialist to call socialist or willingly lie about it)
1. "btw all socialist elements of the nazi party where purged during the night of long knives" TIK successfully destroys this argument in half a dozen videos so fine that it might as well be baby powder. Most recently the "Hitler was a Communist in 1919" video. But he does so also in the Weirmar Inflation Part 2 video, and "Hitler's Socialism Countering the Denialist Arguments." It's an anti Nazi's were a Socialist lie that has perpetuated for 3/4ths of a century. It was LITERALLY MADE UP! The fact people still believe it is irritating.
I never believed it as Rohm in particular was killed for a lot of reasons, including pleasing the German Army. They literally wanted the SA removed, and it's how Hitler gained their support. They were afraid the Nazis were use the SA to replace the army because in 1933 there were MORE members of the SA than there were Active members of the German Army and the SA was militarized. He wasn't killed because he was a Socialist, he was killed because doing so would ensure that LAST resistance in Germany, the German Army would swear loyalty to him if he does, it was entirely a strategic political move.
2. I can call him a Socialist because apparently, you don't know shit about the German economy in the 1930s, even before the war even started. Corporations are not Capitalism, and I don't care what some Socialist say. Corporations are owned by a multitude of people, which places them in collectivized category vs privatized category. They're publicly traded companies they're outside the realm of the private sector. There is a reason the phrase "Going Public" exist. Either they're Privately owned Companies or they're not, and in the case of Corporations, no they're not privately owned companies. Also you contradict yourself in this regard. If the State is telling Business what to do, then the Business are not able to seek profits at their own free will, which means there is no actual free market, without that free market you do not have the economic liberalism required for Capitalism to function. So even if Corporations are an example of Capitalism, it's still not capitalism. Doesn't matter if they make profits or not at this point, as they only make as much as allowed, or 'gifted' to them by the state as the state controls all the natural resources that the business need to operate, and yes, the Nazis controlled the flow of Iron, Coal, and all other resources, all business were literally reliant on the Nazi Party, and had no choice but to do what the Party said.
Best part, which I just remembered. Some Socialist seem to understand that Corporations are not Capitalist and flounder trying to describe the differences of Capitalist and non Capitalist Corporations because Capitalist ones don't actually exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLocalLt You couldn't be more wrong in TIK's opinion on political spectrums. As he said. Socialism is either on the Far Right of the Political Spectrum or the Far Left, where ever Hitler goes, so does Socialism. He doesn't actually care if it's left wing or right wing in short. He just uses the terms because people conditioned to adhere to them.
You're also wrong on the concept of Left and Right wing Politics. Liberalism has always been about individual freedom from OTHERS. Which means all collectivist movements are by nature inherently anti liberal, and shouldn't be considered left wing. Which includes, Religion, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism and Nazism. Issue is many of these groups hijacked the Term Liberal for themselves. Liberalism is about the Individual Rights over the Greater Group. Whether it's Religious Freedom, Right to own land, property, business, freedom to believe what you want to belief, be who you want to be. All Collectivist movements are anti liberal, because you're almost always forced to adhere to the social collective. Anyone outside of it was removed.
If you do not believe me, ask what happens to someone in China who says something bad about the CCP? What happened to people who refused to hand over their property during the rule of the Soviet Union? There was no freedom of the individual, no real rights of any kind. They were not Liberal, not even in the slightest, even if they tried to pretend to be.
So if the Left are Collectivist, then they're not Liberal. So this means the Left must not be Liberal? Yet we know the right is often not Liberal either. So neither are Liberal?
I honestly don't like the idea of Left or Right wing as a concept to begin with, because obviously there is something terribly wrong with the current political charts.
Lastly, they didn't crush Trade Unions, they nationalized them. Issue is, the Soviet Union nationalized the trade unions under the state as well, heck it's in the name, USSR technically means a Union of Unions in it's simplist iteration. Issue was so was Fascism. Fascism literally means Trade Unionism, ie Power to the Trade Unions, all Trade Unions were Nationalized under the State.
Maybe you should watch his videos instead of condemning them without knowing where he stands exactly.
1
-
@TheLocalLt And if the Marxist took control they wouldn't of also made Totalitarian States? USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia. I think TIK including I see it as Two Competing Bakers, both Bakers, both baking bread, but both hostile because one likes cheese bread and the other wheat, thinking theirs is better, and also fighting over the same customers. Fascist, Nazism, and Marxism are inherently the same thing, when it comes to their core principles, and with only some ideological differences, but in practice, they become the same beast in the end.
As Fascist claim, they're not as extreme as Marxist, but are against Capitalism. The reason Fascist do this is because Fascist believe in Unifying people, not the Worker's Revolution. Using Nationalism to bring the Workers, and their Bosses together under the guidance of the State. It's still Socialism. They're competitors with Marxism, but also still enemies of Capitalism. Hence why I did the Baker Comparison. TIK literally referred to it has a Socialist Civil War that has been going on for decades.
I was a Fascist for over a decade for that very reason. I was pro Socialist, but disliked Social Divides caused by Classist Mentalities and beliefs. Sexist, Feminist, Marxist, Nazis, Religious Zealots. etc Fascism promised the social security of a Socialist system, but without Class division caused by Capitalist selfish interest. Using the Concept of the Good of the Nation above the individual, if say a dirty Capitalist put their interest above the people at it's heart Fascist would strike them down. Basically it was a system no where near as extreme as Marxism, and no where near as terrifying as Nazism. Ironically, out of the Totalitarian systems of the 20/30/40s Fascism was the best of the lot, yet ironically has all the negative stigma. Marxist have even successfully convinced people that Nazism was Fascism, in spite of the fact that Nazism literally goes against one of the fundamentals of Fascism which was using Nationalism to bring together all the social groups within society, because Nazis were Racist, this was an impossibility. If you look at all the Fascist regimes, including Austrian Fascist, they were not Racist, at least not in the way the Nazis were, their concept of Nationalism was different. For a Nazi the Nation was the Race. For a Fascist it's the Nationality, not Ethnicity. It's why Nazism would never work in the USA, yet Fascism could.
However I've since abandoned that way of thinking a long time ago. I'm more of a Constitutional Monarchist, with libertarian leanings when it comes to individual rights. Talk about a dramatic shift.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JingleJangleJam You're argument is bankrupt from the very beginning.
1. Marx's father wasn't a Rabbi, so I don't know where you picked that up. Heinrich Marx was a Christian Convert even before Marx was born. You're likely getting Marx's Father mixed up with his Grandfather.
2. The historians you try to present from Wikipedia have arguments that have long been refuted by the Jewish Defense League, and are in the same category as denialism. I mean Jesus one of them goes so far to be as stupid to say "All philosophers were antisemistic so it's okay for Marx to be to." Of course I paraphrased it, but that is one of the ones you posted. You act as though I've not seen these defensive arguments made before, and none of them work. They're straws hung onto by defenders of Marx.
3. Most REACTIONARY movements that Marxist classify as Reactionary were never Reactionary. By the definition of Reactionary, just about ALL movements can be called Reactionary, including Marxism. It's just a dumb way to convince fools that someone else's movement isn't the "REAL" Fake Religion we should follow. Good example. When the German Empire fell, it was the Social Democrats who took power in Germany. Because they were not "SOCIALIST" enough in the eyes of the Marxist the SPD split into three different groups. The Majority Socialist who were running the government Independent Socialist, and the Communist. Both the Independent Socialist and Communist tried to violently overthrow the new government in Berlin, and failed, the Communist got utterly destroyed because the Independent Socialist after their armed rebellion negotiated a way out, while the Communist hung until their gates were stormed figuratively speaking. I mean that's pretty Reactionary? When someone tries to start a Revolution against an already existing Revolutionary Government.
To state how bankrupt some historians are, they will call the Social Democrats sometimes the REACTIONRY side in spite of them already being the ones in Power, and defending themselves against the rest. Just because they failed to defeat the SPD, just because the Army sided with the new SPD Government and not the Reactionaries, doesn't make the SPD Social Democrats the REACTIONARY. Same argument with the Freikorp in Bavaria. The People's State of Bavaria collapsed and was replaced by a more radical group who renamed it the Bavarian Soviet Republic. Issue is both of these Republics were formed in reaction to the founding of the Weimar government run by the Social Democrats. Meaning the Communist yet again were the reactionary element. Meaning the Freikorp was serving a less extreme Revolutionary Government which was defending itself from groups that rose up in reaction to it's foundation.
If you go far enough back, Marxism was always Reactionary from it's foundation. It rose in opposition to the rise of Liberalism, and Individualist thought which dominated the Democratic movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. There is a reason Marx tries to dismiss these movements as Bourgeoisie Democracy. To denounce them, even though they're much older than Marxism. He even uses a lot of the same arguments that Giovanni Gentile would use.
1
-
1
-
Honestly I think the criticism is overblown. I mean when Resident Evil 4 remake came out, the very first 'adult' mods to hit the game were actually of Leon and Luis, being in their birthday suits. Issue is, these critics only focus on female characters, because well they're sexist. They don't want to admit it, but they are. Women must fit their "NEW" Beauty standard, and men are the devil.
Honesty why I like Final Fantasy 14 so much, everyone is sexualized, regardless. Male characters can literally run around in speedos. Accusing the devs of being sexist for allowing female characters to run around in a swim suit is hypocritical because male characters can do the same. In fact every time I log in there is this one guy using the largest race in the game, wearing a moogle mask, and a white speedo vanillia skin tone and moogle slippers. Basically matches his skintone with the moogle outfit pieces. Basically he is KING MOOGGLE. lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AtomixKingg BS. It came out in the Fall of 2021. The whole lockdown nonsense of 2020 was a thing of the past by then, unless you lived in a backwards Totalitarian country like China. Heck outside of Medical facilities, even wearing mask wasn't required throughout most of 2021.
Also Rotten Tomatoes is a terrible place to go. It's review system works like "Steam" which you don't give it a rating as an individual, only a thumbs up or thumbs down, regardless whether that thumbs up was decisive or a hard decision to make. So like Steam Reviews, Rotten Tomato's review system heavily inflates or deflates films standing. I used IMDb films as it actually requires you to score the film even if you're an audience voter. So you can more accurately tell if someone barely liked it, barely hated it, absolutely loved it, or despised it giving people an option of giving a film a 1 through 10 stars. Which means when you see something like 70% you know it's a far more accurate estimate of people's opinion of that film.
As a result Encanto barely got a better score than the live action Aladdin film. You can tell by looking at the graph why, as most people gave it an average score, nearly 60,000 of them. IMDb's dedicated reviewers on average gave it a 6.6. Which would still count as a thumbs up on Rotten Tomato because it's still not terrible, but barely passed. So you can see how Rotten Tomato's system would inflates figures, as that still qualifies as a thumbs up.
That being said. I'm not saying Encanto is bad. But it seems people have an average opinion of it. Not terrible, not stellar, but average.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obviously, they didn't paint the allies as white knights, and the Nazis as evil clowns. DEMONETIZED!!! .............. Despite the videos about the Concentration Camps, Targeting of Civilians by the Luftwaffe, and mass killings by the SS and SD. This is why you don't hear about how Allied soldiers killed POWs large numbers, and American Fighter Pilots strafed farmers and kids on Bicycles for the fun of it. Trust me, this will likely be seen in some of the future videos. Some of the stuff that happened in France 1944 by the Allies forces isn't exactly heroic. Let alone the last year of the air war over Germany when Fighter Pilots had orders to strafe anything that moved, because who knows a wagon with hay can have hidden munitions. I do remember guncamp footage from one P47 Missions, they shot up a lot of places, and one barn did explode, meaning they did find a ammunition stockpile that was hidden, but sadly a vast majority of things they shot at were civilians. Sadly much of that footage has been censored off youtube as well over the years. Some of the more tame footage still remains though.
PS don't get me wrong. The Germans committed plenty of crimes as well. Definitely in France in 1944, within weeks for example of the Allied invasion the 12th SS executed a number of British POWs. But issue being British Commandos, Paratroopers and US Airborne killed more than their fair share as well. As well as I read that about half of Germans captured on the Beaches mysteriously didn't find their way to collection points. Also accounts how US Army G.I.s had protect POWs from US Airborne who were out for revenge, because so many US Airborne died in Normandy, there was a lot of rage, and in the eyes of US Airborne who did have orders not to take POWs the kind of got used to it by the later periods of the Normandy Invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I often describe modern day China as Nazi Germany. But only because I know why it deserves to be compared. I don't say that as a tool of Demonetization, but because they do have a lot of comparison.
1. It has is a One Party Totalitarian State.
2. Private Enterprise is Acceptable but only if the "State" as Access and all major business/corporations are owned by Party members. (Just like the Nazi's Privatization Policy, in which all business was centralized into Party Control even if left in the hands of their owners they had to have representatives of the Party as employees if and or the owners themselves had to Join the Party. Which despite calling Private isn't actually Private as the State still controls it. Which is one reason people think the Nazis were not Socialist even though they Centralized control of the economy into the hands of the Party, which was the State.) Even foreign business that want to do business in China have to make Partnerships with a Chinese Company to be allowed, and it's all because the CCP wants Control and Access.
3. Fake Economic Growth. This was a serious problem in Nazi Germany and literally made the nation go bankrupt by the end of the 30s. A number of economist cite it as one of the primary contributors to the Start of WWII. But most people looking in from the Outside thought Germany was doing economically well because that is what the Party wanted Foreigners to think. So for the greater part of a Century we were often told of the Nazi's Economic Miracle, which never existed. A lot of economist have been saying the same thing about China. Like Nazi Germany, North Korea and the USSR China creates a false picture of a China that is considerably better off than it actually is.
4. Some elements within the CCP have been pushing for Women 'not' to marry foreigners, going so far to create a number of propaganda campaigns centered around it.
5. China's sense of Nationalism is literally through the Roof.
6. The CCP demand that all Territory that was once part of the Chinese Empire literally at any time in it's history, rightfully belongs to China. Which even back in the 40 & 50s saw China invade a lot of neighbors that it had no business ever being forced into being part of China. Not all of China you see today was "Chinese."
7. The CCP has been for the greater part of a Century slowly Cleansing Ethnicity, and Culture that do not fit the CCP's idea of what should be "China" into extinction. Whether it be religious, cultural or even linguistics. Some cultures are down to a few hundred, to a few thousand native speakers left world wide.
8. Ties into 4 and 5, but the CCP have pushed this anti foreigner narrative for a long time. Ironically it's similar to the Japanese in the late 1930s in which they treated to create as "Us vs Them" mentality between Japanese and people who were not Japanese. An, Ethnic Nationalism. Hmm, The Nazis were Ethnic Nationalist weren't they? This is why the CCP have been going after Chinese Muslims and Christians in the last decade as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+White343 "... and you're telling me...." Definition of a Failed Argument when you start your comment with a phrase that "Implies" I said something that i never said. Oh I really hope your composition professor backhanded you while in class. But i guess I can make this more colorful.
"Harassing and Oppressing Foreign Minorities (Roma, Jews, etc.) and Intellectuals (Free thinking and well educated people)." Counts on the minorities both regimes targeting different groups. It's no Secret that Stalin as well treated minorities quite badly. His treatment of the Cossack, Tatars, and none White Orthodox Christians was pretty bad. He forcefully migrated most east of the Euro Mountains, if not had them murdered and put into labor camps. On top of that, didn't the USA do the same? With specific Laws literally in place limiting freedoms, and rights to millions of minorities who were not White Christians? She didn't have to be a Communist or Socialist Regime to do so. Marriage and property Laws in states like Alabama and Missouri comes in mind, ironically being in place decades before the Nazis instituted similar Marriage Laws.
"Censorship against Free Media." Neither the USSR or the German Reich was Media Free, so how can one Censor Free Media if it didn't even exist? Prior to the National Socialist taking control of Germany sure, there was free Media but that completely disappeared shortly after. USSR it didn't really exist prior to the Soviet Regime coming to power. That being said Censorship of the Media is something that exist even in the USA. Through Finance, Advertising, and Special Interest ownership of Media Companies. If you've been on youtube over the past Decade You'd see it quite loudly how Media on just Youtube Alone is Censored. Videos get Demonetized, Adverts are Pulled, Videos marked as Offensive no longer show up on recommendation list, and what is censored can often derive from a single word or sentence in said video. Ironically and not surprisingly it's the same form of Censorship that existed in the 1930s/40s when Charles Lindbergh gave his speech to the America First Movement, when he stated and I paraphrase, "news papers that carry anti war articles began to lose advertisement."
"Making Concentration Camps for a Specific Minority (Roma, Jews, etc)." I doubt there is a major power on "Earth" that hasn't made concentration camps. Be it some worse than others. I can think of the USA in particular had Interment Camps most known the Japanese, but lesser known we also threw German nationals into prisons in a smaller scale, and the Filipino Insurrection's Concentration Camps, and at a larger scale Indian Reservations which were basically Interment Camps without Fences but they were guarded by the US Army and forbidden to leave said territories. That being said in both world wars interment camps and concentration camps were a very popular thing. Even the film 7 Years in Tibet the entire story revolves around a German National captured by the British (ie a Civilian) who was thrown into an Internment Camp. The camps in France the Germans used were already built by the French to house political prisoners before the war even started.
"Seizing private companies for Government use." Ironically this primarily happened in the USSR, not Nazi Germany, well unless you're talking about occupied territories. If you were a German Citizen odds are you wouldn't of had your business stolen, property ceased, money taken. Unless you're taking about the later years of WWII but desperation during war time calls often for drastic measures. But you can do a simple google search and you can find plenty of examples of this happening in the USA, a free capitalist society. US Government just has to do a stroke of the pen and it can still forcefully take land if it's considered necessary for national security, and it has in the past.
"Never exists in both of these factions." There he goes again putting words into someone's mouth actually thinking he has an argument. It's adorable.
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
-
@tutiadhd Skyrim is heavily over rated. Out of the 4 Bethesda games I own I find it the hardest to enjoy playing anymore, I even find Oblivion more enjoyable. Though I blame games like Kenshi, Project Zomboid, Ark Survival Evolved, Mount & Blade Warband/Bannerlord, and Genshin Impact for making me realize how proper open world game should be.
Me and Skyrim have a checkered past lets just be blunt.
1. I hated all the DLC. Most of it felt shoe horned into the game, often with little regard for existing content in the game.
2. The general plot/story of the game was kind of bad. Mostly what I call Dragonborn Nonsense. The Civil War was far more compelling and it was not even half finished and then never finished, imagine a Civil War DLC and how it would of made the game better but nope, vampire and more dragons... dragons... dragons... and dragons. Sorry I'm just so pissed at how bad the DLC was for Skyrim. I actually have to mod some of it out of the game as I just don't care for any of it, Hearthfire was okay.. but even it was implemented in a lazy way. Bethesda didn't learn it's lesson with Fallout 4 either but.. that's a different story.
3. Don't get me started with weapons, clothing, and character designs, people think Fallout 4 was bad with it's pip guns and assault rifle/Lewis/Maxim gun?? thing?. Just about the only visually thing I liked about the game was the architecture and environment. Boat Paddle Swords is a fun Skyrim meme for a reason. Everyone looked like they were wearing rags for clothing, and my god the character designs, hair, everyone was filthy hair looked like plastic..
4. Oh and the WORST aspect about Skyrim, the gameplay. I mean Oblivion and Fallout 3 were more fun personally. At least their gameplay was bad in a quirky funny way at times. I guess dragons would of been fun to fight if they didn't make them such a chore, kind of like how they ruined power armor in Fallout 4 actually, introduced it way too early in the game. Dragon fights should of been like epic bosses, but they were often less of a threat than a bear. I honestly didn't feel excited when fighting anything in Skyrim in all respects I often felt just very disconnected. No drama, no emotions, no excitement, I felt like a robot playing it. Mean while on ARK I spent months prepping for the end game boss battle, and I was so tense, so scared it literally blew my mind.
Sorry but, in my humble opinion. Skyrim is GROSSLY overrated as a game. One of those Hype Train games that were popular and people had blown it well out of proportion for how good it actually was. So much so that what 10+ years later people are making videos about "Bethesda's Accidental Masterpiece?" Because they're still blinded by the Nostalgia goggles, being most Bethesda games are generally lack luster affairs but some how Skyrim wasn't, but they don't realize Skyrim really was.... because they still remember it as the greatest game ever even fi it wasn't.
Sorry but Kenshi a game developed by 1 person is a better game than Skyrim.
So yes... Genshin Impact is far better game than Skyrim. There is hardly anything about the game save for the Gacha mechanics which I find bad. If anything the thing I hate about the game the most is the darn thing is getting too many updates too much content took quickly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What bugs me is that they fail to realize that Putin supports a regime, and ideology that is a sibling to National Socialisms. Hitler was so obsessed with hiding his Communist past that he spent a large chunk of his first book discussing the differences between Nazism and Marxism. It's found since the 1990s that he did this on purpose to hide the fact he was once a Communist himself. Officially we know that he was in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, and the People's State of Bavaria, as an elected representative of his Battalion, and his unit heavily leaned socialist, so they wouldn't of elected him unless he had socialist views and represented the views of those in the battalion. Being he spent much of his young adult life in Vienna as well a city that major socialist would visit like a pilgrimage it's very possible he was a Communist throughout most of his young adult life right up until late 1919 when he joined the German Worker's Party and came exposed to the radical racist pro Nationalist Socialist of the DAP, yes Hitler didn't create the views of what will become the Nazi Party, he was indoctrinated into it.
Much of Hitler's antisemitic views were also shared among a lot of communist movements, primarily because of the J*'s association in a lot of people's minds with the Money Changers or Capitalist. It's actually why Hitler is obsessed with the J**s as similar to Marx, he blames them for Capitalism, but unlike Marx Hitler didn't think J**s could change their money changer ways and adopt a new faith (Socialism) because Hitler was a pure blood racist who believed human action was defined by well your blood so you couldn't change. This is why he was so much more hostile toward J**s than most communist yet held most of the same anti J* beliefs. Communist believed J**s could change, Nazi do not, which is a core difference between the antisemitism that exist between both. But both Hitler and Marx blamed J**s for Capitlaism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tobydion3009 And would this be any different if it was Capitalism, or Socialism? Socialist States are often some of the most oppressive states. While when the USA was almost pure Capitalist back in the 19th Century and early 20th they didn't need police. Big Business had private security, and paramilitary under their payroll legally at that. CIA, FBI, and other organizations like that did not exist, and it was all private organizations that did this, and even the USA government would hire them. Pinkertons being the most famous one of these groups. History is perhaps my favorite subject, and I've not seen a Socialist regime that hasn't become some form of Plutocracy or Autocracy, which rule by oppression, and horde wealth no differently than what you see going on today, or before them. Power corrupts absolutely, no ideological system is immune to it. All that matters is personal liberties, and legal protection, it at least gives people at the bottom some chance, strip that way and they will stand zero chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
11:00 But that is what Socialism ends up always being. A con. The entire movement is a scam, which I believe even it's leaders refuse to accept. But once they come into power, well power corrupts absolutely. When you have a system in which the Central State has as much power as Socialist regimes provide, it's impossible not to see the level of corrupt bureaucracy that Socialism always seems to bring.
Bakunin referred to Marx's program as a "Cult of the State." His perception of Marxist Socialism was that it would lead to a movement that was a State Cult. Mises referred to the German Communist as only wanting to replace the Monarchy with themselves, ie the Leaders becoming the new aristocracy. It's why many have advocated that despite the term Totalitarian didn't exist in the time of Marx, that his ideas are the foundation to Totalitarianism. History has been so blatantly clear on this. Whether you're speaking of the Revolutionary Syndicalist who were the founders of Fascism in Italy, to Lenin's Bolsheviks, Maoist China, or the now Monarchy of North Korea. These regimes became absolute monsters and often spat on everything their original founders intended, or believed. As Socialism in theory is NEVER Socialism in practice. People need to stop looking at the theories and focus on it's implementation, as Socialism in Practice is how people should view Socialism, not the dream of Socialism in Theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be honest, antisemitism is one of the cores of the Left as well. Though they're mostly oblivious to it, so it's most often like a mundane tumor.
Good examples.
Money Changer
Self Seeker
International Bankers
Capitalist
Have all been used as code words/phrases to mean the Jews. Even Karl Marx made it a point that he viewed the Jews to be the creators/founders of the Capitalist way of life. That anyone who is practicing Capitalism are by extension practicing what he proceeded to be the Jewish Faith, of "Money." We know this from personal letters Marx wrote, Das Kapital and his book On the Jewish Question. it's repeated so often that it's unavoidable. Though it's a religious antisemitism, more so than like 'racial' antisemitism. He even stated in On the Jewish Question that the "... Social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of Society from Judaism." Basically he was advocating Jews to abandon what he perceived as their faith in money and if they did so society wouldn't have to worry about them anymore.
Issue is this is still a thing now. Many Jews have been bullied in American colleges by extreme left wing activist because they still view the Jews as the Money Changers and with the increasing relationship of the left with Racial Politics it has become more like Right Wing Antisemitism than the more historical left wing antisemitism.
In fact one history Tuber in general TIKhistory made the observation that Das Kapital, ie The Capital, if you replace Capital with Jew, sounds pretty damning. Being that is how antisemties refer to the Jews, as "The Jews" rather than registering them as actual people. The fact Marx basically titled the book so similar means he had a similar attitude in how he viewed the Capitalist, and being many of his past writing prior to Das Kapital he made it quite clear that he blamed the Jews for Capitalism. It's very easy to consider the book antisemitic at it's core.
Easiest way to explain this is. Look at every single stereotype you know of when you think of a Capitalist. Now compare those stereotypes with stereotypes of the Jews. They're nearly identical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marxism and Fascism are close Cousins. Never let Socialist convince you otherwise. Nazism was also influenced by Marxism, but evolved along side Marxism in opposition with it within Germany none Marxist Socialist circles, ie National Socialist from the 19th century ie proto Nazis. Nazis are basically Racial Marxist, and rejected everything in Marxism that revolves around the Class Theory of History, while replacing it with their own ideas on creating a Racial State instead of a Worker's State.
Fascist on the other hand directly split off of Marxism, after realizing how strong Nationalism is vs the Worker's Revolution. Fascist eventually dropped Marxist Classism and adopted Nationalism, using Nationalism to bring everyone in Society together as one Body Politic, or Corpse, Corporate State. Everything inside the State and nothing outside the State as Giovanni Gentile would say.
There are reasons the USSR was so "Fascist" like, because Fascism was originally a Marxist movement. They have similar ideas on Economics and the organization of the economy into larger entities, with a strong centralized State at the heart. Fascist are just more honest about being Totalitarian, and embrace the idea of the Totality of the State. Meanwhile Marxist advocate State control of everything promising their movement is Anti-State, and that State Control of Everything is just a stepping stone to a Stateless Society. So advocate Totalitarnism while pretending it's Anarchy.
1
-
@irresistablejewel You literally do not know jack then.
Fascism isn't a right wing ideology never has been. That is Leftist propaganda, it's also right wing propaganda when people claim it's far left. Fascism is a 3rd Positionist movement which rejects both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. If you've EVER read Fascist Literature you would know that. It's a position they still hold to this day. Fascist generally also consider themselves Socialist a position they still hold today, and it isn't because they "TRYING TO TRICK THE WORKERS" shock/horror... yes (Shock/Horror) I style that bit from Marx. Because he mocked one of his critics that way.
For example. The Italian Fascist viewed the old Nationalist State as a Liberal State, because it was a Capitalist State. The Fascist State was a People's State. This coming from Giovanni Gentile the "Marx" of Italian Fascism, who rejected the Right Wing Nationalist/Capitalist State that came before them. Also Capitalism REQUIRES Liberalism to exist, you can not have Capitalisms without having a Liberal society with Liberal Laws that allow Capitalism to exist. So ironically all Socialist are Opposed to Liberalism whether they realize it or not. So when Fascist and Nazis speak of Liberals, they speak of everyone who acts independently, and not as an organism of the collective. Which includes all Capitalist, as Capitalist according to Marx, Hitler and Gentile are the Self Seekers, and are entirely interested in their own Self being. Meaning Capitalism are the enemies of all Collectivist movements. So by defecto Nazis and Fascist are opposed to Capitlaism because they're Collectivist.
"Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista" from 1914 being a great example, the first Fascist Manifesto. Signed by entirely Marxist and Syndicalist. Title Roughly translates to "Action Union of International Revolution" In the case of the word Fasci was an alternative in Italy for Syndicate, League, Union. So you can take the Fascio part and replace it with either of those words.
The original Italian Fascist viewed the Italian Socialist Party as being idol, and refusing to take Action. Hence why "Action" is often so important in Fascist rhetoric. They viewed the 1st World War as a perfect vessel for Accelerating the "Revolution" that the Socialist were sitting on their hands over. Which is why they became Pro War. They viewed the war as an opportunity for "Action." However, as a result many members of this original Fascist movement were ostracized, alienated, and scoffed at by their fellow Socialist. Mussolini himself wasn't an original signer but he was also kicked out of the Socialist Party for supporting the 2nd Fascist Manifesto in 1915, and joining with them. To aid in growing the movement by using the war, they dropped Internationalism from the name to "Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione." With many of it's members even joining the Italian Army when Italy joined the war. By 1919 the organization was almost entirely lead by Mussolini. By 1921 the Italian Fascist formed their own political party the Partito Nazionale Fascista, they included National in the Party's name because Fascism wasn't originally a "Nationalist" movement. Prior to this movement Fascism was as I said earlier just an alternative word used by Syndicalist in Italy for Trade Union, so they needed to make that distinction. So ironically the Fascist Party of Italy literally translates to National Unionist Party.
So ya.. Fascism itself was born from Marxism in short. The historic record is irrefutable. Yet so many try to sweep it under the rug so much so Wikipedia intentionally keeps the page on the original Fascist Manifesto void of any useful information.
Also if you understood what Fascist mean by "Corporation" when they speak of Corporations. They mean State Controlled Corporations, not privately owned Corporations, heck even American Corporations are not really privately owned as they're Publicly traded companies. However, like the Soviet Union the Italian Fascist divided the economy into several large state controlled Corporations, USSR called them something else, but they functioned the same way. The Italians used Corporation but in actuality they were Syndicates, in line with the Fascist National Syndicalist views. Coal Mine Owners, and Coal Mine Unions all became part of one large Coal Mine Corporation (Syndicate) as an example, controlled by the Fascist Party. So ironically the Corporatism of Fascism is not dissimilar to the Corporatism of Denmark, Norway or Sweden, in fact it's actually more State driven. Unlike the Corporatism you tried to describe which is Corporations controlling the State, in Fascist Italy it was the State controlling the Corporations.
Nazism is a bit more difficult. It doesn't really have any direct roots with Marxism, though doesn't have to. Many of it's members including Hitler and Schreck were members of the Bavarian Communist, but whether they joined the Communist out of opposition toward the Weimar Republic or whether they had Communist sympathies is still up in the air. However, since Hitler was known to visit Cafe Central in Vienna a famous Socialist hotspot during his youth, that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Tito all visited before the Great War, you can take a wild guess where Hitler got his oratory, speaking style from. So I wouldn't be surprised if in his Youth Hitler was a Communist to an extent. But like rival Socialist groups, had varying opinions that made him at odds with other Socialist. We know he Read Marx's Das Kapital he quotes it numerous times in his 1st and 2nd book, though often critically. But that's besides the point. Being Hitler didn't found the German Worker's Party, and most of the views the Nazi Party had at it's 'core' were already there before Hitler ever joined the DAP. So the Marxist didn't have a big impact on the Nazi Party itself, as a whole, even if just some of it's members.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've been trying to explain to people that 'pale' skin isn't a mutation, isn't unique to Europeans, and is evolution in the works. It exist for a reason, as nearly all cultures that develop pale skin live in mild climates, ie not extremes. Japan, and much of East Asia is very mild, and similar to Europe, and 'of' course they have paler skin. When I mean pale, I mean variations of light colors when compared to Africans. Some of the darkest skin people on the planet lived in some of the harshest parts of the world, and live/lived (some not no more) a relatively 'naked' life style. In this context, you can argue, that climb + clothing + civilization often breeds a population with decreasing pigment in their skin. The whole YOU DON'T USE IT YOU LOSE IT scenario. ie if your body doesn't need it, it will slowly be phased out from one generation to the next. How far that pigment disappearing can have a lot factors including 'desire.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 Jesus christ. Yes we are humans, we have legs, we don't live in the sea so we walk on dirt. Dirt is land, but land doesn't define a Nation we just live on it. Also you're using examples of Ethnic Nations exclusively. Ethnic Nations are not the only Nations.
19th Century Nationalist would love you so much. Just as the Plutonians on Rick & Morty loved Jerry. Because how you described the American Nation. Those who believe in manifest destiny would be holding you up in a chair right now.
"nothing of what you said addresses my point" Because you actually don't have a point and are too stupid to realize it. Land isn't a requirement, never has been. A People's can be uprooted and moved and they'd still be a people. The land they live on holds no real relevance. Just the Identity holds all relevance. You can take all their land away, and they wouldn't just stop existing as a people.
Again you picked specific examples. How about Judaism? One of the biggest examples of the 20th Century. Prior to Israel would you call them a Nation? Even though internationally they organized, had their own congress, and would hold political discussions about the direction of their people. Even though they had no real land/territory to call their own?
They are a Nation. They ended up getting land, but even then a vast majority of their people still live around the world, but view themselves as a community. They're also not really an ethnicity in a classical sense as well, as they're Arab, European and even African, with decadents of many different ethnicities. Best way of describing them is they're a Religious Nation, a close knitted one that cares about the well being of their own.
1
-
1
-
Because they're built on Ignorance and Contradictions, that they wouldn't even know to look this up. Even many of their defensive arguments saying "No he wasn't an antisemite" heavily rely on speculation. Because they have no real proof he wasn't. For example, they often claim he was using "Js" as a code word for Capitalist, or I've ran into a few as a Critique of Capitalism. Though based on what TIK is pointing out, it seems to be the opposite of what they often claim. However, when you think about it logically those kind of arguments do not work well because they're ironically admitting Marx considered Capitalism a product of the "J*" because he is literally comparing Capitalism to a Culture, and trying to make Capitalist as Marxist claim feel guilty for being like J**ish people. Then they're also ignoring people who took Marx's criticism of J* literally, like Mr H.
So in short, he was being antisemitic, and there isn't any way to get around it. Even in the best case scenario they are often trying to paint. To me it seems to blatantly obvious, and being his influence on Mr H's view of J**ish Capital, to be frank, Marx is the Catalyst to the Big H.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waltonsmith7210 Bakunin (edit I typed Bukarin as in Bukharin damn their similar names, changed it to Bakunin) a Libertarian Socialist before the term was common place referred to Marxism as a "Cult of the State." When you dig into Marxism, despite promises by say Engels that the State would fade away, the entire ideology is literally Totalitarianism. Marxism and Totalitarianisms are almost inseparable. Dates back to the Communist Manifesto as well. I will list the ten pillars with some commentary below.
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. (All land is the State.)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (To ensure no one makes too much money, shocking that the original goals of Marxism didn't even abolish money.)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (If you die, everything you own goes to the state.)
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (If you try to leave the country, the state will confiscate everything you own. If you resist the state, the state will confiscate everything you own, all praise glory to the state which has now enslaved us. You're not even allowed to leave with the clothing on your back.)
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Yummy, State Centralized Banking, which has since become a reality, tragically for most of the world, and I thought Communist were against the idea of money? No, just against the idea of profits. Unless it's the state, the state gets to profit all it wants.)
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. (You can only go where we want you to and all forms of media and communications are in control of the state.)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (State monopoly on construction and economic planning.)
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (You have no choice but to work, you will be forced to join Labor Unions "Labor Armies" and do as the State decrees, sounds like slavery? Regardless.... I bet those kids who think they're communist who say they shouldn't have to work need to read this.)
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. (State planned communities, with proper agriculture/industrial distribution. ie keep the farms and factories near each other.)
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc (Contradiction, Contradiction, Contradiction. ie Advocates Abolishing Child Labor then Advocates State Guided Child Labor along side their education, so they work and learn at the same time.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know if they'd design cases where the GPU's are secured on the outside of the back and instead the inside, they can create a double ended bracket design, ie how you screw it in on the inside on one side, but you'd be able to do it on both sides if they had a bracket that sticks out the back side, it wouldn't have to be dramatic, maybe 1/4 of an inch. Then you can have two screw holes on both sides. They wouldn't even have to redesign cases that much. ENSO Mesh case which is considered idiotically cheap already does this but for the sake of affordability, but being the GPU's only have that screw in bracket on one side, if a Case was designed like the ENSO Mesh Case but with a GPU with Dual Brackets, and the case had dual bracket support, the entire issue with sagging could be entirely resolved. Would just require GPU manufacturers to make a new die for the stamp to provide a bracket on both ends of the rear IO of the GPU, while the cases allow the brackets to stick out the back, like it does on the ENSO Mesh. https://www.bitfenix.com/products/chassis/eatx/enso-mesh/ < I mean you can actually see what I'm talking about on the side view from their product website. Sure, it isn't as crisp and clean as some people would like, but it would definitely fix the sagging issue, being you'd get double the support.
Or simpler yet they could just design a plastic Jack, that can be mounted off to the side on the inside of the case, out of the way of say a Capture Card, which acts like a support pole. All they'd have to do would be make a simple plastic screw, with a small base, and a flat almost spatula end having off to one side attached to the screw, you can then rotate it up/down the screw to the right elevation you want, trim the extra off at the top, and tada! It would look like a glorified Car Jack or something but small, could even buy ones that match the interior ie sell them in white/blacks etc. Being they'd be plastic they'd be dirt cheap to make someone could literally make them standard issue with every gaming PC case as a cheap accessory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be honest, Capitalism really doesn't exist. Literary wise it didn't become a common place word until roughly the 1920s. So for the rest of human civilization it really didn't exist as a concept. Marx created the concept of a capitalist, as we know it today, and he built his idea of the Capitalist off old Christian antisemitic stereotypes. You know, the evil money changer, the evil money hoarder, the one who never works and exploits everyone else for money. These were all old Christian stereotypes built around antisemitism. Worse, Marx even wrote an entire book called "On the J**ish Question" were he tries to shift his follower's mind set into believing "Oh it's just a Coincidence" because at the time some actually noticed his game.
For this reason I've just gotten to the point that I flat out reject the notion of a Capitalist. It's Economic Liberalism, or Free Enterprise, a far more accurate phrase to use than Capitalism. To me the word Capitalism has been stained after reading into it's history, and origins. Even though the word predates Marx himself, his version of the word is the version we use today and it's a dark sinister perversion of the word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JessicaFayToday It's a form of Nationalism as well. They're creating a new Nation within the American Nation. Nations are not lines on a map, but a culture/people. They're creating a new culture, a terrifying one at that.
I support people's right to bang who they want. But I personally view Trans and Gender politics have Hijacking the movement and turning into some terrifying monster of itself.
It's no longer about Individual Rights, which the Gray/Lesbian community fought for. Now it's about forced acceptance of a new order of things that your sex is meaningless, and it's okay to be a white male who is a Trans Women, who then Identifies as a Male Deer, while in the back yard eating grass, and calling white men the most evil creatures on the planet. Yes that person really existed, he was were a moderator on Twitch for a while had power to decide what was hate speech or a crime on that platform. He used it to hate on white men while being a white man himself, used the identify as a male deer thing so he can still bang his girlfriend while still keeping his ding dong. He would film himself on Twitch outside eating grass out of his lawn, on all fours as well, having his girlfriend pet his fake ears while making purr like noises.
It's no longer about Rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konstantinkelekhsaev302 I'm glad someone clarified. If TIK just said Anti Tank Grenade, it would of made it not sound so implausible.
There was another far out story I heard about a M8 Grayhound knocking out a Tiger B in three shots with it's 37mm gun. Which is theoretically implausible even when I looked up charts with the best possible armor piercing ammunition available, theoretically, it's possible, but implausible, as it would require absolute ideal conditions which based on the scenario that was not the case, as no 90 degree angles were exposed, even if they hit it dead on it would of been a hit or miss chance to penetrate even the weakest armor on a Tiger B. Though that scenario I believe happened, just it was more likely a Panther, than a Tiger, misidentifying vehicles was common among the US Army during after army reports. Even calling Panzer IVs Panther IVs, and Tiger phobia often caused US GIs to grossly exaggerate the number of Tigers that were in the field. As they would often refer to all German tanks as Tigers. Reason why I think that it was, is knocking out a Panther from the rear in 3 shots with a 37mm gun is very plausible and the tanks look similar enough that a misidentified makes more sense than a Grayhound successfully knocking out a Tiger B.
1
-
@BoshyG lol Accusing me of being part of the alcohol industry. Now who is lacking in Critical Thinking skills? I already stated I work in a Welding Shop.
I also don't give a sh*t what my grandparents thought. I put Marijuana in the exact same category as Cigarettes and Alcohol. I'm opposed to anyone consuming mood altering substances, regardless.
How about I pull directly from the CDC hmm?
"Brain Health
Cannabis use directly affects brain function—specifically the parts of the brain responsible for memory, learning, attention, decision making, coordination, emotions, and reaction time."
"Driving
Cannabis, like alcohol, negatively affects several skills required for safe driving. You can choose not to drive—and remind your friends and family to do the same—after using cannabis.
It can slow reaction time and ability to make decisions.
Cannabis can impair coordination and distort perception.
The use of multiple substances (such as cannabis and alcohol) at the same time can increase impairment.
Some studies have shown an association between cannabis use and car crashes; however, more research is needed."
btw CDC list the studies used on this as well you can visit it yourself.
"Lung Health
Smoked cannabis, regardless of how it is smoked, can harm lung tissues and cause scarring and damage to small blood vessels."
"Mental Health
Cannabis use has been linked to social anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia (a type of mental illness where people might see or hear things that aren't really there), but scientists don't yet fully understand the relationships between these mental health disorders and cannabis use."
Like I said. I'm not the one who is in Denial.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Capitalism functions like it should. Cost should go down, not just production, but product. Cost of living should go down, cost of consumer goods should go down. The concept of a Minimum Wage hike = a Failure in Capitalism. But what caused it to fail? Capitalism itself works, we know it works as it worked for centuries. I know why it fails. Because we do not allow Capitalism to Function, so if it's not allowed to function it's broken, and if it's broken it fails. State Controls Interest Rates, State is constantly injecting capital into the market by way of state loans, state subsidies. Constantly manipulating/controlling the market in spite the USA is supposed to be a Capitalist country.
Because of this we have artificial prices/profit. Good example is agriculture. Corn and Soy are cheap not because the Market says they're cheap, the US Government has subsidy programs for Corn and Soy to encourage farmers to grow soy/corn creating an abundant amount of corn/soy which in turn forces the price of corn/soy to be cheap, but by doing so corn/soy would not be profitable for farmers without the State paying the difference. Because of this it poisons the Aggricultural market and has since seen everything food wise now using corn/soy products because those products are cheap, issue is it's our tax money that pays for these goods being cheaper, and they're only cheaper because the Government is cheating the Market, manipulating the market, in turn they forced out agricultural goods that could compete with corn/soy products, which helps no one but the companies that make the products that use corn/soy. It doesn't help the farmers as the farmers have to be bribed to grow it, but it's also taxes they pay and we pay that makes the produce cheaper. The food/products are cheaper but it was our money through taxation that made them cheaper to begin with.
When it comes to Finance you can look at State financial manipulation. The Federal Reserve keeps interest rates low, which encourages people to either spend their money, or throw their money into the market. Which inflates the amount of capital that is on the market. When combined with state loans, and excessive state printing/distribution of capital on top of that you have inflation, considerable inflation at that. This inflation makes everyone more poor. $5 in say 1995 would be like $15 Dollars in 2020 and that isn't a joke either. Everyone who say made $15 an hour in the mid 90s and say make $15 today are 66% poorer now than they were in 1995 because of the Inflation that the State causes/reinforces. Pro marxist economist actually think Inflation is a good thing. In turn the State is Stealing our Wealth through Inflation so they can needlessly spend more capital whenever they wish absolutely at our expense, then declare they need to increase wages as a band aid to fix the problem. See how stupid that is? If they didn't create the inflation issue we would all be richer, and wouldn't even need a $15 wage to begin with.
What they should be doing is getting out of the market. Stop subsiding industries/agriculture. Stop printing/distributing capital in large bulk every year. Stop manipulating interest rates to keep the rates artificially low. We can easily fix inflation by doing two primary things and maybe even create Deflation which all citizens would benefit from by allowing interest rates to go back up to encourage saving, and stop injecting large amounts of capital into the market. This would reduce the amount of capital/money on the market and cause the value of the Dollar to go back up, and no this wouldn't murder the economy because of how the Free Market works when it comes to currency exchange. Well it wouldn't wreck the economy if they didn't create minimum wages to begin with. A more valuable Dollar = wages shouldn't need to go up and can actually go down in some sectors. If they didn't touch minimum wages already which many states have we could more easily fix this problem. If they bump up wages to $15 it will actually be harder to fix inflation and honestly I bet this is one of the reasons they want to raise it. So we can not fix it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Inclusivity only works when it makes sense. Say if you want say a black soldier in the German Army in WWII, please OH PLEASE make it based off reality instead of fantasy. They did exist, but they were very rare, and you would REALLY have to do your homework if you want it presented right, not just shoehorned in. For example, they existed in limited numbers in Africa, and on the Eastern Front, but mostly acted as rear line filler. With the only known combat account I'm aware of being in Berlin which the Germans took everyone they could get. I'm using this as an extreme example, because if you wanted to put an African soldier in one of the most racist regimes in modern history, it's actually possible, but only if done right.
1
-
I think I can explain why they never made the front page in American News Papers. I used to keep track of a lot of H-Denialist on youtube before they were well removed by force so to speak from the platform, and one posted a video once showing decades/generations of news papers/articles dating back to the mid/late 19th Century of similar stories being publicized in Newspapers across American, not surprisingly almost all dealing with Eastern Europe. I think it's a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, or... perhaps more accurately fatigue. People grew up seeing reports like this their entire lives, whether true or not it really didn't matter no more. Newspapers likely just knew they wouldn't sell news papers if they made that their headlines. People often forget, Newspapers = a business, a product. You put on the headline what will sell papers. You see this with gang violence in the USA, thousands are killed every single year, never makes it onto the front page of anything, not until it becomes politically relevant anyways or someone specific is killed that causes public outrage. Even mass shootings are not getting the same publicity they used to get, so much so South Park literally did an episode on people being desensitized to it.
1
-
1
-
I honestly like to say. It wasn't so much how good the Germans were in 1939/40. More so how bad everyone else was at the time. I mean the French Military Command Structure was an absolute nightmare, still communicating by way of hand written notes and couriers? British Army Command wasn't great either but nothing on the level of the terrible French command. Germany suffered fewer loses fighting the British/French than it did vs the Poles, despite the Polish Army being vastly inferior on paper to the combined French/British Armies, let alone air power. Honestly think Polish officers should of been leading the French/British Armies in 1940... though I know that wasn't political or linguistically possible but that's how little Respect I have for British/French officers early war.
There were a lot of bad decisions made by the western Allies. One in particular was the near complete absences of the British Royal Airforce during the Battle of France, keep almost all it's best assets on the home Islands out of fear of German Bomber raids. Meaning the French Airforce was mostly fighting a lone, and British planes that were used were sub par vs their German Counter Parties. So the Luftwaffe had near air superiority, despite the RAF having a very sizable fighter force with hundreds of Hurricane and Spitfires available. Sure you can argue if they risked losing those fighters in France, they wouldn't have them for the Battle of Britain, but that implies that allies would lose automatically in France. So over all it was a bad decision which's only defense is done out of hindsight. I'm just shocked, if you wanted the decisive campaign to be in France/Belgium, why not provide it with the air support required? Did the British think the French Airforce on it's own was good enough? Blows my mind.
You see these problems with the Soviet Union as well. I know people often blame Stalin's Purges for the Red Army's bad performance in 1941, but I'd argue "What is France/Britain's excuse?" Because they did terrible as well. Issue for the Red Army wasn't as bad in my opinion officers in spite of the memes, but what the Red Army lacked was basic logistical support. You had a country that boasted it's tens of thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of planes, but provided no logistical support to actually field them. You watched as the Red Airfroce was wiped out almost entirely on the ground, and armored divisions with no mobility because they had no spare parts, fuel or ammunition. I honestly think it had less to do with Stalin's purges and more so, people wanting to impress with impressive spreadsheet numbers. "We have so and so many planes, and airfields Comrade Stalin!" "We have this many Tank Battalions at the ready Comrade Stalin!" All to impress Comrade Stalin, not actually expecting they'd see major combat.
We know German logistics were bad in WWII but the Red Army's Logistics almost didn't even exist in the early two years of the Eastern War.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
14:28 It's complicated. I'd argue the Democrats are relatively the same party. They used to be the side the supported Jim Crow laws, and were devoutly nationalist and racist as a party. Around the 1970s the Democratic Party shifted from their Nationalist Utopian and Social Democratic Position built around the working Class, excluding minorities, and well taking the minority train full steam ahead. Words like Native American, Asian American, Latin American started entering the vocabulary as the Left in American tried to redefine itself. Basically despite what the left in general says, they're still the Utopian Democratic Socialist they were in the 1930s, when Modern Liberalism was born. Since the 1970s they switch progressively away from fighting for the Working Class, to fighting for "Racial Classes" instead. They just switched tactics/demographics, and are honestly still very racist being now everything they do is about race. Basically white Democratic Leftist view themselves as shepherds and their sheep are people of well.... not white..
However, this shift also alienated the White Southerners who moved to the Republican Party as they really had no where else to go. This also created a massive skizzim within the Republicans as well being a lot of pre-1960/70 Republicans rejected this new wave of supporters, and formed the Libertarian Party, effectually splitting the Right into two Political Parties primarily. Basically the Republican party became less Liberal, and Liberal in a Classical sense. Though I'd argue today that the Republican party is still more Liberal than the Democratic Party as honestly Modern Liberalism isn't Liberal, not in the slightest.
General rule of thumb. The USA was founded on Liberal Values, as a result to be an American Conservative Requires you to be Liberal. It's a serious contradiction that both the Right/Left often ignore. It also lets you know how Hollow the term Conservative is as all it really means is maintaining the Status Quo, and if that Status Quo was built on Liberalism then it's defending Liberalism. Being the Left has appropriated the term Liberal and use it falsely, and most people who call themselves Conservatives are often defending Liberal Values, true Liberal Values. Like Rights to Land/Property, Individualism, Freedom of Speech, etc etc etc. Now there are Christian Conservatives but they're categorized separately as Christian Conservatives for a reason, they're Conservative in the fact they are trying to keep the Christian elements of the USA Christian. But to be blunt, the Left Fights for Equality at the expense of Liberty. If you look at what they've stood for since the 1930s it's pretty much Social Democracy Principles near identical to say The Social Democratic Party of Germany from the 1920s. Basically modern Liberal's idea of Liberalism is built around Social Democratic ideals which are not very Liberal, and Marxonian leaning in nature being the SPD of Germany was founded by Marxist originally being Socialist in general put Society above the rights of Individuals, they can NEVER be Liberal, as they're spitting on the very core concept of Liberalism which is Individual Rights. So we have this issue in the USA with Liberals calling themselves Conservatives while damning Liberals who are more well anti-Liberal than the ones mocking them for being Liberal.
1
-
Welcome to the Soviet Union, a Nation of Facades, and Fakery while everything is rotting like an old corpse. Lets steal/copy everything we can then thump our chest on how amazing we are, meanwhile half baking everything we make, don't bother maintaining any of it after it's built, then wonder why we have so many submarines disappear, aircraft crash, nuclear power plants explode, and why for some reason we're always 10 years behind the west in technology. I mean the fact they kept a ship so old in service pretending it was luxurious and modern, fooling passengers who are sadly ignorant because they only get information through gossip or what the State allows... sadly become the victims.
Sadly from what I remembered from this story is, life jackets were so old that they disintegrated, the watertight doors didn't even work anymore. Pumps didn't work anymore, crew wasn't trained, nor really cared on safety at all apparently. All that mattered was if the ship could well move... worse the Captains of both ships thought they had the right of way, so ignored each other over the radio or something along those lines. ie they ignored each other despite knowing they were on a collision course assuming the other ship would well slow down as they believed they had the right of way. Then the Government tried covered it up as they were already dealing with the Chernobyl accident when it came to public image. Basically both of these incidents aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union because of how damaging they were to public trust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@knowledge3563 Yes because Crimea provides a great naval base for a navy that is barely sea worthy. Look up LazerPig's video called "What sunk the Moskva?" He presents the last maintenance report which was publicly available of the ship, and it's a horror story. The ship was barely sea worthy, and the Russian navy sent it out anyways, to die. Basically the ship wasn't taken care of, beaten and abused by the Soldiers/Officers/State. And as he beautifully said. "If that is the state of the Black Sea's Flag Ship, what condition is the rest of the fleet?"
If you want to know why Vuhledar based on Russian soldiers captured, was made up of NAVAL personnel. This heavily implies that Russia's Navy is metaphorically stuck in port and worthless. and it's personnel is being gutted to serve as front line infantry. So ironically Crimea is a worthless asset for Russia, nothing but a Political Trophy and nothing more.
ie owning/occupying it means absolutely nothing strategically. Outside of being a possible future death trap for any Russian soldiers stuck on there if it gets cut off. ie it can easily turn into the Courland Pocket of the Russo-Ukraine War, and if you know about the Courland pocket, well lets say it was when millions of German soldiers/allies (including civilians) were trapped in Estonia after being cuff off from the rest of the Axis forces in 1944/45. Even though the Soviets didn't successfully defeat the Courland Pocket, it was neutralized, ie those soldiers were stuck there unable to participate in the war anymore, and the USSR just left them there, and took Berlin instead.
So that's likely going to be what happens to Crimea. Any forces Russia puts there are completely wasted, as it holds no real strategic value anymore in the war without the Russian Navy. Being a political Trophy is nothing but hubris. It would be absolutely best for Russia to leave Crimea entirely and territories between Ukraine and Crimea, and reinforce take territories for the Puppet Republics they claimed they were fighting for which they've still failed to "Pseudo" liberate.
To sum it up. Russia's military situation is terrible. Holding Crimea does nothing but act as a political victory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well technically you're wrong. Corporations are not examples of Capitalism, but Corporatism. Socialist will say otherwise of course but Corporatism historically is one of Socialism's competitors so of course they will lie about Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of Trade Unionism and was a Moderate less extreme Response to Marxist Syndicalism, and both were born in the 19th Century. There are many forms of Corporations, including State owned Corporations, or Public Owned Corporation. The most common corporation in the world today is Public owned, ie where shares of the company are publicly traded, and just about anyone can buy up shares.
With that being said Corporations forfeit their status as Privately owned business as they're no longer part of the Private Sector. Though they may not be part of the State's Public Sector, when a Corporation forms it creates it's own Public Sector. This is why Corporations are like Mini States within the wider State. This is why Corporations have a CEO/President, why they have Boards that Represent the Share Holders, why they have Committees, Bureaucracy, and many other things associated with the Public Sector. Because they are a Public Sector, just not the Central State's Public Sector which is often the largest in most Societies. It's actually why some people state if you like to know what Socialism is like, work for a Corporation, because essentially they operate relatively the same way.
However, because they're no longer privately owned companies they loosely and arguably don't' fall under the category of Capitalism. As Private Ownership of the Means of Production is the Core Principle of Capitalism that Separates if from say Mercantilism, Socialism, and other Isms that may or may not have a market economy/money.
So what you're hating on is just a form of Trade Unionism, similar to Syndicalism. Just rather than being a Worker Owned Trade Union that owns the factory, it's a Wide proportion of Society who owns the Factory, with some companies ranging from a few hundred to millions of owners. Some Corporations even offer shares of the company to employees, making them Co-owners. Even a CEO is technically just an Employee of the Corporation, paid to manage the company on behalf of the collectivized owners, who can kick them out any time they wish even if they were the original founder of the company.
1
-
1
-
@TheAnnoyedHumanist
1. You're getting Marxism mixed up with Socialism. I don't care what the definition Ushanka Show uses, but Socialism has nothing to do with the Working Class. That is Marxism. Marx primarily started the Class element of Socialism. Prior to Marx Socialism had absolutely nothing to do with CLASS. Utopian Socialist and Bourgeois Socialism (Marx made up the term Bourgeois Socialism to critics specific socialist he didn't like) both Pre-date the Class Theory of history, and the war for the working class that modern Socialist advocate, and neither had anything to do with Class. if anything this means Marxism itself appropriated the Term socialism for themselves even though they didn't invent the concept of Socialism.
2. Society is just a Collective Group. The size doesn't matter. Which is why a Society can literally be as small as a club. So even if a Company is not part of the Public Sector State which I explained, it's still it's own Public Sector, it's own society. So you're fundamentally wrong at understanding what Society means. A Trade Union would be it's own Society within the Greater Society. It has it's own leaders, representatives, and hierarchy. But the Trade Union isn't owned by the Union leader. Same thing as a Corporation. There is no single owner or even family of a Corporation, it's a Collectively owned Company. It doesn't have to be the WORKING CLASS or the "STATE" which you're implying when you say Society.
Key Distinction with Utopian 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.[6]"
^ this is actually why Ishay Landa's criticisms of Prussian Socialism by Spengler is actually wrong. He concluded that it had nothing to do with Socialism because it was against Marxist theories, and the working Class, even though Marx came after Utopian Socialism and Spengler's Prussian Socialism was built on Pre-Marx socialist principles. Which actually means Ishay Landa doesn't understand Socialism, and views it through a Marxonian lens, apparently the same way you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Peter-vf3dl Now that I have access to a keyboard.
The Nazi economic success was a 'fluke,' a success to at all? I'm sorry when I saw that it ruffles my feathers. By 1938 the Nazi's bankrupted the State. By taking wealth from the private sector and spending it on Social Welfare to appease the poor, and massive state military spending. It wasn't an ECONOMIC BOOM it was a State induced economic bubble, which creates an illusion of a economic boom. It wasn't a fluke, it was by design as well. The Nazis were gearing up for war, but at the same time needed to keep the people happy, make on their promises to your average mom/pop.
I mean what do you think the MEFO Bills were? They were State issued IOUs originally sold to investors voluntarily but as the party became lets say desperate for money, became involuntary. Similar to American War Bonds, and the Nazis issued these in the 1930s. Basically the State Stole Wealth from Private Citizens who had wealth to spare. They even went farther than this, in Gunter's Vampire Economy there are a number of references by Business owners who literally came out and stated direct Party Theft from their business, ie the Party came in and basically took what they wanted. When they wanted, they didn't know how much wealth they could keep. Worse for MEFO bills in particular no one by the late 30s had any belief the party would pay them back, yet were still being forced to buy them very well knowing that they were just giving their money to the Party.
The Nazi Party planned for war for years. Their primary military build up plan was slated to end by the mid 1940s. Issue is they bankrupt the country before getting there, so had to prematurely invade bordering countries years in advance of their original schedule. This is why the Panzer divisions were filled with Panzer I's which were originally designed as training vehicles, why the Panzer II which wasn't meant to be the breakthrough tank for the Army did all the heavy lifting for the first 3 years of the war. The German Army wasn't ready for war at least not in the sense that they planned originally, though they were far more ready than most of their neighbors. The Party had no choice but to shoot the arrow and hope it landed, or face absolute economic ruin.
I don't call that an Economic Miracle (Boom), or a Fluke. A Fluke would imply it was an accident. It was neither a strong economy, nor a accidental one. The only accident is that they ran out of money which is the opposite of a boom.
This Economy Boom you speak of is left over Post War Nazi Propaganda. The fact that people still believe that nonsense is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In my opinion, I would ban all "modern" military/police grade fire arms. I would set a cut off point for vintage fire arms though say, any fire arms pre 1960s, ie 1950s weapons being the last generation. Would be excluded from the ban for historical, and collector reasons. Outside of that I wouldn't even allow anything at all for the civilian public that would be considered tactical including red dot on a handgun....... shivers why? WHY!? Want a .308 Browning Heavy Machine Gun with a Watercooled Jacket, go bonkers, doubt you will be able to lug that thing into a school easily. Sure this would leave some weapons like SKS, M1 Garand, M14s and AK47's also being on that list of historical arms, but the rule would also require the weapons to be unmodified, ie you can not personalize them with modern toys, like mounting rails, scopes, sights, etc. This whole modern gun craze bores me so much.
1
-
Mike Schwinn Ideological excuse is just an excuse. Hitler had always planned to invade the Soviet Union, and it was almost entirely for the sake of resources. He wanted to create Autarky, and the USSR had what he wanted. His obsession with Autarky lead Germany to economic ruin by 1938, which is entirely why he Annexed Austria, almost started war over Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, and eventually Invaded the Soviet Union, the whole time literally on the verge of running out of valued resources including oil. For example when they invaded the Soviet Union, Germany only had a few months of operational fuel left, and they only had around 20 motorized/armored divisions out of like 130 over all divisions, and to achieve that a vast majority of the German Army had no motorized transit at all. It was so horrible that by 1942 the 6th Army literally had to leave some of it's motorized/mechanized battalions behind, as they didn't have the fuel for the few motorized/mechanized Divisions they had in the 6th Army. The German Army in WWII was always few weeks away from being completely out of fuel. The USSR's failure in Finland gave them an excuse, a reason to think they could pull it off, and their goal was always to get Russia's Oil. Getting red of the REDs was just a bonus.
1
-
@TheAsheybabe89 State spending doesn't equal growth. Look up the Socialist Economic Calculation Fallacy. Which dictates that it's impossible to calculate how healthy a socialist economy is, as it doesn't operate under profit, injecting money into the economy doesn't make the economy stronger. Being that most of the money the Nazis were spending was in the military as well, most of those spread sheet numbers was just going back tot he state, not to the people, so the economy was never healthy under the regime in spite of how pretty those numbers were on paper.
Being prices in Nazi Germany were fixed by the state, resources were purchased regardless of price from foreign countries, and material for factories were provided by the state at prices the state demanded, there was no real market, no proper exchange of goods/services that could be calculated with cash/credit to make any possible assessment on how healthy the German economy was under Nazi Germany. This is why they were going bankrupt by 1938 in spite looking healthy on paper. Why Hitler pushed for aggressive expansion in spite their Army/Navy build up programs being slated to be finished by 1945, ie he was jumping the gun because they had no choice anymore, either go to war or face humiliation as the nation collapses from economic failures of the Party itself.
It's the same reason the USSR collapsed out of the blue in with even the CIA being caught unaware. Supposedly being a paradise on Earth touted by Socialist for decades leading up to it's collapse that some how provided great luxury to it's citizens who couldn't even find food on the store shelves despite what "NUMBERS" on a spread sheet said. Those numbers were never right, and because the USSR suffered horrific inflation + price/wage fixes instituted by the state, it masked how unhealthy the economy actually was, which is exactly what happened to Nazi Germany.
Excessive state spending, combined with state price fixes, wage fixes, regulation, massive inflation which the Nazis masked with MEFO bills, yes they created a fake currency so they could appropriate cash from it's citizens so it could spend more, it was a dramatic attempt to limit inflation. After Hitler's fired Schact just about the only guy keeping their economy afloat ie even came up with the MEFO bill plan, it utterly fell apart rapidly.
Issue is Socialist economic calculation looks good only on a Spread Sheet, but it's all numbers made up by pencil pushers who work for the state using worthless monopoly money that often holds no real value.
This is why I make fun of Socialist denialist who praise Nazi Germany's economy, or the Soviet Union's economy as Spread Sheet Warriors.
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
-
1
-
@tolik5929 I place Tucker Carlson in the same category as Charles Lindbergh from the 1930/40s. You may think he is trying to give an 'honest' opinion, letting Americans see a different perspective on 'reality.' But the issue being, that isn't really the case with this subject.
I can be brutally blunt. For people who know what's going on, what Tucker has done is horrifying. There are plenty of Americans who are ignorant on the subject of the Russo-Ukraine War. But Tucker didn't do a g*d damn thing to inform people. If anything his actions are just harmful. He likely knows it as well.
Hence my Charles Lindbergh comparison. Lindbergh was one of the lead members of the America First Organization that sprouted up late in the 1930s and spent much of their time trying to keep the USA out of what was at the time another European War, should listen to some of his speeches that are on audio they're tear jerking.... Issue is Lindbergh wasn't doing this for sincere. He had close ties, and relationships with many in the American Nazi Party, knew a number of high ranking members of the Luftwaffe including visiting Herman Goering a number of times at his personal estates. His reasoning behind well "Promoting" Peace and Putting America's interest first was entirely for self interested political reasons, and had little to do with what was right or wrong. Tucker is in the same category. Otherwise he wouldn't go out of his way trying to undermined the war effort. Could you imagine someone doing this during the early years of WWII going to Nazi Germany? It's weird to be honest that so many in the USA are not looking down upon his actions.
I think it has more to do with want to be true vs what is best for America or Ukraine in this matter. I've been watching politics in this region since the Orange Revolution, and Russia is without a doubt 100% in the wrong with this war. Being since the early 2000s Russia has invaded 3 neighboring countries, and one of them twice now. It's literally a history repeats scenario of Appeasement leading to an overly aggressive D_ck thinking he can get away with whatever he wants because he viewed the west as being pathetic/weak, and now is having to eat his shoes. I mean you can literally compare the Minsk Agreement with the Munich Betrayal and like Hitler, Putin decided to try to occupy the rest of the country he had already invaded because he believed the west was spineless. The international community should stay firm on this war.
So no one in the west should be wanting this war to end in any way other than Putin pulling out of Ukraine entirely. He can not be allowed to even have a Political Victory in this scenario after all he's already gotten away with over the years. If Ukraine wishes to resist, and keep resisting and resisting is up to THEM not US, we should support them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@halo3odst To be honest, it's a complicated thing to answer.
I would say Fascism is between the middle and far left. Far left being more extreme forms of Marxism. So to me Fascism is to the right of National Socialism, and National Socialism is to the Right of say Communism, or Marxist Socialism. Yet all of them are to the left of Economic Liberalism, Classic Liberalism and well Capitalism, which is basically Economic Liberalism, ie Classic Liberalism practiced at an economic level, ie practical application of Classic Liberalism.
Social Democracy being roughly in the middle. I would argue Fascism/National Socialism and Marxism are all to the left of Social Democracy because at least in a Social Democracy individuals still get a choice, but in Fascism National Socialism, and Marxism it's the Dictatorships of the ruling Party, and individualism doesn't really matter in spite of what Gentile or Hitler say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You might as well call most terrorist Stormtroopers from Star Wars. I recall the Black Hawk Down incident in which US Rangers, and DELTA force faced a strength 20-40x their own. The numerical superiority was so bad that the US Rangers, along with DELTA Force on the ground were forced to go completely on the defensive, in about 2-3 pockets within the city, while an Armored Column (Light Vehicles like Humvees) fled with what wounded and prisoners they could, leaving most of the Rangers and almost all of DELTA Force in the City to endure the onslaught. It's estimated the Somalias suffered around two thousand casualties (killed/wounded), while the Americans and allies suffered fewer than a hundred casualties over all. Despite the Somalias made good use of roadblocks to make the vehicle superiority of the Americans relatively void, the Somalia's were very ineffective as a fighting force, despite their massive numerical advantage. Issue is, like say Al Qaeda the Somalias were mostly made up for poorly trained, if at all trained fighters. Despite what you may see on news clips or Terrorist Propaganda films, they're not professional in any real capacity. That being said though, I'm pretty sure this particular incident happened at night, because even Somalias wouldn't of missed at 50 feet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great irony, the modern concept of a Capitalist was created by Karl Marx, he based his views on Capitalism entirely off antisemitism. ie the Evil Money Changers, ie the evil money lenders, the evil money hoarders, the evil money you know.... Small Hat People love money, lending money, exploiting people for more money etc etc etc etc. Before Marx the concept of a Capitalist really didn't exist in society, though he didn't invent the word he made it commonplace, well his followers did. Issue is, his blatant use of the word being so similar to stereotypes people attached to small hat people, made it so well obvious in many peoples eyes that he literally wrote an entire book on the subject "On the Jewish Question." All so he can proclaim it's all just a Coincidence. ie he didn't REALLY base his idea of a capitalist off small hat people, no, it's just a coincidence that small hat people are very much like capitalist. Literally that was the premise of that book. Basically he is a lying scumbag. And our idea of a Capitalist today is built entirely on a foundation of antisemitism.
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я My primary argument is that numerical superiority in man power isn't as important in modern war and is worthless without the equipment to back it up. The Red Army suffered greatly in 1941 because much of it's armor and airforce were wiped out during the opening of Operation Barbarossa much of it with it's pants down. A vast majority of those numerical numbers are also "filler" on both sides, poorly trained often conscripted infantry that just exist to 'deny' enemy access to land along the front, or to secure land that may still have some enemies hidden behind the lines. Like on the western front with the Allies, a bulk of the fighting was done by a minority of the armed forces when on the offensive.
By 1943 the German Army ran out of these... well ran very low on these experienced crack divisions they needed. Which evened the playing field greatly. Meanwhile the Red Army was no longer losing experiences divisions, no longer suffering mass loses in amss encirclements. Which also evened the playing field more. It's rarely ever about who has the most men, but who has the most equipment, and most crack troops, and best officers all in conjunction with each other. TIK isn't wrong that the quality of the German officer corp crumbled as the war progressed. The quality of everything German fell. I often tell people, it isn't about how good the Red Army was, but how bad the German Army deteriorated. You have to remember, both Russia and Germany struggled greatly during this conflict. By the end of the war, it wasn't like either side had 3-5 years of training crack divisions available to them ie Army units that spent years training. Often weeks, months if that even was the norm by the end of the war. When it came to say Latvian Conscripts serving as Red Army Riflemen, or the Volkssturm, you can argue 'days' of training.
I also believe the Germans believed the Red Army was much larger than it actually was. It explains why German small scale counter offensives were often routed by 'inferior' forces. If you imagine a German officer, or even soldiers believing such. Then you also take into consideration by this time Russian troops likely had far more reason to fight harder than their Axis counter parts, they knew they were winning, and like the Hard almost to the death fighting some German units conducted outside of Moscow for example when the Red Army counter attacked there. Even a small band of Riflemen resisting hard can cause a larger German counter attacking force to question the strength of the force they're facing.
Issue is, do these "false" reports by the Germans of Russian strength, were they intentionally false or did they actually believe that is what they were facing at the time? It isn't like they had "Soviet" personnel list. It is why I don't really disdain against people like Manstein when they're clearly stating figures that were likely false. I wouldn't be surprised if Manstein truly believed those were the odds he faced, and anyone post war trying to tell him otherwise, well... "Liar!"
1
-
1
-
@leonamvonborowsky7559 To be honest that isn't exactly correct. It's a Facade.
They do it to calm the populous and nothing more. So many Chinese citizens have shown footage of just how staged China's response to social unrest is ie, they fake solidarity, with actors, and staged events showing how good of a job they are doing "not" actually fixing the issues the people are complaining about.
For example last years heavy flooding, they literally brought film crews showing the emergency personnel being heroic, but the people they were rescuing were actors, and the whole event they filmed of them rescuing people was that, staged. Meanwhile thousands of people in China died last year from flooding, and the response by the authority was terrible at best. But they created a facade publicly that they were doing a "Good Job" meanwhile the government lied heavily about the death tolls and how much damage the floods actually caused, and how good the government response to the floods etc etc etc.
Favorite ones are when they get water hoses out so make it look like it was storming when filming one of them. Basically they STILL CARE more about their IMAGE than the people they're supposed to be serving.
China's modern strategy has nothing to do with solidarity but basically creating a facade of actually helping. Basically convince the people they're on top of everything so they have no reason to riot. When they do riot, join the riot and pretend you care.
They learned from how bad the PR was from a specific college student protest that eventually turned into a riot which sadly you can not always mention without worry of censorship. So now the CCP has become a master at facades.. hopefully to trick the people into think everything is swell.
Heck I remember one tunnel that flooded last year they pulled hundreds of vehicles out of it, and it flooded so fast no one had a chance to get out of the tunnel. Totally didn't happen according to the CCP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This has been an issue for a long time. Normally when a new shooter came out, I'd play the online mode for only a few weeks. Heck I did the same thing on Ace Combat 7, played the multiplayer for a short while. Reason? Because there are too many tryhards, and well in this case competitive players who just play to be absolutely perfect at a game. It's why I think online competitive games are literally at their best when everyone is green/fresh and don't know what they're doing. You get that genuine feeling.
I mean I played H.A.V.E. Online for example but I only played the BETA. I used to get like 14 kill kill streaks, and decided to quite the first time I ran into someone who absolutely made me look like I was holding still every time we bumped into each other. Came to found it, it was the top player in the game, who optimized the F*** out of everything including key mapping macros etc etc, to a point every player he ran into was absolute cannon fodder. He could fire the rocket launcher like a automatic weapon by ignoring cool down by switching weapons quick enough back/forth basically abusing game design. Similar to GTA games back in the day when switching weapons would reload guns faster than watching the reload animation. But I decided to retire from that game not long after. As once the guy's setup got out, casual people like me wouldn't stand a chance, the fun was going to be gone and gone quickly unless you were a Try Hard optimizing your setup and doing everything like the pros do.
I consider Skill Natural Talent, not "Practice until your perfect." At a game. So I stick around just long enough to avoid a multiplayer's cancer phrase.
1
-
1
-
1
-
She is likely not talked about because some people don't like people to know the Nazis employed people of all walks of life. Including women. As long as they were German though. I remember getting into an argument with one person, and I literally had to fetch statistics on how many women were serving in reserve units ie radio operators, clerks, typist, anti aircraft gun crews, factory labor, farming labor throughout the Reich, and mentioned the Nazi's usage of women was not too dissimilar to that of the UK and US. Even during the 1930s women didn't fall back to that "Traditional" stay at home mother the Nazis touted, with about 30% of the work force comprising of women still, meaning women were still making up a sizable chunk of the workers throughout Germany even before the war started.
However, some people try to gaslight this, gloss it over because it makes the Nazis sound considerably less conservative than they're often painted to be. Maybe, given a few decades, of a century women would of likely disappeared from the work force, but honestly this is something we will never know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:11 basically doing the impossible because someone is offended by something somewhere. So everything is offensive. I mean DEI itself is at it's very core is actually very discriminatory. But we are talking about people who are likely very Hegelian or base their world logic on people who themselves were Hegelian so contradictions don't matter, and logic is irrelevant.
You can even see this in the definition of some words. Like some definition of Nation includes a contradiction, as some definitions refer to a community with one or more national groups living on a piece of territory. Contradiction being National = someone of a specific Nation, so if you have more than one national group, the.. well you have multiple nations, so the definition has a very HUGE contradiction that some how just gets ignored. Basically it's a definition which is very similar to the definition of a "State" because some people don't see a different between Nation and State, because most States today are "Nation-States" ie States ruled over by a specific "Nation" of people. Japan is a "Nation-State" for example.
A Nation is a Identity which has become self conscious and or politically active, doesn't require a language, or territory, or even a State. This is why Marxism is actually Nationalism, because their nation is the Proletariat, they are a politically organized Identity. LGBT is a Nation, they're a self conscious politically organized community with their own identity going so far to even have pride days and flags to present themselves. Sadly because many of "these" groups do not want to be associated with "Nationalism" they reject the actual definition of "Nation" and use a Definition which is contradictory, and really only a synonymy of State.
This is just one of countless examples how throwing logic out the window warps people's view of the world, politics and well something as simple as the meaning of words.
1
-
State Centralization. Getting numbers on a spread sheet were more important than actually having an effective military. It was easier to please Stalin as a stooge by presenting numbers than results, until actual war came along. You see this all over the USSR at the time, even at an agricultural level, they would double count so it would look like productivity was up, as all the middle men, yes men and stooges only cared about pleasing Stalin.
It's why the Red Army failed so bad, far more than the purges ever did. You see this with Germany in the latter years as the State took more and more central control over not just the economy but the military as well. They were producing recorded numbers of planes/weapons/tanks yet the army itself became less and less effective, well beyond just having less experienced soldiers. Almost every troop movement required Hitler's approval.
Best example I can point out. The Red Army had more tanks and planes than any nation on the planet in 1941, why would any country product so much material? Because it looked good on a spread sheet. Yes men could claim productivity through the roof. Generals can claim they have a large number of tank divisions, gloat, glorify their efforts. Yet when war came, those tanks didn't have logistic support, fuel, spare parts, ammunition. What good is a tank division if it didn't have the support to even function? This is why so many Soviet Armored Divisions evaporated against what should of been an inferior force on paper. Gotta remember I think less than a 10th of the German Army was mechanized/motorized and much of that using foreign vehicles, and obsolete tanks as well. So you can not really blame it on obsolete tanks making the majority of Soviet armor either. It was so bad that some T-34s were sent into battle with spare engines strapped onto their backs because getting spare parts was so hard it was easier sending them to the front with entire engines.
The German logistical system was bad, but in 1941 the Red Army's didn't even exist. Because of Spread Sheet Warriors used every single ounce of material to make more tanks/planes, leaving nothing for repairing/maintaining what they had produced. There were other factors on why the Red Army performed so poorly, but honestly that is one of the most important. Soldiers with equipment they're not trained to use, and lack of logistics to support them. There are so many records of squadrons getting new planes, but pilots not being trained to fly them. Getting those new planes on paper to the front was more important than pilots being trained to fly them, it made the middle men look good. The entire system was broken in short.
1
-
@MrTaxiRob I would of thought that years ago, but honestly the more you look into those subjects the more and more it becomes blatantly obvious that personal and political bias plays a huge part on how history is told/recorded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJf8O1S6eA Great example. He even catches one of the authors red handed literally omitting parts of a quote without proper citation hinting that he removed elements of it. Without proper citation readers will not know he omitted as well, it's a serious no no, but ideologies do it all the time. He catches people doing this a lot when doing resource in his history videos as he tries to find primary sources for cross reference, and when you do this it's easy to find when writers lie.
George Orwell's "the Academics and the Literary Intellectuals" sums it up quite well, and I'd highly suggest reading it. There is a reason why most of his peers denied crimes the Soviet Union were committing including Albert Einstein despite how blatantly obvious the USSR was committing horrible crimes. Issue is this hasn't changed since then, history was heavily distorted in the 1920-60s and that foundation has been used by most historians since. Only a hand full of books on Fascism have actually tried to understand Fascist movements which is why so few actually know what Fascism is. Most just use 2nd/3rd hand sources written by people who distorted the very concept of Fascism because they wanted it disassociated with Socialism. As Orwell wrote in "What is Fascism?"
"But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword." George Orwell.
See how he openly admits "Socialist of any colour are willing to make admissions." Pretty much stating that Fascism will never be properly defined until Socialist are willing to admit it's a version of Socialism. Being Orwell was a Socialist at the time that is a serious thing to say. The reason he wrote Animal Farm and 1984 was to teach people that socialism turns into Fascism, which is something he observed up til he died. I mean name any Communist regime that didn't turn into a Socialist state dominated by an insane level of Nationalism?
Btw that specific History Tuber has ran into this issue so much that it's disturbing. One of the books he was using for his Stalingrad series he realized was literally fake, very likely entirely made up by General Chuikov.
1
-
@MrTaxiRob Tragically I wrote an essay but youtube removed it, even though I saved it to make sure I didn't lose what I wrote. It's sadly why I have to resort to looking up specific history youtubers because youtube's automated systems do not allow discussion. I really wish that wouldn't happen as I prefer my own words as I have different opinions vs others on specific subjects. Example, I love TIKHistory but I don't 100% agree with him, but he does a pretty good job.
However I tried to explain why you were wrong including typing out references to a few books at specific points of the comment so you could look it up yourself if you wanted. On subjects on Corporatism, Fascism.
Two most important books I tried to reference but.... again I'm not listing too many because I dunno what I wrote specifically got the comment deleted.
The Vampire Economy < Gunther Reimann.
Mussolini's Intellectuals < James Gregor
However, I guess I will have to resort to just referring to TIKHistory, one of the better history channels on youtube. He has done multiple videos on the subject. Being I doubt you'd want to watch some of his longer videos on the subject, I will point to one in particular which shows tragic proof that falsification of history and social politics is still an issue in history studies, as he catches one writer omitting part of Rosa Luxemburg's writings because he doesn't want his socialist readers knowing what Rosa actually said, why would a Marxist lie about another Marxist? https://youtu.be/pwJf8O1S6eA <
But I can leave you with a few very important quotes on this subject from Orwell.
"But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."
"most intellectuals are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systemic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on 'our' side"
George Orwell.
1
-
@MrTaxiRob James A Gregor defined fascism as "National Syndicalism." So I would say yes. Up until his death he was considered one of the leading intellectuals on Fascism itself. He wrote "Mussolini's Intellectuals" Which is perhaps his magnum opus.
Giovanni Gentile who is basically the Marx of Fascism described the ideal State as the Corporate State, and denounced Capitalism as a Liberal State. When you break down Capitalism, the individual or private control of the economy he isn't really wrong, as private property and individualism are cornerstones of Classic Liberal thought. Being Capitalism itself grow out of the Industrial Revolution primarily as power/control shifted from Nobility to the Middle Class/Town Folk, which is where the word bourgeoisie comes from. In this context the Middle Class, ie Merchant Class are the bourgeoisie. Of which couldn't even exist if it wasn't for Classic Liberalism.
Before you dismiss the author however. Wiki's final line on his page literally states.
"In 2021, the first large study on Gregor's thought and works was published in Italy, by the Italian historian Antonio Messina. From the volume, which collects a multiplicity of contributions from various scholars, the role of Gregor as an indisputable point of reference for comparative studies on fascism and the various types of national-populist regimes is clearly evident."
That is how valuable he is to the studies. Though I would argue that Gregor should of used National Corporatism instead of Syndicalism in his definition, the similarities between Syndicalism and Corporatism are mundane, and really not too important. I think he understood few understand Corporatism and if he used Corporatism instead of Syndicalism would of instantly dismissed it as "See proof they were Capitalist." As most people's opinion of the very word Corporation = Capitalism.
I also agree with Gregor that National Socialism in Germany wasn't Fascism, and shouldn't be viewed as the same ideology, as when compared to Spanish, Austrian, Hungary and Italian Fascism the primary Fascist regimes of the 1920s/30s she is just too fundamentally different. It would literally be like calling Marxism and Fascism the same thing which they're not. Even if they're related.
1
-
1
-
Schindler's List? But isn't that film classified as Fiction? Most of the cast in the film are of fictional characters, with only Schindler himself and a few of the SS officers being real people. And I've even heard arguments that the man was nothing but a War Profiteer, and the only reason anyone survived in his factory was because, they were factory workers, who were treated considerably better by the Nazis.
Also the clearing of the Jewish ghettos wereno where even remotely as brutal what was seen in the film, heck none of the films ever do a ghetto clearing accurately. They were normally orderly, being brutal would of caused panic, and even SS guards have openly talked about how orderly these evacuations were. They were not the slaughter fest seen in the film. In real life there DEFINITELY wasn't a road paved with Jewish Tomb Stones either, one of the dumbest parts of the entire movie. The film isn't even close to being accurate. The book Schindler's List was written to being a collection of a lot of different horror stories from the holocaust collected together, to do this they had to add a lot of fictional characters in the story. Also Schindler was a War Profiteer, he wasn't penniless when the war ended, so even the final scene in the movie was a joke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TIKhistory goes into depths on why Skin color seems to matter for a lot of people. Definitely when it comes to blackwashing history. He did a video on Whoopi Goldberg's comments from a few months ago is pretty good at summing it up. Critical Theory is a form of critical historical/social analysis that pretty much requires activism. If you know what Critical Theory is, basically you look at history/society with Critical Goggles for whatever you're looking at it for.
So... if say you're CRT for example Critical Race Theory, you look at history through Racist Goggles in this context Skin Color. Issue with this though is you're looking at history already with a GOAL in mind, and you're searching for evidence to prove that Goal, ie finding Racism. This creates a whole new problem though. How can a person accurately assess history if they have a goal already set? This is why you have people saying Egypt was Black, with scant evidence to prove it while dismissing all the evidence that states otherwise. Their Activist Goal is more important than truth. That however is the result of Critical Theory.
Critical Theory has been used for generations when it comes to the concept of the working Class by way of Marxonian professors, and writers with just as damaging effects on society as a whole, to a point the very concept of a business man is viewed as evil in the eyes of most people today, few look at business men positively. But now it's being applied to skin color, and boy.. is it screwing with people's mind to a point that it's tragic. This is why you have college kids who get angry when they do a DNA test and find out they have no Asian, African or Latin American DNA. Why you have so many obsessed with blackwashing history as well. Some of them are so far gone that they believe the darker a person's skin the more civilized they are, and that 'white people' couldn't of created ancient civilizations so black people had to be behind it some how. It's as bonkers as Nazi Aryan blood nonsense, ie only aryans could create civilizations. I remember seeing an interview with a Rapper who stated that Nordics are the least evolved of all humans, and the whitest, and how they conquered Europe from dark skinned people... I mean serious? Where did he get that from? Who is telling people that? I've never even seen that anywhere yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Virus has been known about since December. The World Health Organization Dragged their feet, while the CCP tried to Cover it up, and censor it was happening at all. TWHO didn't even bother to call it the Wuhan Virus out of fears of upsetting the CCP, and it's likely why the TWHO kept quite about it for almost two months before declaring a danger in February. Trump didn't help at all with the problem, but honestly when he said 15 confirmed cases, it was already too late as that is only 15 confirmed and they were likely already in the hundreds if not thousands just not tested yet, or confirmed. To be honest though, this is the TWHO and CCP's fault primarily for trying to keep it hush. TWHO in particular needs to be ashamed, they can not even call ti the Wuhan Virus...... because that would link it to originating from a Chinese City. It is now to a point that there isn't much you can do to stop it, but endure it. People are going to die, and honestly it is totally the TWHO's fault in this particular case for dragging it's feet, out of fear of offending a Totalitarian Regime, ruled by an Autocratic Political Party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samr.england613 Then you're grossly misinformed. Hitler did the opposite of what you just said, so did Mussolini. Many historians have either been ignorant as heck, or fall for the "State Capitalism" lie.
Unlike the Marxist they didn't eliminate them entirely because the Nazis wanted at least outwardly to distance themselves from Marxism. However, they still stripped business of most of their power. Power to Hire Workers (Who they hired was dictated by the DAF), Power to Set Wages of said Workers (Again controlled by the DAF), Power to Set Prices on their goods (Set by the Reichskommissar for Pricing Josef Wagner), and Power to buy the Material Freely was also taken away. In turn the Party controlled all trading of raw materials, ie capital goods within Germany, so you needed, steel you had to go to the party.
And yes the Reich had Kommissars but with a K.
Also the Nazis abolished private property rights in the Reichstag Fire Decree, in fact both laws that protected private property rights. Meaning the Party could strip anyone of their property when they wanted.
All business of a specific size or larger were forced to join the DAF as well, no exceptions. Any business that refused were taken from their owners and handed over to Party Loyalist. Basically Nationalizing all business in all but name. Most famous example of this was Hugo Junkers in 1934 all his patents, and his business was seized by the Party.
Basically it's a myth that the Nazis were in league with big business and "The Capitalist" propped up by Marxist and Ignorant historians who believed 1930/40s era propaganda and kept perpetuating it throughout the 20th century. Even the word Privatization was Falsely attributed to the Nazi's economic program by The Economist Magazine and Britain in the 1930s. Despite the Nazis never considered it or called it privatization. They called it Synchronization or Gleichschaltung. Basically the party would coordinate/manage/direct every aspect of the economy. Which isn't Capitalism, nor does it respect Private Business' rights to operate as Private Business.
Heck even Richard Evans conceded that the Nazi Party was a Grassroots organization and had no support from Capitalist prior to their seizure of power, those that backed the party did at the 11th hour after it became obvious the Nazis would take control of the country, and the Nazis despised these individuals who did so and viewed them as never being true loyal party members, but opportunist. So never gave them much power in the Party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samr.england613 You can say "Yes they did" and say look it up on google all you want but that doesn't change facts. Saying search it on google is irrelevant as well, because google isn't a good source for information, not since maybe 2010.
I doubt you can even name a "Accredited" history professor. I can name a lot of them, from Bels, Tooze, Evans, Zitelmann, Aly, and a number of others. Even the ones like Tooze and Bels who try to paint it as "private" contradict themselves, and collectively among all of them, only a fool will come to that conclusion if you've read them all. It's why so many history tubers including people like Metatron who is himself a history teacher will say the Nazis when it came to private property supported it in name only, but functionally private property did not exist in the 3rd Reich, otherwise it wouldn't be Totalitarianism. Anyone who says it's Private is stupid in short, or intentionally lying knowing people like you would not 'read' what they wrote and only read what they 'conclude.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliantheapostate8295 Socialism isn't Liberal, no matter what way you try to spin it. Definitely if you're talking about economics.
For example Economic Liberalism, the most Liberal form of Economics is literally Capitalism under a different name. So if Capitalism is Liberalism and Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism, then Socialism can not be Liberalism.
People forget, Liberalism = Individual Liberties (Liberties, Liberty, Liberal etc). Being the original Utopian Socialist considered Socialism to be the opposite of Individualism, just about in every way or form, socialism is not Liberal.
For how authoritarian and even often totalitarian Socialist Countries become, it's so blatantly obvious Socialism isn't Liberal that anyone who still thinks that today are f***ing stupid.
Lastly, West Germany had a lot of help rebuilding it's economy post war. So they had a lot of help from the outside as well.
Unless you're saying "Liberal" as in Capitalism saved Germany. =D
1
-
1
-
@UshankaShow It's a world where manual labor doesn't exist, and money doesn't exist, and people are left to well do pretty much what they want as long as it isn't harming other people of course. Also things like smoking, alcohol, meat and many other things are illegal, they have synthetic imitations of all of it. Basically a 70/80s Socialist wet dream Utopian Scenario.
So glad that the writer for Star Trek Deep Space 9 kind of crapped all over the Utopian vision of the previous shows, but Deep Space Nine became one of the most beloved series of the franchise. They even brought money back in that series because none all the alien races viewed the world the same as the "Federation" did so the crew on Deep Space Nine had to have money to deal with/trade on the Space Station.
Basically where the original 60s era TV series was a Space Submarine Exploration series. The 80s era Next Generation TV series was Socialist Utopian Dream scenario, with the crew living on a ship which the ship provided them with everything they could want and what work was done was voluntary work for self fulfillment or duty to the crew and their missions. laughs
So so glad Deep Space Nine came along. I liked the original 60s era TV show, but man Next Generation was so... unrealistic/unbelievable, so happy go lucky sunshine/rainbows it made me despise it. I was born in the 80s and I even hated Next Generation. I did like the movies based off Next Generation though just not the TV show. Deep Space Nine added some reality/grit that the Next Generation series so badly lacked. Technology often didn't work, people had to get their hands dirty a lot, manual labor was necessary, rage inducing to a point a drink at the local pub on the space Station was almost required. It threw out that Utopian nonsense for reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marxism, Nazism and Fascism are ideologies for morons who fall for slogans of "Fairness." They're written in ways to convince morons that they're smart by using simple logic they can understand which in turn then often broken by Contradictions intentionally inserted so they can get away with 'lying' to their readers. However, because of this the books are very hard to stomach by anyone that actually thinks logically. I barely survived the first two chapters of Mine Campfychair (intentionally spelled wrong for fun and to avoid censorship) for example before I literally gave up on it's nonsense. I honestly dunno how TIK can take reading these books, they're horrible.
It's like when I watched Hitler The Greatest Story Never Told, 6 hours of fake history and half truths. Something he also said he would review eventually, and I feel sorry for him. I had to do a lot of digging to find where that pseudo documentary got some of it's sources, including audio quotations and such. It wasn't fun. For example it used an interview with a women who was rescued by the German Army saying the German Army was great, roughly. Found out the audio used came from the Wife of Hans Zundel a well known Hol**** Denier, and back at the time when I watched it, it wasn't sourced so you didn't know where that audio came from, I happened upon it because I was into reading/watching that subject matter at the time and literally stumbled upon it. As it was one of my favorite subjects to debate/argue with people who posted such content on youtube at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shanegooding4839 Well, I've been fighting Fascist, Nazis and Marxist on Social media since the early 2000s. They all behave like Cults, with some movements being literal Cults. They claim they're Scientific but are far more faith driven than their followers realize.
Often they're infiltrated by methods of thought linked to Plato, Hegel and a number of others men who when referring to nature were referring to the divine, God, Gaia, even Humans having Divinity within them. The Dialectic, Material Reality among other phrases often used to mask their spiritualism.
Sadly identity politics, Opposed vs Oppressor have the same traits, they must be right, anything that opposes their views must be wrong because they're the divine (those in the Right/Truth). It's a terrible why of academic study in short. Which too many movements fall into. They set the goal post and all evidence must support it, anything that doesn't must be wrong. So they will always come to false conclusions. It's why political Propaganda films are so terrible, why christain films are so terrible, why all films which place the Faith/Movement above truth/reality ends up being cringe to logic minded people.
1
-
1
-
@loganw1232 Issue isn't whether they're trans or not, the Issue is, so many Trans and Pro Trans Advocates are brainwashing people into thinking they are, making it easier and fast tracking them through transition process, creating a social network to goat them all, cheer them, praise them, make them feel good about doing it.
But the moment they change their mind, they moment they realize something isn't right. They're thrown out like trash.
Those Advocates are either lying through their teeth or are as well brainwashed by the cult. Thinking a boy who wants to play house instead of ball must be a girl inside. I'm using that example specifically because in kindergarten I did play house instead of ball, and I'm not trans. I enjoy cute things, fluffy adorable kittens, sometimes gardening, but I also love giant metal machines that blow stuff up.
Basically the methods they use to identify someone as a trans then put said child through the brainwashing process is going to easily lead to more false positives than positives, there is no if and or buts about it. They want to start young as well because the younger the more convincing a transition can be. They want these youths as PROOF that their beliefs are right by making boys into near prefect looking girls, vice versa. They can only achieve this by getting them young.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:36 that's Cringe, because the Labor Theory of Value is obsolete and has been since roughly the 1890s. It among other theory's of value used, often even today were all usurped by the Subjective Theory of Value, a theory built around every individual makes an individual decision on the value of an item. Subjective theory usurped, the Labor Theory, Use Theory, and just about all other "Value" theories that are required for Marxism to even make sense.
To sum it how Subjective Theory works and usurped the rest. You have $40k and you go to buy a truck, dealer tries to sell you a $100k truck, no matter what you do you can not get the seller to come down in price. So you walk out flipping them the bird. BTW this is a real scenario right now, automotive sales are down because prices are higher than consumers are willing to pay. So right now we have an Automotive and Housing Bubble with over priced homes and vehicles. Consumers refuse to pay those prices. Proof that in the end the BUYER holds the real power. Now this is something the seller rarely have to deal with, but it's a reality they're going to be learning hard when bankruptcy arrives. Basically this scenario shows that USE VALUE and LABOR VALUE are BS, as it still relies on the Subjective Opinion of the Buyer on the Value of Said Good. The Buyer in the end has all the power. Buyer chooses what to buy, when to buy, where to buy, and whether they're willing to even pay prices offered. It pulls the rug out of every other value system devised.
Sure some like Supply/Demand or Rarity Value beliefs may still apply, but they're still sub servant to Subjective as for example, painter makes 1 painting making it ultra rare the only painting by said artist, it's rarity doesn't' give it value as much as the subjective opinion of the art community on the artist themselves, it's more often the name and subjective view of the value of their work that makes art collectors want their works even if someone else's works are more rare, ie they're buying the name not rarity.
Speaking of ART it's also a great way of destroying Labor Theory as well, being a lot of work can go into a painting, but a cheap throw a paint bucket at the wall painting can sometimes sell easier than something someone spent weeks painting. Meaning Labor Time is irrelevant, it's all Subjective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
The left generally only knows history through the concept of Class or now days "Race" struggle. Marxonian in nature. In short, they know history, they just don't understand history. Which is why someone like Woopie Goldberg didn't seem to understand the Holoc***st and that the National Socialist were genuine 'racist.' Same for economics, they know economics but don't actually understand economics. Which is why the quote exist "If socialist understand economics, they wouldn't be socialist." They're glueless at understanding why that quote exist and claim "I understand economics!" So of course they're confused.
Their logic is flawed, and often broken, which is why something like the Horse Shoe Theory exist to explain why National Socialism, Fascism, and Communism are so similar, yet the left claims two of them to be on the FAR RIGHT of the political spectrum. They do not understand those ideologies, so they do not actually know that they're not really right wing ideologies but left wing, so they have to create a Logic Fallacy riddled theory to explain why they're so similar because they can not explain why they're similar because they don't actually understand them to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Woke couldn't stand the USA having cultural references to other cultures, as it goes against their narrative that these other groups are ignored in US History Classes. Well they were not ignored when I was growing up. Sure may not know the individual tribes names, but common most people can not remember the names of all the states, or presidents, but I can promise I knew about Crazy Horses, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. Heck if I recall Crazy Horse even has his own Mount Rushmore carved into a mountain, I visited there once as a Kid. We grew up on Dances with Wolves, The Last of the Dogman, The Last of the Mohicans. etc etc. All films meant to paint Native Americans literally as wronged people's and well national treasures that should be protected.
Ya... we totally ignore/pretend Native Americans did not exist, this is why we've honored them in our history books. Why monuments are built, sports teams bare their names, and rivers, valleys and even some states are named after tribes.
I find it ironic it's the people who hate American history who want to whitewash. My first sentence is why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@olympian3 To an extent, they were reading each other's homework literally, not metaphorically.
Most of the founders of the Italian Fascist Party were National Syndicalist, Marxist, or Anarcho-Syndicalist when the Fascist Manifesto was written in 1914. They wouldn't officially become a separate Party from the Italian Socialist party until just after the Great War. So many of them, including men who joined a bit later like Mussolini had Marxist Socialist euthos in their understanding of society and economics. Which heavily influenced their decisions on the State, and Economy, and their position toward Private Capital.
Nazis are a bit weird. They are literally National Socialist, and that isn't a lie. They basically did what Marx did, took what most people thought as Socialism at the time, and changed it to fit their own belief system.
Where as Marx added Social Classes to Socialism and built a movement around the Proletariat/working class, which wasn't really part of Socialism prior to Marx. Hitler replaced the Proletariat with the Race. And kept what he liked about Marxism and threw out the rest.
In turn many Marxist Social principles no longer mattered, but economically the Nazis were very Socialist, and even believed Marxist theorems like Shrinking Markets and The Rate to Profit to Fall. Which is why they believed State Control of the Economy was necessary because Capitalism was doomed to fail. Many historians in the 21st Century have begun to admit, that the concept of Private Property in Nazi Germany was essentially abolished, even when the party still paid lipservice to it, ie pretended it still existed. This is a position many left and right wing historians are supporting now days as well, relatively recently as well, the evidence is overwelming that the Nazis did not support Capitalist, or Private Property, nor cared for Free Trade Economics. Everything was Nationalized into the State, and any love the Party openly held toward Private Property was as I said Lipservice because they didn't want the SHEEP to think they were Marxist.
Before you say State Capitalism. Marx literally advocated State Capitalism, ie "State Capital" ie State owned Capital at one point in his life. So.. as I said, they were reading each other's homework.
It isn't a surprise either being the origins of the Italian Fascist Party, and even Hitler's earliest dives into politics as part of the People's State of Bavaria and later the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
1
-
You fail to understand the issue with Monopolies. For something to become a Monopoly it requires being a very large company to achieve it. Issue is, very large companies are also very inefficient. Meaning no matter what, there will always be someone able to out compete a large company. The company will in turn be forced to either buy out or get into a price war pretty much forever . This will dramatically effect a company's profits. Definitely in the modern age where companies rely on stock value, growing profits company must have more profits one year after the next. A modern large company couldn't survive like the Monopolies of the past in the late 19th Century could. They couldn't survive a price war, not like before.
Even then in the 19th Century a lot of these companies relied on the exploitation of state regulations. For example Henry Ford had to take the patent owners of the Auto Mobile to Court, because they would price the license to make automobiles so high that no other company could out compete the patent holders own automobile prices. People fail to realize that copyright laws, and intellectual property laws primarily exist for big business and they've been around since the 19th Century.
For example, it's easy for a Big Company to make the 20% modification difference to a product to make it legally no longer fall under copyright protection, but even if a small company does the same the big company will take them to court knowing they'd lose but the small company may not be able to pay the court cost and will just give in. It's like this on purpose. You see this heavily abused on Social media now as well, copyright law. In fact a few years ago the EU tried and I don't remember if they succeeded to strengthened it's Copyright Law specifically to protect Mainstream Media, making it illegal to copy/paste segments from news articles, using photos, film, etc all of it is protected by copyright law and owned by the news companies that upload them on the internet. How does that help small business? Well sorry but copyright was never created to protect small business. It was done to protect big media as small social media platforms were absolutely destroying them. The State sponsored and regulated media outlets were no longer able to keep the citizens in line with the "State's" wishes. The State is creating laws that allow big business to strong arm small business, and has been doing so for generations and in turn the State is part of the problem, often on the solution tragically. Why do you think gambling isn't completely outlawed? Too much money for the State to make off of Taxation, while turning a blind eye to it ruins people's lives.
Also WOW is a horrible example, when it comes to monopolization because it requires only a hand full of people to do it. For a company to do it would require thousands, hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of assets, and the abuse of state regulatory law. As without the assistance of the State, some guy in their garage can manufacture a superior Toaster. Today it's illegal in most parts of the USA to turn your home, or back yard, or garage or shed into a manufacturing facility, or to sell products from your home. Again this is done to LOCK the GATE on small business, you need to buy commercial and or industrial zoned land to start a business of any kind which is insanely expensive, which ensures a limited rise in competition for existing companies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Inflation is almost exclusively caused by State Centralized banks devaluing the currency supply by printing money to pay for things that the state can not afford. Basically instead of finding a way to fund something, they print more currency to fund it, which in turn makes the value of every IOU currency the state issues worth less. In turn, everyone in society becomes more poor in the process. This is where the phrase "Starving Billionaires" comes from because regimes like the USSR would literally give currency away while fixing prices low which made everyone have the illusion of being wealthy, yet in the stores, there were no food, no clothing, nothing to spend that money on. If your IOUs can not get you anything, then they're worthless, as they're just paper.
This is literally entirely the fault of the state. The State can only consume wealth, it doesn't make it. So when it spend money it either takes it from the private sector through Taxation or Inflation. Either way the Private sector suffers the most from it.
So in turn, the State is irresponsible with it's money so if it can not tax the citizen, it will flat out steal from the citizen through inflation.
However, Inflation should never be mistaken with rising prices. Some State Centralized banks have literally tried to change the definition of inflation to rising prices, which is false. Rising prices is the result, not the cause. btw this guy explains it quite well in his history video where he talks about the downfall of the Weimar Republic, he goes into much of the economics including how many economist throughout history fail to understand basic economics. Most "State" economics do not understand economics, which is why some political officials actually think inflation is good. But this is a very good video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFI8lfnh_VU <<
1
-
I think the best phrase I've heard describe the left accurately is "The left is not Liberal. They're Progressive. And Progressivism and Liberalism are two separate concepts." In fact much of the left's attitude and behavior is in opposed to Liberalism.
I would argue the Left in General has never been liberal and have only hijacked the word. They've convinced Liberals to side with them by distorting the very concept of Liberalism, so now we have what is called Left Wing Liberalism (Which is just progressivism and has little if anything to do with Liberalism) and Right Wing Liberalism, also known as Classic Liberalism, why is it Classic? Because it's the original Liberalism, before the Left hijacked the term and tried to create their pseudo Liberalism that isn't Liberalism.
Look up Economic Liberalism, which is the correct term for Capitalism for example, and economic liberalism requires a liberal society to work or function. So if you're living in a society where you're allowed to own private property, build your own business. Run a bakery or a bar, etc etc, not own by a king, noble or the state. You're already living in a Liberal society and you just don't know it as you've been warped in a way that you don't know it.
It's why the Political chart is more accurately presented as "Collectivism vs Individualism" and "Equality vs Liberty." Liberty ie Liberal, ie Liberalism/Libertarianism. The fact that right fights for individual rights, means the right fights for individual liberty, which ironically means the RIGHT are the true Liberals. To be conservative in a already Liberal Society is to be Liberal. Conservatism just means defending or upholding the status quo and if your society is already a liberal society then Conservatives are the Liberals.
This is why I think anyone who is on the right who calls themselves Conservative are "dumb" and do not understand what conservatism even is. As conservatism can literally mean totally different things counting on what part of the world you live in. So conservatism as a definition is fluid and doesn't really stand for anything.
I honestly think people prefer this confusion as well. If you have people on both sides of the political chart who don't know what liberalism or conservatism is, or what Left or Right even are, you end up with a giant Cluster F*** of confused, stupid, and ignorant people who can be dragged around on a leash and controlled.
There are a few videos by a youtuber called TIKhistory which I highly recommend.
Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism (He made this video because people don't understand the difference between the Public and Private Sector)
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments (goes into insane depth on the NS's political and economic beliefs)
Operation Keelhaul (3 video series, of a allied war crime which the US/UK government worked with the Soviets)
The Revolution guaranteed inflation - BankWars: Weimar Hyperinflation Episode 2 (Good for understanding the early split in the Socialist movement in the 1920s)
So, Hitler was a Communist in early 1919 (Reinforces the video above)
Karl Marx's Antisem**ism (Ya Anti Capitalism is Anti Sem**ism)
Fascism Defined (He actually presents the actual definition of Fascism from the Fascist themselves)
You will quickly realize how much of history has been distorted by Public Officials and Academics. When you understand these distortions and the tactics used it's far easier to see it happening again today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All Inflation is caused by the Central State. All currency used today is Fiat Currency, ie fake currency issued by the Central State Bank, in the case of the USA this is the Federal Reserve. Inflation is when the Money Supply is increased in turn devaluing the value of that Fiat Currency,. This can not happen with say Gold/Silver coins as their value can not be inflated as they hold a real physical value beyond what is minted onto the surface of the coin. Paper Money holds a Fake Value placed upon it by the State Central Bank, which can be devalued as it's paper, and holds no real value outside what the state places on it, ie it isn't real capital.
In turn, when the State increases the money supply it's only Fiat Currency which is effected, and people falsely assume this also effects coins but it doesn't, unless the coins are not made out of the materials they're claimed, like say iron coins vs gold/silver, or a gold coin that is just gold plated, even then it still has gold in it. So when an economist blames things like the great depression or hyper inflation from the 1920s on Gold, they're blatantly lying to you. It's only the FAKE money created by the State, ie the Dollars, the Marks, the Yens, etc that are effected by Inflation. It's why during periods of hyper inflation metal coins are the first thing that disappears from the economy, as everyone hordes them. Because after it settles, they're the only thing that holds real value, people will barter them off for the value of the metal not what's printed on the coin.
If you're suffering from INFLATION, it isn't greedy Capitalist, but actually greedy Socialist causing it. The selfish State, which decides to print more money to pay it's bills. 2020 saw a huge boom in spending by the Central States, while Income from Taxation tanked because of all the economic shutdowns, in turn now we see the result of their irresponsible behavior. The State should NEVER get involved in the economy, it always ends badly.
Basically, people who are supportive of all those economic shut downs, Thank you for ruining the lives of billions of people across the world, just so you feel a little safer.
1
-
1
-
Corporations technically can never be privately owned. Even if it's a group of owners, it's still collectively owned, and can never be considered private. Even if the original owner holds majority share, it's still not privately owned. There are reasons these companies have CEOs, and boards, who basically act like a pseudo government, making democratic decisions within the company. TIK isn't wrong when he said Corporations are mini states within the Greater State. They operate/function exactly the same way. Some even go so far to share collective ownership with employee's by offering them shares in the company, in turn making them part owners, something Amazon has done in the past, which is why I find it ironic that leftist hate Amazon so much. Which means for those employees, they are part of the company well beyond just working there.
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sherri T[A]P Me!! To Have [S]EX With Me I would still pick Heinrici over Manstein personally. Manstein lied a lot post war about his exploits, about as much as Montgomery. He often dramatically inflated the odds he was facing even during the war often by 2-3x the actual odds. Which many historians post war took as literal, which gave him a lot of "False" glory.
Meanwhile Heinrici was considered within the Army Germany's Mastermind of Defense. A relatively unknown General, mostly because he didn't boast about himself, and on top of that was utterly hated by people like Hitler, and Goering so he didn't normally get the best commands.
Yet, when the Oder Front loamed, with Berlin's destruction almost guaranteed, it was Heinrici who was called up to hold the front, at Guderian's request, and it took a lot of request as well because how disliked he was by high ranking members of the Nazi Party. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8atAD-MSu5M If it wasn't for how much he was praised by other German Generals he would likely be completely forgotten in history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christophertheriault3308 Honestly don't find the sob stories relevant. Failing of the employees for staying with a bad employer is a good example of how a bad business stays afloat longer than it should.
Employers are only as bad as their employees, and vice versa. Good employers who do not remove bad employees because they're too kind and good employees who stick with a bad employer out of a misguided since of loyalty are prime examples of a business that deserves to go under. Either way the business was being poorly run, regardless whether the owner was a good person or bad. If the situation was reversed and say your father was the shit employee and the employer was too kind to remove bad employees the business would of still suffered. Not saying your father was a shit employee, sounds to be the opposite. But you may get the point.
ie being exploited has nothing to do with who is at the top in short. A Business can be exploited by employees as much as the employers. I mean my employer is one of the kind hearted ones, he literally waited one day the whole day watching a coworker's station, the person snuck out without clocking out, wasn't the first time. I chitchatted with him and he told me "If he doesn't show up by 1:30PM, he is regrettably fired." Be it this wasn't the first time the guy snuck out without clocking out. He doesn't like laying people off, and even has a self supervised view on his employees, ie he has a hands off attitude if you get the job done that is all he cares about. As he said "I learned long ago, stay out of people's way, they know what they're doing more than I do."
Issue is does he deserve to get his business taken from him because by the socialist view all business owners are capitalist, regardless... so...
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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 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 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
-
@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
"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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MuxauJ7 Russian economy under the Soviet Union was an illusion. As the Russian speaking Ukrainian who host the Ushanka Show on youtube stated. In the Soviet Union he said they were considered more poor than they are now, it was just a confirmable poor, you didn't have to worry about a meal, but you also couldn't afford anything of luxury. Being your average Soviet Citizen had less than 1/20th the income of an American by the 1980s, well... it's almost statistically impossible to be worse than 1/20th today.
TIKhistory another youtube channel described the USSR as a 50 year long humanitarian disaster. Which never recovered from the Russian Civil War, and was mortally wounded by the 2nd World War. She bled herself dry trying to compete militarily and economically with other world powers at the expense of her people. Even by the 1980s you still had many house holds in the USSR living under the same roof because despite attempts to build plenty of housing it still wasn't enough.
Reason Russia is poor today has nothing to do with the west, and everything to do with those running the country. If the USA was out to destroy all Communism China wouldn't of seen one of the largest economic booms in world history. Issue was the USSR after WWII pretty much broke all it's agreements with the west, and even used liberated western POWs as hostages for some political arm twisting. I also find it funny you use Libya as an example when the west actually back communist revolutionaries, yes the rebels who the French/Americans were arming were communist in Libya.
Sure the USA has done a lot of stupid, and often horrible things, I've never given my country a pass for it, you dont' want to know what it feels like being called Unpatriotic like I did in high school for being against the Iraq invasion before the invasion even started.... BUT that doesn't give Russia a Get out of Jail Free Card. The USSR wasn't a shining light in the world, she enslaved hundreds of millions of people across easten Europe and Eurasia. Putin's Russia today is nothing compared to the USSR, and the USSR wasn't even the USSR.
I will circle back to what The Ushanka Show said when referring to poverty in Ukraine and Russia, as he said it was a Comfortable Poor under the USSR, but he'd prefer living free even if it meant risking missing a meal, and that is something you'd never be able to do in the USSR when he was growing up, his entire family lived in poverty for generations and were given zero choice over the matter. Most of his family is far better off post collapse of the USSR than it was back then. If Ukraine can do it Russia should also have been able to, but that is Russia's failure as a nation. As I said, if China can get away with becoming an economic powerhouse despite it's hostility with the west, Russia has ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for it's failures.
Great video by TIKhistory if you are interested. He is an anti communist, anti socialist, and anti fascist historian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w
1
-
@MuxauJ7 Your data isn't true though. The Socialist Calculation Fallacy makes any statistical date from the Soviet Era by default not reliable. For example. This is why official GDP figures from the Soviet Union are a joke, and very likely grossly exaggerated, and also why the state of Russia's economy once opened to the world market shrank dramatically because it's old GPD figures were that, an illusion, not real output. It wasn't because the economy collapsed, it was because the economy didn't exist in the first place, everything was dictated by the state, it had no real economy. It's also why when the USSR collapsed those who had real capital started taking over many industries, mobsters/gangsters for example, who dominated the black market in Russia, the only REAL economy that existed in the Soviet Union You can not expect any country on earth to recover from such a shock in ten or even twenty years. Again, this isn't the west's fault. It's the Russian governments fault, from before the collapse, and post.
It circles back to buying power. But with a country that operated with fixed prices while always being under consumer goods shortages, unless you lived in major cities in Russia.. you can not actually calculate how well off someone actually was. Based on the estimated value of the ruble though. As I said, a Russian's Per Capita was literally 1/20th that of an American by the 1980s. This is why when McDonalds opened in Russia in the early 1990s it cost half a days wage to buy a single meal there. That is how grossly under paid Russians were in the Soviet Union. How badly fixed prices kept consumer cost low. For Russians the 1990s should of been a huge wakeup call for how broken the Soviet system actually was.
It isn't that the Soviet citizen had a better life, it's the state fixed the game to make it feel like they had a better life. As I said the Ushanka Show stated it was a Comfortable Poor. The system was set up to make you not feel as poor as you actually were, but Soviet citizens were literally dirt poor. Mean while the state was bleeding it's resources/reserves to keep it going. Being the Ruble itself was worthless on the international market the USSR to conduct any foreign trade whatsoever relied entirely on hard capital, gold, silver, platinum, titanium, and other goods to trade with other countries for goods that the Soviet Union couldn't provide which is why Stalin had to trade grain and starve millions for example just to get heavy equipment to help boost the industrial sector. Issue is, those rare metals eventually run out, gold reserves don't last forever, and you can not take consumer goods out of the economy without making citizens more poor to trade with either.
Also the whole Chinese relations thing has more to do with bad relations between the USSR and China, and this goes back to the Russian "Liberation" then pillaging of Manchuria, where the Soviet Union ripped up literally everything of value in the territories they 'liberated' from the Japanese. This left a very bad taste in the Chinese's mouths for generations they couldn't trust the Soviet Union. Only really in the past twenty years has China started leaning on Russia's shoulders again but only because China has ambitions and needs allies as her ambitions goes against pretty much every country that surrounds here including other Communist countries like Vietnam. In short, China views Russia today as a watch dog to guard her back door and doesn't actually give a f*** what happens to Russia, Putin or it's people. According to China Watch there seems to be talks among people in the CCP that some of them might actually be looking forward to Russia possibly losing as having Russia as a dependent puppet state would make the CCP very happy.
1
-
@timewarp1994 Differences? TIKhistory has a few good videos on the subject. However there are a few fundamental differences that result in radical different views on society itself.
1. Race: Marxist and Fascist do not build their ideology around The Race. Nazis do. Though Fascist like Mussolini, Stalin and Marx can be Racist the ideologies they created were not built on a foundation of Racism. Nazism however is. If you can not remove Racism from Nazism as it's the literal core. It would be like removing Classism from Marxism, it wouldn't be Marxism anymore or removing Nationalism from Fascism. For Fascist this isn't the case. Fascist Italy had 10,000 Jews within the Fascist Party itself. Even after 1938 when Mussolini instituted antisemitic laws to please Hitler because he was trying to ally himself with Hitler, those laws didn't effect Veterans, or Jews who were members of the Fascist Party, by extension also their families. Mussolini was like Marx, he was Religiously Anti-Semitic, not Racially Anti-Semitic. So Ethnic Jews were not targeted as long as they were not Religiously Jewish.
2. Nationalism: For Nazis the Race was the Nation. For Fascist the Nation is the Nation, not a Race, it's the history, the people, and that history/people isn't defined by a "Race." Also Fascism wasn't always Nationalistic. It's actually why the Italian Fascist Party was the Italian National Fascist Party. The first Fascist Manifesto from 1914 was for an Internationalist Revolutionary Manifesto, as the first Fascist were originally Revolutionary and Anarcho Syndicalist. So the Fascist Party was literally the Italian National League/Union when translated directly. Though I'd argue by this point Fascism and Nationalism were no longer separable but the movement was originally founded by Internationalist. Which is a fun bit of trivia. Nazis were Nationalist literally from the get go. The German Worker's Party were Nationalist/Racist/Anti Communist/Anti Capitalist/ Anti Semitic before Hitler joined the party the following summer of it's foundation.
3. Syndicalism/Corporatism. Pretty much doesn't exist in Nazi Germany. But it's the economic core of Fascism. It's what Fascist strive for. A Syndicalist or Corporatist centric economy but for the Nation, not the "Workers." Basically all business and trade unions are merged together into large corporate bodies under the control of the state. The Nazis didn't really believe this too much, though they did do it some what but in different ways. I will explain in the next point.
4. Socialization: This is one of the corner stones of Nazism. Rather than Syndicalism or Corporatism of Fascism and Marxism. Hitler believed the State Appropriation of Land/Property wasn't really necessary if he could Socialize the People themselves. This is why the Nazis didn't exactly directly take control of business. They just made sure they were Nazified. Through the process of Gleichshaltung, or Coordination of Society. Basically the Nazis made sure all business were made loyal to the party. Business owners who were deemed a threat were removed, workers who we deemed a threat were removed, anyone deemed a threat were removed. But after said fact said business were allowed to operate with some autonomy. This is where Socialization takes effect, similar to how you socialize a kitten or puppy. The Nazis took direct control over all youth/women's organizations, recreational organizations, trade unions, doctors unions, veterans leagues, schools, etc. The list of Nazi versions of these kind of organizations are too numerous to name off sadly. Anything that was considered key to Social Life was directly taken over by the party. So all such Social organizations can ensure no other bodies can influence society. Party had absolute direct control of the people as a result. The concept of a Private Life no longer existed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1