General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "RE: NS is Socialism | Responding to your counterarguments and Further Explanation" video.

The dichotomy between collectivist and individualist is a relatively recent idea. It wasn’t a means of differentiating conservative from leftist especially not in Europe before the rise of contemporary anarcho-libertarianism.
2
On the contrary Hitler argued that capitalism was impossible in a democracy because it denied those who had worked their way to the top the fruits of their labor forcing them to give rights to workers and ultimately degenerated into Socialism. Hitler privatized more industry than anyone else during the 1930s. Nazi policies also protected private property and traditional power structures. Being authoritarian historically is more of a conservative attribute then something that has been practice by the left. Authoritarianism existed long before you’re even was a left. Louis the 14th of France was an authoritarian who instituted strong government controls over his country. Are you seriously going to say that he was a communist? LOL
2
@FrankGrauStudio The wealth of Bernie Sanders: again hypocrisy of individuals doesn’t change the principles of the ideology. The principles don’t have to function in the real world to exist on paper. Indeed it is a hallmark of ideology that very often they don’t. Again this is something you also see you in anarcho capitalist ideology.
1
The_Jaguar_ Knight History is complicated. And events like the French Revolution don’t generally have only a small number of very consistent results.
1
@tipsy09 If we’re going to try to understand what Nazism is as an ideology we can’t use the standard of simply “whatever I disagree with I’m going to call Nazi because Nazi is something people don’t like.” We have to look historically at how ideologies have developed and been described.
1
@Lindedelaciencia They are not. What people don’t often report is the speech that Hitler delivered at the same conference of Bamberg, which he used to outmaneuver the remaining true leftists in the Nazi party that issued the platform transforming the party into a right wing authoritarian organization.
1
There’s no “subtle” distinction. The differences between Nazism and economic leftism are fundamental and total. The Nazis supported the protection of traditional property holding classes, private property, traditional authoritarian power structures, nationalism and aggressive warfare. Economic leftists support redistribution of wealth, class conflict, internationalism, and the equality of all people.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No they didn’t support Jewish property holding because Jews were deemed to be subhuman and the force behind communism which everyone knows is against private property. But it’s simply a fact that they did protect the property of Aryan aristocrats and capitalists.
1
@FrankGrauStudio The Nazis supported the exact same authoritarian power structures that had always ruled Germany: a powerful and far reaching state, an aristocracy of birth, and a capitalist overlord class that ran its industry. Authoritarianism has a much longer history on the right than it does on the left.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Leftist support redistribution of wealth so that everyone is treated according to their needs under the presumption of the equality of all people. The Nazis only re-distributed wealth by theft from racial enemies to a supposedly superior race without regard to the needs of anyone but simply because they believed “inferior” races didn’t have a right to live. They violently opposed leftist redistribution of wealth from wealthy Aryans to anyone else including other aryans.
1
@FrankGrauStudio The left has viewed nationalism as an obstacle to progress by dividing people against each other. Nationalism is the whole point of fascism. The Nazis violently opposed the internationalism of leftism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Denial of class conflict denies a core principle of the left. Nazi ideology bitterly opposed the concept of class conflict because it divided the master race against itself along economic class lines when Hitler wanted Aryans to be one united people.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Gangsters hijacked leftist governments and turned socialist states into a personal racket. This happens over and over again because Socialism is a Utopian ideology that fails to account for human nature and its endless potential for corruption, but that doesn’t change the tenants of the ideology which are to bring about equality between all people. Even the gangsters like Stalin were careful to use the language of equality while they were exploiting their people for this reason. It’s entirely different with Nazis and other fascists. They were very explicit In opposing equality as a simply means for “Jewish bolsheviks” to destroy the achievements and power of the master race.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Yes and targeting Jews for theft of their property is not consistent with any leftist ideology. Every political system is potentially vulnerable to gangsters like Joseph Stalin. But in comparing Nazi and communist ideology only the communist valid ideological principle is to eliminate classes. The Nazis avowed principle was to prevent the elimination of classes. And the Bolshevik elite notwithstanding the Soviets did far more redistribution of wealth then did the Nazis. Every state told its industry how it should be run an organized during World War II. By your measure capitalism didn’t exist in any of the major powers of World War II. And you know that’s ridiculous. This is another example of you’re trying to force your anachronistic expectations of utopian anarco-capitalism on a past where no one even tried to make it happen. And you’re ignoring the fact that Germany had been authoritarian with extensive private industry long before the Nazis. Do you think that Krupp didn’t exist before Hitler? German capitalist supported the Nazis and were rewarded with more profits. Not fitting your cult’s utopian definition of capitalism which didn’t exist at the time doesn’t make them into socialists. You think it’s false that authoritarianism has so much longer history in conservative states simply because there have been socialist authoritarian states? LOL So leftist ideology as we know it today didn’t even exist before the French Revolution. Now you’re claiming that the appearance of left estates when it happened had some kind of power to alter the space-time continuum and make the entire history of authoritarianism for hundreds of years before disappear? Or perhaps you’re saying that when socialist states finally arrived they also acquired a time machine and sent revolutionaries back to 17th century France and convinced Louis the 14th to become a socialist. Why didn’t he ever talk about this or do anything else consistent with left ideology in that case? He was definitely authoritarian. Come on seriously you just don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s ludicrous. By the way you’re wrong about the origin of the left right political spectrum. Derives from the position of representatives on the French national assembly during the French revolution, which since the Revolution helped give rise to both fascism and leftism, is a very appropriate And meaningful spectrum to use in describing ideology appearing since the French Revolution. Your problem is you just can’t understand the history of ideology or much of anything about any ideology simply by trying to read through all of history your narrow cult anarcho-capitalist “ideas” Whether or not an ideological principle to red-distribute wealth In an effort to reduce or eliminate economic classes is correct doesn’t change the fact that IT HAS HAPPENED a lot in socialist states as state policy. The Nazis actually tried to stop it from happening. And it was never a tenant of their ideology. This is a key point that you keep trying to avoid because you know that you can’t portray the Nazis as leftist unless you can avoid this truth. The Nazis reason for stealing from Jews doesn’t mitigate the immorality of doing so but it does tell you what the ideological motivation was. And it couldn’t have been Leftist unless they were targeting economic classes instead of only racial enemies. Only targeting a group for theft because of their race is simply contrary to leftist principles and it doesn’t help further the leftist goal of eliminating economic classes at all. And the Nazis didn’t take wealth away from non-Jews any more than did Western Democracies at the time. In fact they did less of it than Franklin Roosevelt. Again the existence of a bolshevik elite made up of hypocritical gangsters who took advantage of the revolution in the Soviet union doesn’t change leftist ideology or the fact that the bolsheviks did far more actual confiscation and redistribution of wealth than the Nazis and differed radically from the Nazis in re-distributing in order to try to eliminate economic classes. What the state does with wealth and the reasons for it do matter in understanding the ideology. Internationalism has been a core principle of leftist ideology since it’s inception. It’s always been an anathema to fascist ideology. Russia is no longer socialist and the existence of nationalism has never been completely stamped out in socialist states anyway. When the Soviets needed to win the war they tapped into Russian nationalism as a means to rally their people against the Germans. That doesn’t make nationalism a component of socialist thought or change the fact that it’s contrary to socialist ideology. The Chinese have dropped most of their socialist policies and are more authoritarian capitalist in practice than they are truly socialist. But you define leftism as simply equivalent to any authoritarianism in an absurd ahistorical manner which makes everything but your own anarcho-capitalism socialist. So your “analysis” isn’t to be taken seriously. It would have us believe that there were leftist states all over the world hundreds of years before the left as we know it was even started and that European monarchs such as Frederick the Great and Louis the 14th were socialists simply because they were authoritarian. LOL “So the Nazis were fine with a globalist agenda of the right?” What are you talking about? Can you give an example of any right wing effort to unite workers across the world for Socialism? If they’re not doing that, It’s not Internationalism. It’s something that is core to Nazi ideology called “global conquest” by force, not in order to unite any economic classes across geographical boundaries, but in order to take from everyone what rightly belongs only to the master race according to the tenants of fascist ideology, which is completely in conflict with Leftist Internationalism you dufus. Yes economic class conflict exists in leftist ideology and only in leftist ideology. It’s not in Nazism or other fascism. Hitler had people killed for advocating it. “Unless one was a jew.” No that’s not an exception because Nazi persecution of Jews wasn’t about economic class warfare at all. It was about targeting “racial enemies.” Your analogy about fish is ridiculous, Because it tries to ignore the ideological motivation for attacks on the Jews while trying to identify the ideology of the attackers. In affect you’re saying that all we have to know is that they were attacked not what the ideological purpose of the attack was: when we’re trying to determine not just that they were attacked but the ideology of the attackers. Laughable! Gangsters usually start socialist regimes from the outset? So now you’re going to use the no true Scotsman fallacy yet again to make Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and even Leon Trotsky disappear from history with their places to be taken by Stalin as much more than what he actually was? LOL And Socialism isn’t the only utopian ideology without practical examples for its full realization. The same could be said for the existence of actual anarcho-capitalist societies. By your own standard therefore your ideology of anarcho-capitalism is not real because whenever people try it it doesn’t work as stated. In fact the results of attempting capitalism without any government have simply been anarchy and loss of liberty for everyone but a few. “ My point exactly” Thus again you missed the point. Stalin was an individual who Diverted socialism from its avowed purpose. That doesn’t change the ideology. On the other hand Hitler’s gangsterism was entirely consistent with Nazi ideology. With leftist and Nazi ideology we are talking about two entirely different things. That’s factually incorrect to say that the Nazis were fine with equality except where Jews were concerned. Hitler for instance explicitly stated that it would be wrong to take the wealth of Aryan business leaders and give it to anyone else, even other Aryans. He said that wealthy Aryans had earned their power and position due to superior ability and achievement and that to confiscate their wealth would unjustly deny them what was theirs by right. He attacked democracy for its tendency to try to take away the power, wealth, and position earned by capitalist elites saying that it was thereby creating a path to communism. That was the attack he used against the United States in particular to suggest it the US was led by a conspiracy of Communist Jews.
1
If you try to base your identification of an ideology on how consistently its principles are applied by individuals rather than on the principles themselves you’ll never be able to figure out what the ideology’s principles are.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It doesn’t beg the question because only the Nazis among movements that use the word socialist in their name have racial enemies in their principles. The others have principles opposed to such concepts and call for the equality of all people. The concept of racial enemies Fits the fascist notion of nationalism. It doesn’t fit Leftist Internationalism and unity of the working class worldwide. The concept of racial enemies defies socialist ideas of the improvement of all people and providing for each according to their needs. It flies in the face of such principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not a strawman. Until the war began the Nazis did less much less to control their economy then did for instance the United States, actually privatizing more industry than western democracies at the time.
1
No the reason is right wing Nazi ideology explained by Adolf Hitler among others as such. The Nazis explicitly rejected core leftist ideological principles like class conflict, redistribution of wealth according to need and the equality of all people. They adhered to right wing ideological tenants such as traditional authoritarian statism, Nationalism, War of conquest, and the protection of property and property holding classes. People who say that authoritarianism by itself makes something leftist simply don’t have any idea of the history of authoritarianism
1
@FrankGrauStudio The existence of authoritarianism long before Nazism in Germany is relevant because it proves that authoritarianism isn’t necessarily Leftist. It proves that the Nazis were actually being conservative not radical in maintaining traditional authoritarian power in Germany. You people would have us believe that the only way you can be authoritarian is to be leftist Your authoritarianism has a very long history as a traditional way to organize German society. It is a principle of German conservatism dating back hundreds of years. And again the notion that the only way you can be authoritarian is to be leftist reflects your anachronistic anarcho libertarian ideology and ignorance of history.
1
@FrankGrauStudio well this deal they made with the devil was a capitalistic deal. They didn’t abandon capitalism in order to make that deal. They made a deal which improved their profits and secured their property. Somehow in your mind this makes them socialist even though their property wasn’t taken away or redistributed. No that makes them and their country not leftist. But you people be like “they didn’t follow leftist principles because they were corrupt so that makes them Leftist.” Call it whatever you will but if they didn’t follow leftist principles they’re not leftist. This sounds like you’re speaking from the perspective of the kind of utopianism that we see in Marxism except in this case begging the question that it can’t be capitalistic unless it’s pure idealized capitalism which never actually exist in reality.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No it’s different because what the bolsheviks did with their political and economic policy was radically different and indeed a profound shift to the left from what existed in czarist Russia for hundreds of years before Whereas Hitler’s economic and political policies were very consistent with traditional German authoritarianism that long pre-dated his regime. He didn’t shift his country to the left the way the bolsheviks did their country. Nazism was conservative in the sense of preserving German government traditions and also conservative in preserving German capitalism indeed even invigorating it. The Nazis certainly didn’t nationalize virtually all industry And redistribute wealth on a vast scale the way the bolsheviks did. They didn’t do the things that leftists do according to any leftist principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Again it’s not an ad hominem attack to point out That you’re using an Anachronistic standard by which something can be considered capitalist only if it meets a definition of capitalism that no one practiced or knew about at the time or any othier time. It’s actually pointing out that saying something isn’t capitalist unless it meets an anarcho capitalist definition of capitalism is just the no true Scotsman fallacy. Your profound ignorance of the history of widespread authoritarian capitalism all throughout Western Europe for hundreds of years prior to the development of the first leftist thought doesn’t mean that there is a lack of evidence for these authoritarian capitalist regimes. They were in just about every European country. OK there were no leftist regimes before the French revolution not unless you consider the American republic which practice something much closer to classical liberalism than anything we would call leftist today. The right can hardly claim credit for Developing natural rights into the liberalizing and socially progressive doctrine that it became during the enlightenment and French Revolution. Such ideas were alien to and repressed by traditional German conservatism long before the Nazis. So in blocking the development of such thought in Germany conservatives from the Junker class to Adolf Hitler were maintaining German conservatism. Conservatives all over Europe at the time denounced the application of such principles in the United States at the time as leftism not conservatism. Again you’re using your anachronistic present day understanding to determine what was conservative in the past. OK I’ll rephrase: perhaps you’re suggesting that leftists acquired a Time Machine and persuaded Louis the 14th to become a leftist, Because other leftist ideas didn’t exist at the time either. Well the fact that it was a division in the French national assembly doesn’t make it itrelevant. Within the French assembly it was a division not just on where people were sitting but on their political ideology. Conservatives were sitting together on the right side of the assembly and Leftists were sitting on the left side together. So yes from its origin the left right distinction was always talking about ideological differences. It shows your ignorance of history and the foundations of fascist ideology that you think that fascism suddenly appeared in Italy in the 20th century and that it couldn’t have origins dating back to the French revolution simply because the word fascist hadn’t yet been coined. But the fascist origins in the French Revolution, Include the way in which the French revolution unleashed nationalism in a way never before seen and also identity based on a mythical sense of identity located within the past. It wasn’t just the authoritarianism of the French revolution but authoritarianism in the service of the nation and its “tribe” rather than the sovereign which laid the foundation for fascism. The French revolution was a proteus that also gave rise to socialism with other ingredients that it also provided. The difference is you’re the only one trying to read history through a narrow anachronistic ideological lens. I’m not a socialist and I don’t practice any other utopian ideology. I interpret history by considering all the evidence objectively Before drawing any conclusions the way an ideologue such as yourself, a fascist, or a socialist would.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not an instance of the no true Scotsman fallacy when we’ve identified the consistent application of leftist principles in all other ideologies that use the word socialist but not with an Nazism and conclude that Nazism wasn’t like the others, because the no true Scotsman fallacy holds that you create a position where it’s impossible for anything to meet the standard. And in this case I’ve shown you that most everything does EXCEPT for the one that you’re falsely claiming is leftist.
1
@FrankGrauStudio You can say that he was fine with the quality among areas but that’s not accurate. He wasn’t fine with forcing equality on Aryans the way leftists Consistently have.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Confiscating wealth isn’t leftist unless it’s done to advance leftist goals of equality for all and that wasn’t the goal, in fact that was the opposite of the goal, of Nazism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio nazi redistribution of wealth from all Jews to Aryans doesn’t refute my argument in the least: it actually strengthens my argument because it was only done to advance the Aryan race and not against economic class enemies in order to bring about social equality for all. The Nazi ideology was against that leftist principle of equality and so they didn’t use redistribution for that purpose only to enrich Aryans.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not a false premise that leftist ideology is based on economic class conflict and the elimination of economic classes. That’s in all leftist thought. Can you identify any leftist theory defending racism? It’s only in fascism. The fact that some leftists have also been racist doesn’t change the theory of the ideology, the written principles that describe what leftism is. It just makes them hypocrites
1
@FrankGrauStudio Not every socialist leader has diverted the state from socialist ideological principles. But even if they had it wouldn’t change the ideology itself. It would just prove that it hasn’t been realized in the real world and the same could be said of anarcho capitalism. That is one thing that sets Nazism apart from most other ideology: It has been realized rather consistently in the real world and that’s one of the great tragedies of history
1
@FrankGrauStudio American identity politics since the 1960s has abandoned core leftist ideas Of equality for all. As such I think it does have more in common with fascism then true leftism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work. I didn’t say that statist capitalism doesn’t work
1
@FrankGrauStudio You think it’s laughable to say that anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work while citing examples of state capitalism to prove its success? Where is your example of an anarcho capitalist society that does work? Can you provide even one?
1
You’re wrong about the ideologies of the 19th century. It was much more complicated. There were different varieties of conservatives and liberalism and other ideologies that developed throughout the century. Through the mid 19th century, conservatism for instance did not mean “hands off” the economy. That would be a better description of early liberalism in fact. Conservatism throughout most of the 19th century and even into the 20th century meant traditional authoritarian structures and heavy state control over many things including the economy.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Hitler blamed only Jews and other supposedly inferior people for Germany’s economic problems and that’s contrary to principles basic to leftist thought. Leftist thought doesn’t target race enemies and blame them for economic problems. It attributes economic problems to the existence of economic classes regardless of race. Targeting racial enemies and blaming them for economic problems doesn’t locate the source of the problem in the existence of economic classes the way leftists would and always have. In targeting racial enemies and blaming Them Hitler wasn’t blaming Germany’s economic problems on the disproportionate holding of wealth but rather on the holding of anything by the wrong people. He didn’t have a problem with an unequal distribution of wealth between Aryans and that just doesn’t fit leftist ideology. He didn’t even want inferior people to exist much less hold any property
1
@FrankGrauStudio Both. It should be obvious that leftist failure to completely remove nationalist feelings doesn’t change their ideological principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio LOL you’re trying to identify leftist ideological principles while dismissing all of the authors of the actual principles and saying that we can only consider political leaders who may or may not have adhered to the principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio But there is one thing about the Nazis which set them apart from most other ideologies: their political leaders were very consistent in applying the principles of their ideology. Both the theory and practice of Nazism show that it’s simply not a leftist ideology.
1
@colebehnke7767 it would look like a Satanic Jesus or John D Rockefeller, declaring his undying support for communism. It’s a non sequitur, because the basis of Marxist ideology is explicitly against racism among other things. And I’ve studied the history of ideology in the 19th century in graduate school so I think I do know what I’m talking about-actually quite a bit more than you, I’m sure given your petulant, ignorant way of speaking.
1
There are however common principles that identify leftist ideology. If something doesn’t have any of them it’s not economically left no matter what its name is.
1
Yeah that should tell you right there that the assertion that fascism is Socialism is wrong. Of course Henry Ford wasn’t an economic leftist. That would’ve been entirely contrary to his interests and against everything he did throughout his life. And he didn’t subscribe to the beliefs of other people associated with the left either.
1
@kingorange7739 They don’t. Left his policies would confiscate most of their wealth and I don’t know of any rich person who is supporting that today. Do you?
1
@phillip3495 So you just sad that free enterprise unchecked by organized labor is conservatism. Actual fascist oppose labor unions bed early. But yet you’re claiming that labor unions are fascist. Labor unions historically have been defended by the left and are usually identified with the left. I think you’re really confused
1
@kingorange7739 Leftist ideological principles are limited to the Marxists. Authoritarianism isn’t limited to the left. Hitler didn’t enact leftist economic policies
1
@kingorange7739 Well in a sense Marxism can’t pre-date Karl Marx. But the foundations of Marxism are laid down during the enlightenment in Western Europe and then in the French revolution. These are also the foundations of all other forms of Socialism. You can’t treat Marx and his ideas is if they had no foundation before Marx was alive: that’s ludicrous and easily disproved. You can’t understand what Socialism is without identifying its core ideological principles shared by all branches of socialism. You can’t determine what is and isn’t Socialism without understanding those unifying principles.
1
@phillip3495 Maybe you should’ve told that to Hitler because he destroyed worker formed labor unions and replaced them with government representatives that were just a sham. Yes you have a reasonable definition of conservativism Insofar as it goes but you don’t know what institutions were being preserved in Italy and Germany by the fascists. You’re trying to assert a mythical past where everyone was free of authoritarian rule all over the world so that anyone who didn’t try to conserve this supposed past can’t be conservative. But the reality is that Italy and Germany were authoritarian countries before fascists arrived in either one and that capitalism functioned in both under traditional authoritarian control. Hitler argued that capitalism couldn’t work unless a ruling elite was in charge. He argued that giving everyone liberty would destroy capitalism and turn the country to communism, by denying the power and control that property holders had earned through superior ability and effort.
1
You have to use “critical thinking skills” to see past the objections of so-called proponents of democracy who say that east Germany wasn’t really democratic when it called itself the German democratic republic and that North Korea isn’t really democratic when they say that they are the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We need someone who will stand up and say to all these so-called democrats that they are just speaking as right wing partisans when they say that east Germany and North Korea aren’t true democracies. In truth they are just a kind of democracy without any democratic principles. You can in fact he totally against all democratic principles and still be a democracy.
1
Well conservatives were not classical liberals in favor of reducing the state’s role in the economy that hardly makes them the socialists they defined as enemies of the state/monarchy. Some of them such as Bismarck enacted measures to take care of factory workers in order to stop not bring about socialism.
1
@MrYukoncornileus To my knowledge it’s only ever said to be big tent in terms of including all people throughout the world but not all ideologies
1
The_Jaguar_ Knight It’s a very simplistic reading of history which looks at the beginning for something and says that its beginning forever determines that it will stay headed in the same direction. You can argue that nationalism starts out as a radical movement because it’s unleashed by the French revolution. But counter revolution is also released by the French revolution and does the initial appearance of nationalism dictate the motivation of all future nationalists? Why would we think that it would? Why couldn’t nationalism be inspired by the desire to restore something thought to have been lost from the past such as a pre-monarchical identity for the people? Listening to you people, we can’t help but form in the opinion that you already have your conclusion and you’re going on a fishing expedition through history desperately trying to justify it.
1
@TheDoats Hitler abhorred democracy and said that it was a sure path to socialism. He was as bitter an opponent of western democratic values of tolerance and equality before the law as anyone could be. You’re talking to pure nonsense.
1
The_Jaguar_ Knight And even if nationalism was forever determined by its beginning to be radical in every case that wouldn’t dictate that every ideology that incorporated it had to follow a radical policy program. It wouldn’t make a conservative policy program leftist just because it’s proponents espoused a radical belief, If in fact that’s what it actually was at the time and place.
1
“Collectivist ideology” is a contemporary buzz phrase of libertarians that doesn’t mean much in the 19th century or early 20th century. It’s a way to make sweeping generalizations which ignore the principles of ideology from the past in order to categorize virtually everything that involves government as socialist.
1
There’s more than one kind of socialism but ideology which directly contradicts founding principles of Socialism can’t be Socialist. You simply don’t have in Nazism an ideology that tries to provide for everyone according to need by redistribution of wealth. You may have something more akin to crony capitalism or mercantilism than what modern libertarians define as capitalism but modern ideologue libertarian definitions of capitalism don’t dictate history. And the reality is that historical capitalism has never included a perfectly free market where the state does absolutely nothing. Throughout most of its history in the west capitalism has prevailed under conservative authoritarian states. Authoritarianism has not necessarily been a radical force. It’s usually been one used to maintain the power of established elites. Likewise controls over the economy have usually been used historically to keep wealth in the hands of established elites. Ruling elites have had a disincentive to keep their hands off the economy because that can allow more social mobility and a loss of power by those elites.
1
@tipsy09 No it’s what anyone who understands the basic principles of conservative versus leftist ideologies can instantly see
1
Nazism is hardly a form of utopianism not by advocating the murder or enslavement of most people in the world
1
@keenkingjames Traditional authoritarianism isn’t collectivist in that sense. It’s not taking away freedom in order to provide security necessarily. It’s taking away freedom in order to enhance the power of the state and its ruling elite. This can often result in aggressive warfare which has frequently made the lives of every day citizens a lot less secure. The concept of collectivism you are using is a relatively recent idea which didn’t exist even during the 1940s. It certainly doesn’t describe all forms of group identity or authoritarian government. Traditional authoritarian structures Subordinated the individual to rulers making them part of something greater than themselves but not equal participants in it. Indeed they made them entirely subject to the ruler. Leftists only do this when gangsters like Stalin hijack their revolution, because unlike conservative authoritarianism, leftist ideology espouses the equality of all people. Leftist ideology is collectivist but not in the same sense of espousing hierarchy of people from least to best/most noble. Leftist ideology denies distinctions between people and indeed individual personality which Nazism and other right wing authoritarianism does not.
1
You have to be a special kind of stupid not to read anything other than a name and make sweeping assumptions about what it means when you could be very wrong as you are in this case.
1
@nicknolte8671 I’m glad you’re here to correct all of this insidious nonsense from the right and crazy anarcho libertarians with their utopian pretensions that their beliefs can’t be associated with anything bad leading them to deny reality. You should start your own channel to debunk this nonsense about Nazism.
1
@nicknolte8671 Brilliant rebuttal! Bravo!
1
Yes they’re enemies: ideological enemies. Their beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. So how on earth can you think that they have the same ideology?
1
@TheDoats Socialism based Not based on class is like gin not based on alcohol. The whole point of the ideology is to level economic classes and redistribute wealth without regard for things like race or social status. “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Adolf Hitler 1938
1
@TheDoats That’s not accurate at all. The Germans actually privatized more industry than the British during the 1930s. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that there was some kind of seizure of the means of production by the state that is anything remotely comparable to what the bolsheviks did. In fact the German war economy lag behind those of the allies because it wasn’t centrally planned even to the extent that the US economy was much less under the total control of the state as in the Soviet union. Hitler left German industry in the hands of the German capitalist elite. You’re just doing the same silly thing that modern-day libertarians always do in equating authoritarian rule with the left. But Hitler actually argued did democracy was more destructive to capitalism than authoritarianism. And authoritarianism has a much longer history on the right than it does on the left. Are you going to tell me that Henry the eighth was a communist? LOL The problem with that idea is that eliminating economic classes is fundamental to leftist ideology and was bitterly opposed by the Nazis. Internationalism strongly supported by leftist and bitterly opposed by the Nazis because it was anathema to their core ideological principles. The whole point of Nazism was nationalism an opposing Internationalism. Two diametrically opposed ideologies are not different varieties of the same thing. If that’s what you think you don’t know the first thing about the principles of either one.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not an ad hominem attack to point out that someone is attempting to make judgments about the past based on whether or not it could correspond to a perspective that didn’t exist at the time.
1