Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.
-
15
-
@UltraKardas Except according to all rational and objective history, they weren't socialists, at all. The only people who say they were, are right wing ideological fanatics who can't deal with the mark history rightfully puts on them.
The objective of socialism has never been to make money, because making money has never been necessary for maintaining the welfare of one's citizens. You can say socialism doesn't work under capitalism all you want, but that tells me nothing about socialism as a system. Also, the USSR went capitalist even under Lenin, and a socialist country cannot have any form of capitalism, that makes no sense. In any case, no, the nazis removed the old and weak, even though they could be supported, because the nazi's far right ideology despised those who needed help, and preached an absolute supremacy that must always be competed and worked for.
The nazis, quite literally, privatized a medical system that worked fine before they came into power, and when similar systems were implemented afterwards they worked fine as well. The nazis quite literally despised the old, the weak, and the "racially weak," and they didn't give a damn about the economics of that decision, given that their economy quite literally only survived on help from international industrialists. Social Security for all its flaws has been one of the most stable and successful policies... before right wingers started defunding it for no reason, taking poor and old people away from that benefit. Yet again, proving the link between modern right wingers, and historical right wingers like the nazis.
Socialism is not, and has never been, complete government control by the economy. If that was the definition, the vast majority of socialists, including those who first devised the term, Marx, and others, would not be socialists at all. Germany, however, did not even attempt, nor want, "complete economic control by the government." Hitler himself praised the "efficiency" and "ingenuity" of german private business (hence the whole german ideological supremacy thing his ideology was built on) and quite openly said he despised economies controlled by the government, and said they were some sort of marxist, j*wish conspiracy. The companies that bidded over the right to build Auschwitz still exist today, as does the company that manufactured zyklon b. The nazis privatized and restricted the majority of people from welfare, education, and food (like modern right wingers do) and outlawed the ability for workers to control their production in any capacity (like modern and historical right wingers did.) They despised government control openly, and that has never been the definition of socialism. The nazis were less socialist than you. They were, quite openly, far right anti-socialists. And you being so willing to lie, to change definitions and ignore all recorded history in your assertions, just tells me that the only way to even argue the nazis were socialists... is to lie about the meaning of every word in that sentence. Deal with the truth.
12
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@glennchartrand5411 I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but that is all just false. First off, the 25 Point Program was a piece of propaganda, that hitler said he has no plans of implementing to his own party officials. Also, it is pretty disgusting to compare a jewish man that lost family in the holocaust and a far right dictator that committed it.
Nationalism is "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
So in short, national "socialism" isn't socialism at all, nor did the "race" control the means of production. Pretty basic stuff.
Hitler told his base "when I say socialism, I mean nationalism." Hitler told them he would protect their business. Hitler told them he would make their nation... great again. And to the socialists, hitler did nothing less than order their execution. I don't think you realize that in nazi germany, the far right was mainstream, and the far left was repressed at every chance.
Its funny how you seem unable to even give a definition of the ideology you call socialism, choosing instead to lump in a bunch of fundamentally different governments and call the whole thing "socialism." And when I say funny, I mean sad. The only people who still believe TIK's lies are people who are extremely good at lying to themselves and ignoring facts.
Its a cult.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@UltraKardas Except, unlike you, I have been using rational, objective, and unbiased history this whole time. You're just annoyed that the facts, conclusively, prove you wrong. The objective fact is that you are likely politically closer to socialists than any nazi, ever, has the capacity to be or has been. Grass grows, the sun shines, and far rightists deny their political allies.
The nazis weren't socialists. That's the truth. I'm sorry your cognitive dissonance has a hard time accepting the truth. The sooner you accept that fact, the sooner you can grow as a person.
And i'm sure you will provide these "socialist programs," without any bias and with correct citation, right? And you won't make assertions like "these programs are socialist because I said they are?" Oh wait, no, you did that in your very first sentence. What a shame. So let me educate you on why not everything you don't like is socialism, why capitalist policies aren't socialist, how deeply hated socialism and all forms of leftism were in the nazi party, and how wrong you have been thus far, as you apologize for the nazi regime and allow your modern ideological allies, fascists, to prosper.
#1. Alright, you're already starting off with a false assertion. Welfare exists under all sorts of systems, from capitalism to monarchism, and has existed long before socialism. Furthermore, the nazis were infamous for the privatization of welfare, which makes your assertion that all private welfare was abolished, simply untrue. As we've been over.
And yes, socialism is fundamentally against private property. And yet, the nazis were huge fans of private property, and praised it on many occasions, as well as privatizing huge swathes of their economy. What you describe isn't a socialist policy, nor did it happen.
The GLF only ever existed because the nazis were worried that socialists would oppose them. (which they did) So, they removed the right to collective bargaining, and instead forcefully admitted most workers and unionists to the GLF, which was directly under the control of private business. In other words, about as anti-socialist and anti-leftist as you can get.
And yeah, this is the problem. You assert that the GLF was a socialist organization, and yet it only existed to oppose socialism, and was run by private interests. It hurt workers, didn't empower them. Social Security is also a policy that 1. didn't exist in nazi germany and 2. isn't a socialist one, it is one only possible under capitalism or similar private economies.
Healthcare wasn't centralized, it was privatized, which makes this statement from you, yet again, totally and utterly false. The GLF was a creation of private backers and interests, and existed for the sole purpose of repressing the workers, taking the means of production out of their hands. You are describing a fundamentally anti-socialist policy that was used to placate the few people hitler wasn't oppressing.
So, a private organization, that enacts anti-socialist polices, that took ideas from literal far right, anti-socialist fascists. The German Labor Front even, as you said, attempted to reach out and create deals with private businesses to create incentives to support the nazi party's private enterprises. but of course, you don't realize that, or more likely refuse to admit to it since it proves you wrong.
And yet another assertion. "For the greater good" isn't a "defacto phrase" for socialism, in fact, most early socialists specifically said socialism was a better system because it allowed a far greater individuality. Is this all you have so far, making up things and pretending your enemies agree with them or said them? If so... sad.
And you don't see the contradiction with you asserting that they were socialist, while also asserting that they supported private enterprise?
And this is another lie I had addressed previously, the german government was not socialist and allowed open competition, maintained private property, and removed worker powers giving more power to their private bosses. So they did not own anything close to "everything" as you assert.
And you asserting that his system "failed worse than capitalist motor companies" and specifically citing Ford is funny because HITLERS SYSTEM ONLY EXISTED BECAUSE FORD FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED IT. In fact, Ford was a huge fan of the nazis, voluntarily helping them set up much of their war infrastructure and writing an antisemetic hit piece justifying the nazis policies. He was given the highest award a non-german could get by the nazis for these actions. Odd that a capitalist was such a big fan of "socialists," hm?
#2
Socialism was so deeply hated in germany that they openly appealed to people like Ford to help their regime spread, because no leftist would ever support them.
The German Labor Front was by its own definition a private entity that was fighting alongside industrialists and capitalists, to destroy socialism wherever it crops up. It often worked with the many privatized entities of germany, and as we've been over already, you don't know what socialism is.
And again - this is anti-socialist. You are describing a system in which the employers could demand more of their workers, giving them less pay, and forcing them to live in worse conditions. The workers themselves had no power, and were subject to this private repression. That is the opposite of socialism. And, as we've been over, the nazis despised social programs and privatized them, and the NHS is a capitalist program.
#3.
And yet, i'm not a socialist. I'm an anarchist. Those who correctly point out the nazis weren't socialists are not socialists, in fact, the majority of those who point out this fact are just regular capitalists, left or right wing. Hell, even modern nazis align themselves with the right, and proudly. The nazis called themselves socialists, not out of "honesty" (though i'm sure a child like you would agree with nazi propaganda) but out of political gain, all while attempting to redefine the word socialist, and doing everything socialists hated.
They restricted every social program that had already existed under the capitalist nation before them, and they openly privatized and gave power back to private business. The wealth of the richest private individuals increased under the nazis, yet another fact you refuse to admit. The nazis despised socialism.
Hitler often said that his "socialism" had nothing to do with the word itself, but was instead pro-religion, pro-private property, and pro-competition. He only called himself a socialist because he was confident his propaganda had rewritten the definition of the word.
So the objective fact, one that you are now going to apologize to me and admit, i'm sure? The nazis weren't socialists, they ran a country antithetical to socialist goals and policies. They despised marxism, calling it a j*wish plot, along with the rest of leftism. They followed fascist teachings, fascism of course being the far right ideology that it was admitted to being by all of its founders, all of whom were traditionalists and extreme conservatives. You calling fascism a "marxist ideology," when marxism is the thing every fascist will tell you they hate, is yet more proof of your ahistorical extremism. I agree, Italy was similar to the nazis, and italy was very open about being a far right country ran by a far right leader who put far right policies, fascism, into place.
And I hate to break it to you, but China's economy has been getting more and more private since the 80's, despite what their propaganda wants you to know. The nazis loved private property, which is why they loved eugenics and mass murder. The two seem to go hand in hand - see the genocidal USA for more examples there.
So, far right wingers and anti-socialists like Hitler, Pinochet, Leopold II and so on, are very happy to kill millions for their anti-leftist causes, many of those victims specifically being leftists. But then again, you support the nazis anti-socialism and their genocide, right?
So, through your inability to cite a single argument, inability to stick to historically accurate definitions, inability to correctly label or attribute certain policies and ideologies, and inability to tell the truth about your ideological allies, the nazis, we can see that it is objectively true that the nazis were not socialists. We do see what far rightists are willing to do to oppose leftism, kill millions of people, like you favorite countries continue to do, and lie with propaganda, much like you are attempting to do right now. Odd how you seem to be so similar.
So yes, it seems the real radical is you, who is willing to rewrite history to cover up for their genocidal ideological friends, who killed millions for their far right anti-socialist goal, which i'm sure you'd agree with under any other name.
Good job falling for nazi propaganda and agreeing with them. If you claim not to be a nazi, despite spreading literal nazi propaganda, then you should look into a mirror and learn what a nazi truly is. Your ideology continues to spread hate, eugenics, racism, and kill millions, and just like nazi denialists, i'm sure you'll deny those numbers.
Learn from history, child. I've just given you some. :)
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@UltraKardas Calling me delusional for correcting you is certainly a way to admit defeat. I used more facts than you, champ.
You believe in private property, and praised people like Ford, just like the nazis did. You hate the socialists, though probably not as much as they did.
You say you don't support racism, and yet you openly flaunt your support of nations and systems which have led to millions of deaths, racism, and eugenics in the past and modern day. You also call anarchists nazis. The nazis were deeply conservative, far right anti-socialists. If you count yourself among those labels, then you are as close as you can get to a nazi without admitting it, and a world away from a socialist.
If this was the 1930's, I would be in a camp or dead in a ditch, and you would proudly be towing the nazi line.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Davidoff
I'm sorry, but insults don't make up for your lack of argument.
Public or private stocks are not the same as public or private property. While one might be more restricted, and the other is open to the general public, they are both wholly creations of private interests. Pretending otherwise is plainly absurd and follows no economic logic.
Again, you can insult me all you want, but I am in no way seeing a rebuttal from you, in the slightest, which is a shame.
You can claim nothing you said is absurd (backed up only by insults) but the vast majority of people, i'm afraid, prove you wrong. Yes, it is absurd to claim a company isn't private because they trade stocks publicly.
And i'm sorry, are you really that pissed off that i'm right? I didn't say "I uhh well he said in another video and I interpreted it as this but I swear my interpretation is correct because i understand the english language better than anyone else," I pointed out how his definitions make no logical sense, backed up by the basic practice of studying etymology and even just glancing at a modern dictionary. This isn't a case of interpretation, or "my understanding." This is a case of his words openly conflicting with established reality. I am directly telling you what TIK has made clear, and you are denying it because you understand how absurd his redefinitions are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tariqnasneed3857 so. They didn't respect the desires of the community at all then. Like do you not realize that by definition, purging huge parts of the community is against representing the community as a whole? Do you not realize that they didn't only purge the unpopular?
And this is you projecting your misunderstanding of human nature onto others. Humans, for literally our entire existence, have only ever found out success in cooperation. It is that cooperation that even gave us a society to live in, languages and nations and religions and art and music and culture. Without shared interests humanity would never have done all of this. Humanity is not inherently hateful, though you might be
And again, this isn't true. Capitalists realize this, why can't you? Capitalists will actively campaign for things like lower taxes, less regulation, and greater government incentives for business in-country. Capitalists recognize that they share class interests, so they would prefer to help their competition, than hurt themselves and empower their workers/customers further. This is basic economics, how do you not understand this? Sure capitalists compete with eachother - so do their workers. Bone of this discounts the fact that they can, and do, engage in class cooperation. Historically, capitalists have been more than happy to fly under one property owning banner, fighting for rules and regulations that help both them and their opposition. Your statement that capitalists do not engage in class solidarity is utterly untrue. In any case, they wouldn't even need to do this for them to be socialist by your definition - they are still a community, and they still own the means of production. Also, there is no such thing as an, "ethnic german," but you should know that at no point undeletable hitler's rule was he the most popular, and your assertion that the "vast majority" were behind him is untrue. He didn't gain power through a majority, and he kept power by oppressing people. Most people under his rule, that is the people that weren't imprisoned, killed, or on constant fear of either of those things, were not in support of hitler but merely didn't dare to stand up against him, for fear of ending up like the others that did that. The majority of germans, those that weren't just killed, lived lives of silent fear. Please stop believing nazi propaganda.
And again - false. Even the modern royal family has power outside of simply being related to an aristocrat. Not to mention the many they employ to help run their affairs. There is no such thing as a socialism or aristocracy. Please become even slightly economically literate, it isn't that hard and instantly proves your nonsense wrong.
The problem with your definition of socialism is that everything would be socialism, according to you. Capitalism? Just socialism of the rich. Monarchism? Socialism of the monarch. Anarchism? Socialism of the individual. Can you even point out a single Jon socialist state, country, or group that ever existed? The nazis weren't socialists, by definition, and the only way to claim they were is to lie about the definition of socialism and to lie about the nazis themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Davidoff Ah, so you're one of those types that is shown the absurdity of his arguments, and then just decides the person who literally brought them up to you knows less than you just because they pointed out how nonsense his "points" are. I don't think you have thought about this. For example, you say that because a company becomes publicly traded, this means that it is invested in by the public, and that it then has a responsibility to fulfil the desires of its investors. You say that this somehow makes a company less private... but this is literally all companies do, ever. All companies are at the whims of people in the public, that's why they need to advertise and even just create products in the first place. If they want to continue existing, they have a legal responsibility to make a profit, and a responsibility to their customers to make things that do so. Corporations have always had to measure the desires of thousands, even millions of people, that's how business works, and its the most private you can get. Here's your statement, but revised accounting for this fact.
"Well if you think about it, a company that tries to get profit from the public means that people from the public have put their investments into this company, and are now customers of that company. That means that the companies interests are no longer private among themselves, but also have to consider their customer's needs, and there can be thousands of customers investing into this company. In such a case, how could this company be considered private, in the sense that it can act on private interests, if it has a legal obligation to the customers?"
You see how absurd your statement is?
And I didn't say he said, in this particular video, that corporations are socialist. I said he believes it because it has been a consistent assertion of his all throughout his comment section and other videos of his, and you are free to ask him his opinion on this to find out yourself. And no, socialism has nothing to do with corporations, even if they did have actual government connection, which public stocks are not. This just tells me you fundementally don't understand what socialism even is. Like TIK.
I think you need to reevaluate your views, given that you are literally supporting someone who openly revises definitions, which you can hardly defend, and a fact you now admit to openly. I don't think you can defend a single "argument" he made.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@UltraKardas
Given that i've disproven your historically, economically, and ideologically incorrect definition of socialism... that isn't true. I hate to break it to you, but not even nazi germany and fascist italy had similar systems, and both were vastly different from the USSR. You really are just completely inept, aren't you? The nazis were fascists, aka far right anti-socialists.
And yes. Because a big state isn't a communal state, in fact, the bigger the state, generally the less communal it is. The community wasn't represented in nazi germany, the community was repressed and thrown in camps.
Mussolini appointed capitalists and conservatives to power in managing his economy, much like Hitler did, because he thought the most efficient economic system was one that merged the power of corporations with the power of the state... corporatism, otherwise known as a third-way right wing ideology. Also, the NEP was literally described as state capitalist by lenin, and involved the mass privatization of land, start of the USSR's international stock market, and a tax reduction. The NEP was the furthest thing from a command economy out there, it was stalin who would do that, by abolishing the NEP.
Fascism is an fundamentally anti-socialist and anti-leftist system, socialism is a system that by definition needs the oversight of the people, and communism is by definition stateless, so again, wrong on all counts. You can try to pretend that fascism, your ideological grandfather, and socialism are somehow the same, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Nazi germany was far more effective at anti-socialism than you could ever be, because their anti-socialism was a fundamental part of their ideology, and they actually put it into practice. As we've been over, they despised "full control" of the economy, despised leftism, despised equality, despised socialism, ect.
Even you cannot keep this lie up, which is why you are willing to admit you are wrong.
You claim the only anti-socialist system is capitalist. Well that isn't true, but even by that metric then, the fascists and nazis weren't socialists, as their biggest ideological allies were international capitalists and industrialists.
If you had a brain that allowed you to be honest in even the slightest amount, you would realize that hitler made abundantly clear his hatred of socialism and leftism, both in rhetoric and policy, and that his intention was never to destroy private property, even his own allies said he "never got rid of the problems of capitalism in germany," and hitler was anything but honest, you nazi-supporting freak.
Socialism, by its very nature, is a system devoid of private property. A system like the nazis, in which the private market and the sate work together, often to eachothers benefit, to crush the people and the left, is as far from socialism as you can get.
You lost the argument, and have been losing it this whole time. Every one of your "Arguments" i've addressed and disproven, while you have yet to even acknowledge mine :)
2
-
@morganwartman8507
And here you are, doing the exact thing you accuse me of. Child, do you realize that people have time off? That not everyone works every hour of the day, just most of them? I think you're a bit jealous that i've managed to find work, whereas all you can do is lay down in your parent's basement and repeat nazi rhetoric online for some sort of validation. Do you not know how youtube notifications work? Thank you for exposing you have no life, and furthermore, have no respect for the people who work to maintain your slovenly lifestyle, something not even you do. It's odd how you're so willing to do exactly what you accuse me of, all without a single thought of your hypocrisy going through your mind. Oh, and child, as we've been over - i'm not a socialist. Lazy rightists are all the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Undead38055 Why would I provide something neither you or TIK are able to? TIK admits his own sources disagree with him. The few sources that don't aren't from historians, but idealogues. As you said, children respond with insults. Which is why every time i've engaged with TIK, he insults me, and refuses to respond to a single point. I hate to break it to you but both you and TIK fail to meet Hitchen's razor. That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without it. So... go on. Enlighten me on why he is right. I want the whole shebang. Sources, analyze, and reasoning. I want evidence on what points he attempted to make, and why you think they're correct. I don't need negative responses, or being called an idiot because I asked for proper support on your claim. You are asserting something that is frankly absurd. Its your job to prove your assertion - not mine to disprove something you give no evidence for. And i'm sure you'll deflect from this request and try to ask me to write a special little comment just for you on points from a video you've likely not even watched. So - prove he's right, or admit he's wrong. Simple as that.
2
-
2
-
@ericharmon7163 So, let me get this straight. You have no actual rebuttal, not to the fact that hitler's goals and policies don't align with socialists goals or policies, not to the fact that the man's wife was pretty open about his work's goal, not to the fact that the nazis weren't socialists. What is your response? Well, you go off on a tangent using an uncited quote on an unrelated topic, and then appear to think that the nobel prize means something is good or legitimate, despite it constantly being awarded to warmongers and war criminals. You assume I "google" things, all while showing your true colors - you don't like google, not because it's wrong, but because it shows you when you are wrong. Same reason you don't like wikipedia. See, the great things about those sources, is you can see where they get their claims from. You, on the other hand, don't agree with those sites. You only want us to use youtube videos and conspiracy theorists that agree with you. How intellectually honest.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 In reality, when faced with undeniable evidence, the only ones who go "well that's just your opinion!" are those with no facts to their name.
So yes, I am more than happy to continue to call you out for lying, and for being a happy spreader of propaganda.
I am afraid that you seem to be mistaken. You consider yourself open minded, not because you actually listen to all facts equally, but because you were so "open-minded" that you let unproven propaganda slip right in.
I am more open minded, because unlike you I don't just listen to spoon fed right wing propaganda, I have actually researched, and come to the objective conclusion.
You don't have to ask a flat earther about their "side of the debate" to realize that the earth isn't flat.
Now why don't you go back to supporting your pro-nazi conspiracy theories elsewhere, and leave history to those that actually mananged to educate themselves and learn a truth you refuse to admit to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 The nazi plan was quite literally an attempt to "colonize" europe. They felt they didn't have enough space, enough resources, to expand, as they thought they were owed.
in fact, much nationalist and fascist sentimentality rose out of post-imperialism europe, with the nations left behind deciding that they deserved a chance to exploit others as the nationalists before them had done.
I'm sorry that you don't understand basic historical connection, but hopefully the realization that the nazis quite agreed with the brits, the french, the italians, ect on colonization and imperialism ought to tell you something of their policies, hm?
1
-
@MadManRob1 Most colonization is genocidal. hitler just wanted to "colonize" europe, the "Developed world."
Its funny, you say things like "he wanted back lands that he thought belonged to him," but don't realize how easily this can be substituted for literally every other nationalist right wing imperialist at the time, most of which you proudly support.
The very act of him expanding the borders, wiping people out and trying to "replace" them with germans was an act of imperialist colonization.
Taking land in europe doesn't make it not colonization, just because the people being colonized were white, champ but way to let the mask slip.
And I don't think you realize that he explicitly learned from the imperialism of france and england, especially the eugenics side of both of those movements, in culture and in genetics. Again, you excuse the crimes of other right wing nationalists, but not hitler. We all know where your sympathies lie, fash.
So yeah, the nazis were proven to be a bunch of nationalist, right wing imperialists, just like yourself. Stop lying. And maybe, next time, stop being so openly pro-hitler?
1
-
@MadManRob1 the british empire was happy to enact genocidal racism, but then again i'm sure you'll deny that. As I said, the only difference between you and a nazi are the countries you defend and the genocides you deny.
Typical right wing fasicsts, can't argue so denies genocides and excuses the nazis, like you've done this whole time.
The nazis were anti-socialist, far right fascist imperialists, as being a nazi/fascist is incompatible with being a leftist, this is correct.
In every comment you make, you excuse the crimes of the nazis, and make up lies to exonerate your far right ideological allies, so yes will correctly point out your pro-hitler views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 The author literally proves me right though, you just seem incapable of reading, which knowing you is no real surprise i must confess. And yes, he objectively proves that they were right wing, but you pro-hitler supporters want to call them left wing.
Everything you said about italy is, sorry, objectively false, and the actual historian you cite proves this.
I have pointed out how even the passages you cite directly prove my point, and i've never gone against it, because unlike you i don't selectively accept facts, something you admit to doing without any more reasoning than your cultish views.
Sucks to be you, hitler supporter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 I'm sorry, you can't claim to be "centered in your politics" and also a defender of far right imperialism and nationalism. Actions are louder than words, fash.
That's why you only ever call out the left, and refuse to say a single bad thing about the far right, the nazis.
The nazis indeed were far right colonialists, and you defending their policies by trying to divorce them from the nazis actions just proves that you understand how despicable those actions are. Their actions were, quite literally, common for all imperialists, but you only seem willing to call it out when you feel you can blame lefitsts
And yes, your favorites did commit racial genocide, no matter how often you try to deny it, which seems to be constant.
And what do you mean, when do you do the praising?
You're openly a "royalist," and deny the genocides of countries you like.
Don't need to wait for long.
You accuse me of being a socialist only because you know i'm right. You don't even know what the word socialist or marxist means.
You really are a hitler-supporting child aren't you, that's why you are simply incapable of addressing a single one of my points, instead you devolve into childish insults and ahistorical assertions.
So thank you for proving my point yet again.
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 Yeah, see, that's the problem. You ignore the far right despite praising them, and only call out the left because your allegiance is wholly with the far right.
The majority of totalitarians, historically, have been far right. Far right groups across the globe have insane amounts of power, and those who don't are trying to get it. You are a holocaust denier.
Nazis and fascists are, objectively, anti-socialist rightwingers, just like you
because you act exactly the same as them, just swap around the countries and genocides.
You are so goddamn obsessed with defending your heroes, the fascists, it is quite sad.
Nazis used fascist imperialist colonialist expansion, and they despised socialism more than you do.
so why don't you stop lying and admit your allegiance to the far right, champ, as if you haven't already.
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1
Exactly, you detest left wing politics, just like the nazis, and you detest "socialist fools," which the nazis put to death en masse, a policy i'm sure you are a fan of.
You have said constant good things about far right anti-socialist fascists.
And Imperialism has never been centered, it has always been far right, but that's a fact I don't think you realize.
Fascist, right wing border expansion is all imperialism, champ. You should know this.
You are an imperialist, a far right defender and supporter, and you admit to this. And you can try to slip out of those facts all you want, but your actions speak far louder than your words, one-ball.
Unfortunately for me, you're such a far right cultist that even when you cite historians that prove you wrong, you will never bend from the fascistic opinions you believe in during debate.
Well done in defending the nazis, all while claiming to disagree with them politically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 So in other words... you don't understand basic definitions. Here's what an oxymoron is -
oxymoron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).
So yes, of course calling fascists (far right anti-socialists) a socialist is an oxymoron, you can't be both a socialist and an anti-socialist, fascists oppose socialism and leftism at every turn.
Mussolini rejected marxism, disbanded any leftist party in his state, and gave economic control to a capitalist. He was as anti-socialist as they get, which is why so many capitalists to this day praise him. He was a fascist.
Hitler was an anti-marxist and anti-socialist, and in fact, his anti-marxism was one of the core bases of the holocaust, but we've already established that you're a holocaust denier. He despised socialism, much like you.
Plain as day, much like the historians you've cited, proving you wrong :)
1
-
@MadManRob1 Going around and trying to deny basic history and rewrite definitions is very far right fascist of you, the nazis did that, Mussolini did that, and most of your beloved imperialists do that to this day, of course, which is why you worship them. I love how you call north korea socialist, despite it not fitting any definition of socialism. Because to a fascist like you, socialism is anything you don't like. Also, the democrats are literally capitalists. This is why we call idiots like you far right, because you paint literally every group as socialist. All of these terrible governments and none are socialist, you support fascism, and that alongside capitalism is a right wing ideology. You don't even know what the right is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 Still proving you wrong, right.
And yes, I can correct your grammar frequently, because you in fact make frequent mistakes, something your defensive shame proves.
I see you in other comment sections, congratulating fellow pro-nazis, copy and pasting your nazi propaganda nonsense.
Anti-socialists seem to be far worse than the socialists they claim to hate, which is why anti-socialists defend the biggest anti-socialist of all, hitler.
The trouble with right wing propaganda, like the type you and your nazi allies spread, is that even upon you citing evidence that you are incorrect, you are told to ignore it, just because it hurts your feelings.
You call me a marxist, much as the nazis did their enemies as to justify burning their books.
You can call me all the names you want, it will not stop the far right nazis frombeing anti-socialists.
You feel the need to go to random people and insult me because you aren't confident in your own "arguments."
Your only source of confidence to fall back on is that you feel proud that your holocaust denialism has continued to fund a far right extremist who admits to lying, and I would feel shame in that, not pride. Now stop supporting nazis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love how you claim to be objective and yet your actions show the opposite. You fill your comment section with insults and misguided arguments, you lie to your audience and then use that to attack your enemies, you lend your support to every person who agrees with your even people who openly admit that they've done no individual research and much like you have no idea what they're talking about. You can even properly address the counters, because to do that would be to admit failure, which any objective historian would have done months ago. Your actions betray your intentions, and I do hope you're happy knowing the only effect of your videos will be to contribute in the radicalization of ignorant teens and ideological zealots, while objective history skips your psuedo-religious lies. If you wanted to properly reply to your critics, you'd have to make a 10 hour video. Instead, you decided to shop up your audience. You've said it yourself, I've left hundreds of comments on your page. So why were you afraid to include more?
edit - just thought i'd include the irony of pinning the comment "don't harass those in the videos" while rewarding literally everyone who says anything negative about those people in your own comment section, just incentivizing that behavior. Proving my point.
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight So you still can't even admit I watched the entirety of your video, despite directly citing numerous specifics from it. I guess you ideologues really are all the same... And, ohhh, you mean those "points" of yours refuted by your own sources, common sense, dictionary definitions, or the historical account of anyone that isn't a far right extremist? Those "facts" of yours that even you've admitted have no actual factual basis? Look, I know you're annoyed i've managed to disprove you several times, and I know you're so obsessed with me and the others that you've done a whole video to try to get the last word in, but its sad how me and the others who have likely watched more of your video than your fans are just swept under the bus because our facts hurt your feelings.
But, who am I kidding! We all know you'd rather continue to say the same old points that have been debunked so many times, and make so many silly excuses, because you can't handle the fact that I watched your silly, ahistorical video months ago, which is more than most of your fans can say... glorious. In any case, feel free to continue to try to convince others to troll, and remain ignorant of the facts! Maybe one day you'll manage a proper rebuttal.. I doubt it. Maybe one day you'll admit I watched the video, and grow as an individual from admitting you were wrong. I doubt this too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyvamakes5226 If that's all you see him as, look again. Most capitalists are willing to admit the nazis weren't socialists, willing to admit capitalism can be statist, willing to admit that things like order exist under capitalism. He is willing to do none of the above and twists his "history" videos to this absurd perspective.
The "reason" the nazis had socialist in the title of their party was because they wanted voters. I mean think for a minute, the party had infighting, purges, factional wars, splinters, everything. You really think they kept a core ideology the whole way through?
Mussolini isn't a socialist, though. And his rule was sure as hell anti-semetic. I hate to break this to you but holocaust denialism isn't a good look.
Barter isn't capitalism, though. Of course, you would know this if you ever did any actual individual research, but just "trade" isn't capitalism. Furthermore, I would recommend admitting what he says about "the individual" vs "the collective."
And of course you've only used his videos as sources - because his videos are filled with lies and inconsistencies. Because he can't hold a solid opinion for longer than a month. And because you're willing to fall for his lies. The length some of you people go to defend a clearly ideologically incoherent man is just sad.
Sources -
"FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism"
"Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism"
Also, his particularly funny video on Marx.
1
-
@Undead38055 You really don't get it, do you? I can answer your question - TIK is wrong because he's been unable to prove otherwise. If you have a counter to that, feel free to present it, but i'm seeing nothing so far. And as I told you, time and time again. You're asking me to prove something wrong, when you're not even willing to put forth the effort to pretend its right, and make an argument for it. You're still deflecting, to this second. Again, let me repeat - "That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I don't have to prove you wrong if you can't even prove you right. As for "most people don't hold the same opinion as [me]..." jesus what an echo chamber you're in. In the real world, the vast majority of people know that TIK's assertions in this video are nonsense, and lend him no more credence than that. I mean hell, how disconnected are you? You ask me to make a blog, upload a video, and I ask you... why? There have been books published on the subject for decades now, there have been papers and articles going back years on this very subject, again i'll remind you TIK's sources disagree with him. So the problem is, the combat of history has already been fought, and won. You're just unwilling to do your own research. The battle being fought now is not over the truth, that was decided years ago, and TIK isn't agreeing with it. The battle is over who can get the most people to agree with them, truth or not. That's why you recommend I make a youtube channel, and act like the hundreds of historians who dedicated their lives to this topic alone... just don't exist. Stop asking for "sources and reasoning" when TIK has provided more against him than for him, and you've provided none. What matters isn't "investment." It's the truth. And I would rather a boring or uncomfortable truth than an easily sold lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyvamakes5226 This isn't just about "perspective." This is about the man you're defending.
Here are two stories. One of which I can link to you, the other, you're going to have to take my word for.
I was scrolling through TIK's comment section, months ago. I had watched a few of his less ideological videos, enjoyed them, but saw an odd video with an odd title pop into my recommended. Clicked on it, scrolled through the comments, and found TIK repeating a classic right wing line against a socialist in the comments. Nothing special, "Scandinavia isn't socialist, its a social democracy, regulated capitalism." Nothing special. And yet, couple of weeks later, the guy is asserting that capitalism can't exist within a state, or really anywhere despite the individual, despite most capitalists being statists, and a hell of a lot of individualists being anti-capitalist, and that everything else is just socialism. Now, people can change their mind, but given the time span it much more seems like he's just willing to say or do anything to "win" an argument. That's why he makes videos like this.
The second story, the one I can link to you, is one a few months later, in which I had attempted to engage TIK a number of times on historical inaccuracies, and he had taken to calling me a troll who never watched the video. Then, I suppose he got fed up, because he started accusing me of being a marxist, and called me a holocaust denying anti-semite. All because I dared point out some flaws. Don't believe me? Here's a link - scroll down. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg)
TIK, ideologically, makes no sense. He wants to be right and he wants the people he dislikes to be wrong, and he's willing to do a lot to get that, and frankly I don't care anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyvamakes5226 I'm aware that he's trying to promote other perspectives, and I don't even disagree with his idea that set or established "truths" should be questioned, and revised if found inadequate. My problem is that he seems rarely honest when discussing what is supposed to be factual and what is supposed to be his viewpoint or the way he wants you to see the opposing viewpoints of others.
And sure, its his right to make videos like this. Never tried to deny that to him, not like I could. But its my right to point out the flaws in these videos, and how presented as they are, they're dangerous. Take the whole "Mussolini wasn't an anti-semite" thing. Yes, initially his ideology wasn't centered around anti-semetism BUT under his rule jewish people were persecuted, restricted, oppressed, ect. And of course, Fascist italy was a willing participant in the german effort and holocaust, which is about as anti-semetic as you get. Not recognizing that opens up the road to apologizing for figures like mussolini. Furthermore, I understand it seems like overkill to put in the amount of effort he does. But I wiuld say so. When writing an essay, would you never try to pad the lenght, or add in more sources just to have a longer work cited page? I'm not saying he's doing that, but its the same reasoning. Because doing that makes your point look a lot more impressive. Suddenly your video isn't being advertised as a quick comeback to the leftists, now you can try to call it the work of a historian, even if it isn't true.
He says a lot of his critics don't watch the video, but I doubt that's true in most cases. But even if it was... why does he act the way he does? If everything is already addressed in the video, he should just have quotes and timestamps saved to copy-paste to anyone who brings up those points. But instead he insults and writes off, which no matter what, isn't a good look.
Well, thank you for that I guess, and all i'll say is that I wouldn't have nearly the same problems with TIK if he'd stop treating history like a political tool and those who are curious like a directable mob or an impressionable consumer base.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nestword5654 ...yes. He has called many people all of those things, all with no proof, because he would rather accuse and insult than dare to argue with people than know better than him. Perhaps you should stop defending someone who is so willing to lie. And I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of the people talking to him fit none of those words. He only tries to shove those words onto them because if he doesn't he has to admit that they proved him wrong. Which they did. He doesn't know how to call people what they are, so he lies. Oh, and nice insult, but no there's no "Cheap tricks" to be found, nor did I ever even imply he only talks to me? What are you talking about? Please stop lying. Calling someone a troll who has never even watched a video, when that is blatantly false and has been pointed out to be so several times, is nothing more than an attempt at an ad hominem insult, attacking my supposed character rather than my arguments. He does in constantly. The problem is, you people treat his videos like a bible, and if you don't have the same interpretation, you say they :haven't even watched it." I have watched TIK's videos, as well as discussed that issue in particular with him. If he supposedly addressed those arguments in the video, where are they? And why did he instantly contradict them when I commented to him directly? If you actually read my points or watched his video you could tell easily that nothing he says ever even addresses the arguments I bring up. Of course, you've done neither of those things, so how could I expect you to understand that basic fact? You assert that he countered something I said, and yet no proof of that has ever been presented to me, and in fact proof to the counter has been presented to me by TIK himself. So do you have a citation, or are you willing to admit you're wrong? Also, I see no shame in not watching his full video. I mean, I suffered through it specifically because i've dealt with TIK so much, but the video is based on lies, lies that are put forward as arguments in different videos. All you have to do is point out, say, that his definitions are nonsense and that his citations don't agree with him, and every other point crumbles. He's trying to prove the nazis were socialists with a made-up definition of socialism, so yeah, all it takes is to show that and suddenly the behaviors he's describing, when accurate (Which is seldom true) don't show any sort of socialism. See the problem? Perhaps you should attempt to better understand the context before you leap into a conversation you know nothing about.
1
-
@Nestword But... he didn't. He made his claim and then "backed it up" with sources that openly disagree with his conclusions. The few sources that don't are not historical, rather, they are ideological. That's why he tends to cite more right wing economists than historians. He doesn't really back much of anything up, because backing something up doesn't just require that you have a source, it requires said source being actually applicable to what you're trying to state, and sadly for TIK not once does that happen. And what about me? Yes, I am more than willing to interrupt your ahistorical nonsense session to point out that he is wrong. And as we've been over - he has yet to prove he's right. In fact, none of you, not one of you, have made a single bit of effort to even attempt to prove him right, you all just deflect and insult when I bring up facts you don't like to hear. I say that he knows he's wrong, and that others do as well, because me and TIK have been discussing this for 3/4ths of a year now, and the rest of these children can hardly string together a sentence that isn't "watch the video!" despite... well you know, that not applying. So yes I agree, your type is always beating around the bush, always deflecting, always drowning the other person with an ocean of meaningless words that lack any meaningful substances. And yes, after they do that, I asked them to prove the claim they made, the whole TIK being right one. Haven't gotten an answer yet.
"Did he say exactly that?" Yes, in fact, he did. Around timestamp 04:18:16 of the 5 hour nonsense-fest. He admits that many of the historians he cites disagree with his conclusions, and in fact names one in particular, Richard Evans. (author of one of the most comprehensive and historically respected series of works on the Third Reich) He states that Evans points out clearly in the source that the nazis were not socialists, and in fact gives many reasons for this. TIK then responds by saying that Evans must have been fooled by some marxist conspiracy, because the definition that Evans uses for socialism (a definition Evans actually researched, backed up, and has been accepted for decades) is incorrect, TIK of course citing his long disproven "Public Vs Private" video. In other words, TIK cites people that come to opposite conclusions to him, but twists their information to twist his own political agenda. And yes, I think when you admit you see yourself as above historians who will live and die far more recognized than you'll ever be, and you in fact show contempt for said figure, you can kiss your nonsense argument goodbye.
And of course, I replied to people here making the assumption that "there is no counter argument," that there was "no attempt to engage with the actual arguments," ect. I haven't seen any proof of that yet. And of course, that which is presented without evidence... you get the gist. This isn't my comment chain, dude. I replied to people making the assertion that TIK was right and his opposition is not only wrong, but has basically never addressed his argument. And of course... nobody here has been able to give any proof to support that nonsense statement. The burden of proof lies solidly with who I replied with, and with whoever takes up their cause.
Perhaps you should stop commuting the fallacy of fallacies and listen. If the vast majority of the contributors and founders of an ideology disagree with you on what said ideology means, they are much more likely correct than some random ideological zealot on youtube.
And yes, that evidence is what's known as "political common sense." Think about it, the nazi party was filled with strife, different ideologies, infighting. You think they kept the same ideology, hell even same leadership, that was around when they chose the name? Hitler, later, would make a point out of attempting to redefine the word socialism, and why redefine a word instead of just picking a new one? Well, that's because it has political appeal. If I was to rename my ideology to "goodthingsism" and say "all we want are good things," you can point out that's a lie and maybe I don't want "good things," but the title is what draws people in, especially desperate people. Furthermore, TIK asserts capitalism is defined by private property, that being just the individual, and trade with no state interference being that.
Well you see, Marx didn't use the ancient greek definition of private, or the rough equivalent word. Proudhon didn't use the latin definition of state, or the rough equivalent word. Likely both because those words had other meanings and because languages change, but also because the state as it exists under capitalism, private property as a concept, Didn't exist back then. So why would you use a word from a culture that has no concept of the topic at hand? Furthermore, TIK tries to draw lines between ancient etymology and modern words, which doesn't work. Since the definitions of private and individual were intermingled in ancient times, he attempts to intermingle them again. However, that isn't how language works. Here's an example - in ancient rome, the word for "family" and the word for "servant/slave" were very similar. Does that mean in the modern day that anyone who claims to love "family values" wants slavery to return? no? So you see the problem. Not to mention, of course, that socialists and capitalists don't use TIK's definition. Ancient languages have no more inherent value than modern ones, nothing has been "perverted," champ. As for an example of far right extremists TIK happily cites, we can point out Hayek, who praised fascist regimes and traces his own ideology back to a long line of people who did the same, alongside advocating for monarchism over democracy. That man isn't a historian. I already gave you an example of a historian, but are you really claiming that some biased ideological hack has more expertise in history than someone who dedicated their lives to the subject and has received worldwide praise for their work? Damn. That's a new low.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valenrn8657 And yet more lies.
The democratic socialists of america is, quite literally, a counter-party to the democrats specifically because so many feel that the democrats bend only to capitalist interests. And of course you'll try to assert china is anything but corportatist. Funny.
The "race neutrality test" ignores any and all systemic or historical concerns, and thus, is not neutral in the slightest. Things like the George Floyd protests happened specifically because the democrats bend to right wing views on policing all too often, which is why there are many more "Floyds" in more right wing states.
There is, of course, no stereotyping against white people according to critical race theory, nor does the existence of "model minorities" address this in the slightest.
Racial socialism, by definition, cannot exist, and the entire right wing is by definition racist as it constantly fails the race neutrality test.
And I really couldn't care less what nazi apologists and racists like yourself have to say :)
1
-
1
-
@Drain_Life_Archive I'm sorry the facts hurt you so much, but it has been well known since even before hitler's war that his party was far right, anti socialist, and deeply traditionalist and conservative. There is quite literally a century worth of evidence for this, and yet none to the contrary. Funny, that. This is pretty basic stuff. As for doing your own research, I would really recommend trying that, I used to politically agree with children like you... And then I did my own research. At the very least, you should watch TIKs video, most importantly the part where he admits all of his historical sources disagreed with his conclusion. After that, maybe you should read the sources yourself and, like so many before you, realize that maybe when the vast, vast majority of historians say the same thing for nearly a century... It just might be true.
So go ahead, ask him to ban me. I think we all know his words hold no credence and to silence the truth would only be digging him a deeper grave. In all honesty, the ones he would do best to silence would be his own supporters. They're so hilariously confident in his lies that TIK just feel embarrassed when people like you are so easily disproven. TIK is, objectively, incorrect, and I guess you're just going to have to live with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericharmon7163
You appear to have neglected to read my post, child. All of his historical sources, even the ones written by conservatives, capitalists, ect, agree that the nazis were not socialists. The sources he has that claim otherwise are not historical, but from right wing think tanks with a vested interest in distancing themselves from the right wing nazis. He isn't being objective, he's denying reality with extremely flimsy basis, and it's painful to watch. According to the historians, to the history itself, and to the words and actions of the nazis contrasted with the words and actions of socialists like Marx, it is apparent that the nazis could not be considered socialists in any way. And i'm sorry that you want to deny the entire basis of classification we're using, but it doesn't work that way. Yes, the political spectrum is not a single line, but that single line is a part of it, and ideologies are indeed left or right wing. Communism is left wing. Anarchism is left wing. Nazi ideology is right wing. And again, you haven't actually read my posts, have you? China isn't socialist, since the 80s they have been an entirely state capitalist system, that uses the state to guarantee profit for the majority private economy. Private property, banks supplying capital, and foreign capitalist help are antithetical to socialism in all cases. You sound just like TIK, thinking you're smarter than historians when you don't even understand the argument you're making. Because you can't get out of the way of your own biased worldview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericharmon7163 Let's see what the historians that TIK cites actually say.
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
"According to Roger Griffin, fascism can be defined as a revolutionary species of political modernism originating in the early twentieth century whose mission is to combat the allegedly degenerative forces of contemporary history (decadence) by bringing about an alternative modernity and temporality (a ‘new order’ and a ‘new era’) based on the rebirth, or palingenesis, of the nation. Fascists conceive the nation as an organism shaped by historic, cultural, and in some cases, ethnic and hereditary factors, a mythic construct incompatible with liberal, conservative, and communist theories of society. The health of this organism they see undermined as much by the principles of institutional and cultural pluralism, individualism, and globalized consumerism promoted by liberalism as by the global regime of social justice and human equality identified by socialism in theory as the ultimate goal of history, or by the conservative defense of 'tradition' (Anton Shekhovtsov "Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir" ‘Fascism and the Far Right Series’ p. xxi-xxii).
"'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251).
"Fascism, by contrast [to conservatism, liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16).
"This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
and so on.
1
-
1
-
@ericharmon7163
Citation isn't name dropping someone you think agrees with you, especially when you don't even know what you're talking about with invoking said person, such as you invoking the socialist protesters that China killed... while trying to say socialism is bad. You have yet to provide any citation, and both me and you know it. Child, you don't know what the word postmodernism means, you don't know what socialism is, and you don't understand basic history. "TIK cites every source?" Actually, every historical source TIK cites agrees that the nazis were by no definition socialist. That's the difference - you took him on his word, instead of reading the sources directly. The nazis are right wing, by definition. How does that "not add up?" Socialism doesn't come from Germany, but even if it did, that point is nonsense, as Germany had been filled with anti-socialists for years. You didn't research anything yourself, which is why you repeat back TIK's talking points without ever understanding them. And yes, I hate to break it to you, the biggest consumer product economy in the world, one of the countries with the highest amounts of billionaires, is not socialist. the only people who claim that China is socialist, despite them being one of the biggest participants in capitalism today, is the chinese government and the conservatives stupid enough to believe them. China is state capitalist, private enterprise which is helped and guided by a state which supports it, so said private enterprise profits far more. State ownership is not the definition of socialism, and China does not have a system of state ownership. You don't understand even basic economic terminology. I find it funny how your definition of socialism makes all modern and historical nations socialist. I find it even funnier that you think Venezuela is socialist, despite their 70% private economy.
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
-
@fatherelijahcal9620
Yeah, one quick problem - that isn't true though. This is pretty basic stuff, and I'm not surprised TIK has lied to you to the extent that you don't understand it. Let me repeat myself - marx never differentiated between socialism and communism. He used the terms interchangeably. He described a lower phase communism/socialism (stateless, still with classes and currency) and a higher stage communism/socialism. (stateless, classless, moneyless) The person who came up with the idea of socialism being distinct from communism, and eventually "withering away" into communism, was Lenin, after Marx's death. That's why the whole "statist socialism before stateless communism" ideology is called marxist leninism, because it was lenin's adaptation of Marx's ideas. So, evidently, you don't understand Marx. Now, fascists, like Hitler and Mussolini, in no way desired socialism. Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." or "a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production," social ownership meaning "the appropriation of the surplus product produced by the means of production by a society or community as a whole." Mussolini and Hitler never desired a system in which the means of production were regulated by the community as a whole, that's why they constantly privatized or put businesses in party or loyal hands. Socialism is not state ownership, the fascists do not want a solely state controlled economy, and socialism and fascism are incompatible. This. Is. Basic.
1
-
@2020Max1
But again - this isn't true. Fascism is an ideology, not a practice. Fascism has always, and still, meant a far right, ultra nationalist society, characterized by traditionalism, anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and so on. By definition, there cannot be a left wing fascist. Fascism is not just authoritarianism, or trying to put one's ideas out through authoritarianism, that existed long before the first fascist and will exist long after. Hitler was most certainly a right wing fascist, an anti-socialist, an anti-communist, and an anti-leftist. They were anti-union, anti-leftism, pro-privatization, pro-loyal private property, and were undoubtably right wing. Hitler on many occasions spoke out against centralized economies, and said that private ownership was the most efficient. He spoke out, explicitly, against government dependence, and campaigned literally on cutting funding for the weak and poor. How fucking stupid do you have to be to see the nazis, an ideology build around the supremacy of some race, and think that they'd be in favor of "government dependence." They were, explicitly, a right wing movement an ideology.
It is people like you who would seek to devalue the term fascism, and thus enable modern fascists to spread even easier. One can not do anything "through" fascism, again, fascism is an ideology, not an action. Fascism is, objectively, not authoritarianism. Fascism cannot be anything but a right wing ideology, according to its founding, its ideological tenants, and its implementation.
I know you despise anti-fascists and literally swallow the nazi myth that anti-fascism is at all comparable to fascism. To fall anti-fascists the epitome of fascism, which is a sentiment that you now share with literal neo-nazis, is sad and frankly disgusting. Perhaps you should stop enabling modern fascists, and stop pretending that fascism is an action, rather than what it objectively is - a right wing authoritarian ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valenrn8657 oh, but I have tried again. And will continue to. Because, you see, mises himself was long disproven, the book you cite comes to very different conclusions, and a little fact I know you don't want to admit - mises held fascist sympathies. Of course he would deny his ideological ties to those who he helped inspire. Oh wait, you didn't know that he managed a fascist economy, was best friends with a fascist dictator, and praised fascism numerous times throughout his life?
I hate to break this to you, but Mises was not a historian - he was a biased, sympathetic "economist." His view on "history" has no historical basis, and he was well known for frequently attempting to rewrite definitions in an attempt to support his biased economic opinions. Mises, of course, knew that the nazis weren't socialists - In fact, he praised fascism for stopping socialism. "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." The government in nazi germany did not have "full control of the means of production," nor is that the definition of socialism.
Of course, you go on to showcase a blatant contradiction, which you seem to have picked up on. The nazis did maintain private ownership of the means of production. In fact, they supported many private businesses, and let them compete among themselves. You see the problem is that mises thinks that if a business is regulated or incentivized, at all, it is somehow under the "full control" of the government. This absurd statement of course holds no real world examples, and no value.
I hate to break this to you, but if you have to create regulations and fines on a business, you don't have full control over it. Today, in every modern capitalist economy, there are hundreds of fines and regulations on private business, and yet, business chugs on. The nazis in no way had complete control of the german economy, nor did they want it. "We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world... If Russia likes Bolshevism it is not our affair, but if Bolshevism casts its nets over to Germany, then we will fight it tooth and nail. " That's a quote from hitler, champ. Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@razzberry6180 But again, he wasn't just anti-marxist, he was anti-socialist, anti-leftist, hell even anti-liberal. He specifically spoke out against state control of the economy, condemning and purging those that pushed for it. (and again, that literally is not the definition of socialism.) And even now you engage in nazi ideological apologia, calling acts of war crime and genocide just "repopulating." Jesus. That's the problem, your type always lies about the reality of the nazis but within minutes will use nazi tactics, minimize their crimes, or push their ideas which you are unwilling to admit they held.
1
-
@razzberry6180 But... you objectively aren't. You're telling lies not at all backed up by historical data, lies that empower actual, modern nazis. And yes, purposefully choosing language that the nazis used to downplay their genocidal atrocities, and then defending that choice of words afterwards, is extremely suspect, given that no sane person would call a genocide anything but a genocide. That is, unless they were trying to apologize for the nazis. See the problem?
And... ok? You do realize that writing a book where he says he dislikes international capitalism doesn't mean he wanted any form of central state control, right? He also wrote and spoke on numerous occasions that he was explicitly against state control of german businesses, he saw that system as a weakness of the bolsheviks, and used it to point out the supposed "superiority" of aryan business. The nazi party worked with big business, not against it, and I hate to break it to you but most businesses were not at all nationalized under the nazis, quite the opposite, they regularly competed and bided amongst eachother for the rights to build things like concentration camps. Most national projects were started and finished by bribing national and international industrialists. The point of Hitler's ideology was to show the supposed superiority of the "ethnic germans," and he pointed out that that clearly meant that to control german business was inefficient and counter-productive. He never had the goal of socialism, (which has always been defined as social ownership of the means of production, not state control, keep up) and he certainly didn't put any power in the hands of nay of his citizens, "ethnic germans" included. He spoke out against a state centered command economy, this is an objective fact and one you've ignored.
And this is how I know you've done no research except watch TIK videos. When did I, or any historian, call them capitalists? It is an objective fact that they were not socialists, that doesn't make them capitalists child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@razzberry6180 Well yes, if you just make a hundred assumptions without ever once questioning if they're accurate, you can come to false conclusions, like you just did! Congratulations.
First off - I literally just told you that the state is horrible at representing the community as a whole, and yes, direct democracy is included. How can you claim that property is controlled by the community as a whole, if only 51% of people are included? That wouldn't be social ownership at all. Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with people telling eachother what rights they have or what they can own - again, social ownership is an economic device, not a device of politics or government. So you just kind of made up that part.
"They" decide what to do with production, with "they" being the community as a whole, yes.
Social Ownership has nothing to say about political procedures or laws, in fact it can exist under hundreds of systems of state or stateless societies. So, not political.
You literally just made up a whole bunch of assumptions and associations that you could have easily put to rest with a simple google of the term. So in short, yes if you try to describe a state and latch that description onto something unrelated, of course it sounds like a state.
The best part is, no matter what, the definition still wouldn't be state control.
1
-
@razzberry6180 Yeah but again - that just isn't true. Not all state control is socialism, and most socialism does not revolve around state control. Do you honestly think monarchism, or imperialism, are forms of socialism??
The nazis stated, over and over, that they had no desire to try to force their economy to bend to the will of any sort of collective, as the nazis only cared for the strong. The "collective" of germany were thrown in jail, beaten, repressed, or gassed. They never wanted anything close to the sharing of profits, which is why on the whole the rich increased their wealth under the nazis. It was nationalist, and while it did want business to support the government, the nazis and especially hitler saw the idea of putting business under the control of the government, instead of letting it compete to show the strongest out of them all, as a terrible idea. And uh... no. Socialism isn't just "when collectivism." Individualist socialism exists, we've been over this. And this is a point that you children continually bring up without realizing how stupid it is. If you replace terms, you now have a different ideology. First off, again, the nazis never advocated for any sort of collective control, even "racial." Aryans were not exempt from repression. Second off, saying that socialism is just when "some group" has control is silly. Socialism has always been the control of the MoP by the community as a whole. Not just one community of many. If we decide that a "race" can be substituted, what next? Is monarchism just "monarcho-socialism," because the monarchs are a collective in control? Is capitalism capital-socialism because the rich and landowners are in control? Socialism is not just when some group owns things.
I'm sorry, but businesses being incentivized to do certain things does not negate the fact that they are private, nor does it put them in some sort of "Racial control." Every country at this time forced businesses to conform to their national identity and ideology, it isn't some new socialist state-ownership scheme that you've discovered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rajpeanut well the answer to that is simple, video responses are the works of lazy and greedy people, that treat history as entertainment, instead of a field of study.
And you seem keen to prove this point, because you can only ever reply with copy pasted responses, or more likely, insults that prove that you simply cannot fathom the idea of doing more work than watching a video. Why do you even want mek to make a video anyway, it would just be me reading out loyd comments I have already sent to TIK. It is, simply, because you are too lazy to treat history as a field of study. How do you think debates were had before videos, champ? In any case, I'll take every lazy copy pasted response after this to be an admission of your failure, and feel free to respond to confirm your complacency in this. I know my greater historical knowledge cut you deep, and I know that your obsession with replying to me with no rebuttal must really wear on your kind, but it's ok. One day you'll grow up and educate yourself enough to admit I'm right :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reserva120 Hitler wasn't a socialist, though. He despised the russians, which is why he broke their fragile peace treaty extremely quickly, but never broke his treaties and agreements with anti-socialist countries or people. Hitler proudly proclaimed himself as an anti-socialist, and his actions reflect this. After all, that is why the nazis pushed for anti-socialist policies, backed by their anti-socialist allies, all while putting in place an anti-socialist system, killing socialists, allying with anti-socialists, and creating an economy on the back of anti-socialism.
How are you this uninformed?
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
-
@MadManRob1 aww, now you're doing the conspiracy thing where you pretend that objectively private companies are "public," for no reason at all. Cute, honestly.
No, sorry, to a person like you everything you don't like is marxist, and that apparently includes american private corporations. I hate to break it to you, but all tech private companies are indeed not public, and if you oppose them because of their economics, then you're just an anti-capitalist in denial. Calling Capitalism marxism doesn't make it so :)
I understand that you are completely historically, linguistically, and economically inept, but it is apparent that your conspiratorial, extremist mindset isn't fooling anyone, which is why it is rightfully unpopular. Your goal is to erase history, redefine words, and pretend the majority of your ideology doesn't belong to you... Because you don't like it. This entire time you have only admitted to the world that you have no argument, and you concede your cultish, ahistorical points. I understand that you want to force people to think like you. Luckily for the world, we've all surpassed you in intelligence upon turning 16 months old, so that isn't likely
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tariqnasneed3857 so, again. Neither group actually respected the desires of the community as a whole, as they artificially and without purpose attacked the community as a whole.
And of course there is a community as a whole, it is known as humanity. Of course, not all of humanity can be reached at one point, so every instance must simply do the best possible. I don't see how that community doesn't exist, though. And as socialism can exist without a state, your claim is a clear lie.
This following statement is also false for many reasons. For one, many capitalists do see themselves a single group. Yes a group in competition, but the nazi party was no different in that regard. That is why many capitalists lobby for policies that might help their competition... But also help them. They are, objectively, a single community. And socialism, of course, does not abolish individual competition with others. Also, the "socialism for the rich" line is a social democratic political slogan, not an actual stance of political objectivity. In any case, no, Capitalists do have concrete class interests that they hold in common. Also, the Germans under hitler were as far from "seeing eye to eye" as possible.
And a monarchy is based around a royal family, which in itself is a community, not to mention the lords, nobles, and vassals under their direct service. So they are a community.
So how is every state not socialist then, by your warped definition?
1
-
1
-
@tariqnasneed3857
Yeah, that isn't true. "Community as a whole" does not mean "whatever the most popular opinion is." And you've got to be joking me, hitler killed literally millions of germans and expelled/sent off to war/oppressed at home millions more.
Cooperation is a necessity for survival. How many times have we heard stories of people putting aside their differences to actually make a difference and make something greater than their squabbling selves? So, so many times. If competition is what drove the human race, we would never have made it this fa, hell we would have never created civilization. Violence is not necessary for humanity to live and thrive, but you saying this makes me realize what kind of a person you are, and what kind of a twisted mentality you have.
I hate to break it to you but things like the marginal tax rate, income brackets, and just general income tax don't apply for specific goods, they apply for incomes, and classes. That's why so many billionaires support lowering taxes as a whole.
An example of a man cooperating with other rich people for his own class benefit really doesn't prove your point.
And yeah, that's just false. Most members of the royal family hold other titles and positions, and wield that power independently. Also, I hate to break it to you, but dictatorships work in the same way. So what's with your contradiction?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glennchartrand5411 I love when your type does this. It is a blatant admittance of defeat.
When I make a point, unlike you, I am proud to stick by it, and I am proud to provide reasoning and evidence for said claim. You then call me a liar, despite everyone being able to read how this is not the case.
When I was criticized for grammar, I continued making my points, as well as grammatical corrections to those I argued with. They, of course, took any excuse to neglect my points and focus on the grammar.
I keep a close eye for when your type edits their posts, because you are prone to editing out statements I directly address, and then lying about them afterwards.
The funny part is, you know you can't rebut these facts, none of you have been able to, which is why you do your best to make sure that others don't engage with me.
After all, your sole goal is to create an ideological echo chamber, and i'm getting in the way of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Davidoff I'm sorry, "redefined terms?" You do realize that you look up "socialism definition," and literally the first result is the definition I cited to you, yes? How lazy are you that you don't even check my quotes? Jesus this is sad. I tried to start of simple for you and you couldn't even handle that.
And it's ok, you can admit you don't have the basic economic education to keep up in this conversation. It is also funny how you rail socialist countries for "rewriting history" when that's all you've done, this whole time. No, a consumer and investor are two sides of the same coin. An investor also "pays their money in exchange for a product or service," that product or service being profit. A customer also "loans money to a business in exchange for future return on their investment," that return being the product they are buying. You quite literally proved me right without even realizing it. Those goals aren't different at all. People want something from a company, so they pay. And I hate to break it to you, but this isn't the only time you do this. "If another company sells a similar product/service for less, the consumer will buy from that competitor instead" Are you telling me that an investor wouldn't invest in a similar, but more profitable or efficient business? Do you understand that most investors invest based on things like customer satisfaction and profit, both of which are directly tied to the customer? Do you understand basic economics?
And god, this is sad. I show you the definition of socialism, and you start trying to pick it apart as if it was just a random explanation of socialist practices, showing that you are not only ignorant on socialist policy and history, but also on the definition itself. "Well you’re going to have to tell that to all the socialist countries in the world and how they all ‘got it wrong’ about socialism" Please, I invite you to list some of these "socialist" countries, as well as your reasoning as to how they are socialist. In any case, who is the "community as a whole?" Um... the community. As a whole. It is literally in the very words you're saying. If the population of this country is 10, then the community as a whole is those 10 people. Pretty. Simple. Does that sound like a state to you? Do you think the state always effectively represents the entirety of their citizenry? Also - "What agency creates laws that forces the owners of production to surrender their capital to the workers, if not the state?" The defense of the modern state is the only reason that 'private property' exists in the first place, remove one and the other wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. And again, jesus, you are kind of proving my point. I'm sorry, but CEOs and other various owning figures make far more than they work for. They could work all day every day forever, and it still would not justify their salaries. Those who do the most work, have been the most productive, and suffer the most risk are always the actual workers, not the owners. Being proletariat doesn't mean "someone who works hard," the fuck are you talking about? Again, proletariat is an objective economic term. Those who own things for their money are not proletariat, those who work without ownership are. Who decides? Well, the difference is clear cut. I love how you call class disparity "junk," "anecdotes," and "rhetoric instead of science," and yet do not provide a speck of evidence for a single one of those claims. I'm sorry that class disparity is a real and tangible force in the world that has influenced a huge amount of human history and can be tangibly seen in the modern day, and i'm sorry you have no facts to disprove that, only your rage at being wrong.
And again - baseless conspiracy theories. Where are socialists trying to "hijack the government?" I've only seen one group try to, for example, take over the capital, and it sure as heck wasn't socialists. And of course socialists hated the monarchists, and yes, some self proclaimed socialists then went on to be dictators... under an entirely different economic system. You see the problem? You're saying all state ownership is socialist, and then when it is pointed out that socialism actually has a long history of anti-state and anti-authoritarian movements and ideologies, then you just say "but this one socialist did this!" I'm sorry, but that isn't an argument. But please, continue to justify your authoritarian outlook on life, believing it to be the only way to see the world. It's pretty amusing.
And again, how does "CEOs, VPs, and directors" fit the qualification of being proletariat? They get their money by owning something, be it a company, or other human beings in the form of employers. That's why the majority of CEO's riches tend to be in stocks, because they're profiting from their (and other's) companies as a whole, not the person's individual work. If a CEO vanished tomorrow, a company would chug on. If all the low wage workers on their payroll vanished? Then the company would fail. So yes, the definition of proletariat is pretty clear cut, and i'm sorry you don't understand that. It has been objectively defined, over and over again, even to you. You just don't like that those who own aren't included in a group meant to defined those who do not own. In any case, the Kulaks. What happened to them was an atrocity, yes, but they weren't just a group of random farmers. They were a group that purposefully withheld crops from the government that had funded them, and when the government came asking for what it had paid for, the Kulaks quite literally burned down their fields, kicking off a famine that would kill thousands, at the least. Not quite the "contributing farmers" you frame them as, hm? And by god, how did I know you would bring up Venezuela! Venezuela, the country every brainwashed right winger calls socialist... and also a country that proudly boasts a 70% private economy. And thank you for rightfully pointing out that economic sanctions against them are a huge contributor to their modern economic turmoil. The US is quite literally one of the biggest oil purchasers, and their allies and them make up the majority of the market. Tell me, who exactly are they supposed to sell... to? And how is this behavior justified by the USA? Finally, I do hope you realize the hilarious problem in asking me for an example of a state... that is stateless.
All you've done is doubled down on disproven nonsense, as I have to provide fact after fact to even keep you on track with the conversation. I tell you basic economic facts, about groups from CEOs to investors, and your only response is to dive deeper into your rabbit hole of unfounded assertions. How ignorant to the facts can you be?
1
-
@UltraKardas Your "corrections," as to be expected, are laughably false and i've already addressed them.
So, your first "point."
#1 - Already disproved this. Some socialists don't even want a state, and state control of government programs existed thousands of years before the first socialist was even conceived. Alongside that, as we've been over, the GLF and NSV were both programs used to diminish leftist support and control, and increase the power of private corporations. They were restrictions on already existing capitalist policies.
That means that neither of those programs were anything close to socialist, both definitionally, and in practice. I understand that it takes quite a few tries of telling you the same facts for them to stick in your brain, but you seem not to understand what socialism even is, as these policies are both entirely anti-socialist, and were not in any sense overseen by the government. Not that that would matter, as we've been over - since socialism isn't just "when the government does stuff."
By the way, the GLF was not nationalized, it was directly under private control. It was directly appointed by the corrupt private business owners that supported the nazi party, which again, was a majority of business owners. The GLFs leader was of course a nazi, and a rich, private business owner. Like a lot of nazis, actually. The GLF served specifically to remove the ability to collectively bargain by the workers. Almost like it was an anti-socialist policy... which is objectively was.
You are brainless.
#2. Asserting something without proof twice doesn't make it any more true, and I have heard more capitalists support that statement than socialists.
#3. funnily enough, this quote from you is a direct paraphrase of your buddy hitler, and i hope you'll be pleased to know that both of you were very wrong
#4. This is a statement that requires extraordinary evidence. Evidence that, as we can see, you do not provide, as no evidence for this claim exists - it isn't true. The government did not "own everything" in germany (nor would that be socialism, as we've been over) in fact it privatized more than it inherited in terms of public property. Also, funnily enough, this line from you: " There was no private property that the Nazi's couldn't confiscate" proves that there was private property, and businesses in nazi germany openly competed with eachother in the private market. Stop lying
#5. I'm an anarchist, you're the idiot. Quick correction.
#6. Exactly, socialists align with the left, and the nazis align with the right... so they aren't socialists. Bernie and AOC are social democrats (capitalists) but even they have the common sense to point out that modern nazis and fascists, without exception, align with the right. They march with trump supporters, support far right politicians they like, so on. So yeah, nazis are on the right.
See, the problem is, you don't understand what right and left are. The right, for example, has a few that like firearms... but many who don't (Reagan, Leopold, Hitler, ect.) The left, on the other hand, has plenty who do support firearms. (Marx, Bakunin, DeLeon, ect) Huge parts of the right hate israel, and despise others living their own, happiest lives. The right seems to hate capitalism when it allows big companies to not platform them, the right despises free speech and seeks to outlaw it when it allows people to "disrespect the flag/nation," and so on. Your problem is that you're comparing the modern, moderate right with the historical far right.
Bernie and AOC, the capitalists? Yeah, unlike the far right, who advocate for nationalism, selective privatization, extreme conservatism and traditionalism, and so on, they aren't anything like the nazis. Those who advocate for the closest to nazi policies today are the "patriotic education" right wing.
The nazis openly despised centralization, which is why they called it a Bolshevik scheme to take power away from germany. The modern far right advocates for welfare and healthcare... for white citizens only, and in all other cases say it should be privatized. The left, on the other hand, calls for non-discriminatory, non-hierarchical policy. So yeah, the modern right is calling for the same thing the nazis were. So, hey. Wrong, braindead, and easily proven so.
It's ok, child. There's nothing wrong with admitting you got disproven by me, especially when it is so obvious to everyone reading this. You, after all, have yet to even respond to a single one of my arguments. You just need the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong, and that not everyone who knows more than you is a socialist. In fact, calling historians socialists was how nazi germany justified burning books and killing the educated. Your nonsense isn't fooling anyone.
A child can tell a flower is a flower, and any child, especially a modern german one, would be happy to tell you that the far right, socialist hating, deeply conservative and traditionalist, pro-privatization nazis were, yes, all of those things. The nazis hated centralization, but I guess you would have to have done some research to know that.
You can't even address my other points, which is why you have yet to do so, and why your response was so much shorter than mine. For example, you don't even attempt to rebut the facts that welfare is much older than socialism, that socialism is not just government control, that the nazis had a more restricted welfare and healthcare policy than the capitalist nation before them, and that the modern anti-socialist right calls for the same policies you call socialist. Not one of those things have been addressed, argued against, or even acknowledged by you. This is because if you actually recognize my arguments, you would have to admit you're wrong... which you are :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
@Sprite Cola
"But those aren't socialist programs at all. Those were programs that literally even existed in germany before the nazis took over, back when germany was a capitalist state. Universal Healthcare was cut under the nazis, it was literally less expansive then it had been under a capitalist government. So you're calling the vast majority of capitalists socialists now. Not surprising you don't acknowledge this, as you are unable to be truthful.
No, your "arguments" addressed none of mine, and as i'll go on to show you and already have shown you, your only actual "responses" to me are complete strawman argument.
Like here, because I never once said "socialism needs multiple worker unions" despite your use of quotations, implying I said that sentence... which I didn't. What I actually said was "A single "worker union" that was put in place to abolish all worker unions and gave no actual power to the worker, instead handing it all back to their bosses, is fundamentally anti-socialist. You Still have yet to address this fact, so you make up statements from me. Also, private property literally is, in and of itself, centralized power. Jesus they don't give you children any education on economics today, do they? The GLF was run by nazis, the majority of which were private property owners. It wasn't a worker union, even you admitted this.
The problem is, you confuse what you want "socialism" to be (anything you deem bad) with what the definition actually is. And when I point out the discrepancy between the two examples, you rant and rave at me because you have this irrational desire to call literally everything "socialist." Not surprising as it takes higher brain power to make the connection to theory, and applying that theory into the real world. You assert that "socialism is only possible if the means of production is controlled by the state," but socialism is literally defined as community ownership, so how can you claim it is socialism if the state doesn't represent the community?
You have made up an issue that doesn't actually exist, a supposed issue of "who gets to use it and when?" And the answer is literally in the name... the community. Those who were already working in a place would determine how they work at that place. Capitalists already do this for their workers, the only difference is that now the workers are doing it themselves. You have no need for "regulation," in fact more regulation exists under capitalism.
So no, socialism is not and never has been the complete centralization of all production, because a system in which the government owns everything but the community has no say over how it is owned or operated isn't a socialist system at all. you call places like china and north korea socialist, despite the fact that neither of those countries fits any definition of socialism, china for example much more fits the definition of corporatist capitalism. That's why they don't own Tencent at all, it is literally a private corporation.
And as we've been over, this is an assertion you keep making, but you refuse to provide proof for. Because no proof exists - its alie. The german government encouraged competition, private property, and the boss controlling their workers. They depised the idea of owning every job, that's why they let the private market control the workers directly.
They didn't "set wages" at all champ, that was done by the private business owners who ran the GLF.
Socialism is not, and never has been, state control of the economy. That is why socialists despise right wing totalitarianism and state ownership (like monarchism, imperialism, fascism, ect) and why historically, a huge portion of socialists have advocated for a stateless society. You on the other hand are just making up definitions, because you believe in the necessity of a "system of management..." just like every fascist and totalitarian believes in.
Yeah, again, not true. Capitalism inherently appeals to the government, destroys its own trade, manufactures both supply and demand in order to make the most profit while helping the least people. You seem to not understand that regulated capitalism... isn't socialism. You don't seem to understand that helping the rich isn't socialism. Hell, you point out an amazing example of China's cutthroat competition, and china's companies being friends with the government, so they don't have to pay their employees. This is the natural result of capitalism.
For example, Hitler was fond of working with international industrialists, like Ford, to achieve certain projects of his. He openly let companies bid and compete among eachother to realize his dreams.
Capitalism stifles markets, individuality, and creativity. Capitalism forces profit instead of innovation, exploitation instead of help. But, as you are a fan of nazis and their far right friends, I doubt you would ever dare to think for yourself about how much capitalism confines and depersonalizes most people. You can't even be honest enough with yourself to say that self proclaimed right wing anti socialists, who support anti socialist policies, are in fact right wing anti-socialists.
Bernie is a capitalist, but your image of him as a conspiracy figure is closely in line with your heroes, the nazis, which to this day invoke antisemetic tropes like you just did to hate him. The conspiracy theory that a rich, jewish politician wants to institute a leftist dystopia in your country, despite that politician not even being anything outside the overton window, is quite literally a nazi conspiracy theory. And of course, not true at all
And you're joking, right? First off, you make the mistake of calling germany socialist (they were your anti-socialist heroes, remember) but the USSR was literally famous for its film industry, in fact, many russian films from the era still exist today, and are being remade into books, movies, and games as we speak. You're literally taking your ignorance on other countries as a fact.
But, a totalitarian like yourself never had any brain power. The best thing fascist sympathizers like you ever did was make yourself into big enough fools that nobody would ever take you seriously.
You wouldn't admit to your ideological allies in the far right, even as you told them to lead the socialists off to camps. Stop supporting far right nazis."
1
-
@Davidoff
Ah, amazing! Another response utterly lacking in content, proof, citation, or reason. Instead, you fill this response, again, with unfounded assertions and silly insults that prove your lack of intellectual honesty.
Have I ever worked a "real job?" Yes, actually, i've been working since I was 13. I hate to break it to you, however, but only one of us has actually been citing facts from what you call "common sense," and it has been me.
And that vast majority is in real life. You know, not the extremist, self-admitted ahistorical revisionist echo chamber that is TIK's comment section. I'm sorry that the vast majority of people understand english better than you propagandists, but really, you shouldn't be surprised. A private company that trades stocks among the public is still private, by definition. Even you call it a "private company that trades stocks." I hate to break it to you, but all companies, in part, are directly linked to "the public." The public is, after all, the customers they have to appeal to. A consumer is simply an investor with less stakes, less reward, less cost. A Consumer buys a product expecting something they want out of it, exchanging their money for their desires, and an investor does the same. The interests of the investors and the consumers are not "completely different," they both want something out of the company, one just wants a product, the other wants profit, both of which are entirely linked. A successful business does not need to "balance" the needs of consumers and invertors, as people usually invest based on things like... consumer satisfaction.
And of course corporations with government ties are not socialist, which is why your only counter to this fact is unfounded assertions. Socialism is, and I quote, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." But you can't even keep a simple train of thought here. For example, you ask "who decides who is proletariat?" Which... is nonsense. Proletariat is an economic term referring to people who make a living by working, not by owning. A factory worker that rents a place for themselves to live is proletariat. A factory owner and their landlord are not. See the difference? Socialism does not even need a state to exist, so no, the statement "socialism the proletariat is the state" is complete, unfounded nonsense. If the proletariat was the state, then why did so many socialists speak out against the state? Why did they hate authoritarian monarchists? Furthermore, do you understand even the most basic socialist views of class? Socialism is not, and has never been, simply "State control of the economy." And corporations with state interference aren't even controlled by the state, so literally every link in your chain of "logic" falls through. This isn't that hard to comprehend.
You assert that "someone has to "decide" who counts as a prole" (which isn't true, its an objective classification, this is basic stuff) and then you say that "under socialism, the proletariat is the state" (which again isn't true, as socialism is defined as community/collective control, and if the state does not represent that collective, it cannot claim to be socialist. Furthermore, the goal of socialism is to abolish those class distinctions not just replace one ruling class with another) You then say that socialism is "State control of the economy." (which again isn't true, both because socialists have been anti-state historically, and because of reasons already discussed.) You then further assert that this means that any corporations that have government influence is run by the proletariat. (which isn't true because "government influence" could be as little as simple regulation, could be done by thoroughly non-socialist governments, and again, corporations are by definition private entities, them being regulated by a state, or working with a state, does not change that.)
You see how literally every leap in logic you made is unsupported? A single one of my corrections would have utterly disproved you, but I went the extra mile.
The thing that disappoints me the most is that I know no matter how much I correct you, how long I write my responses attempting to make up for your lack of substance, to educate you... i know you're not going to listen. I have easily debunked you in literally every claim you made and what is your response? "Have you even worked a real job?" It's sad, really.
I feel conned out of my time which could have been better served debating someone who knows what they're talking about.
1
-
@UltraKardas Except that again, I have proved you wrong about everything.
The welfare charity for example was literally run by private business, who wanted to eliminate worker competition and worker autonomy to provide more power to the owners. So they were fundamentally anti-socialist, which you would realize if you actually knew what the definition of socialism was.
They were absorbed into the corporate engine of right wing anti-socialist nazi germany. Socialism is not, and has never been, "all about state control." This is an assertions by propagandized, fascistic individuals. Also, private property is literally only a stance taken by capitalists, socialists are far from the only anti-private property people. What defines socialism is what private property is replaced by... community control.
You lost the argument, fash. I've provided you facts, and you "provide" me with insults and assertions. Sure, I can continue correcting you and watching you make a fool of yourself as long as you want. Eventually you're going to have to admit that the nazis were objectively far right anti-socialists.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas Yeah but that literally isn't true, though. For example, monarchists were strongly opposed to private property, and they objectively weren't socialists. Anarchists are also opposed to private property, they aren't socialists either. And, if everyone was say, shot off to the moon, or suddenly vanished off of the earth, then private property would cease to exist, as would ownership as a whole. does this make those situations socialist? Does that make animals socialist, because they have no concept of private property? If "anti-socialist means private property," does that mean that monarchists, anarchists, or primitivists are all fans of private property now?? As we've been over, what defines socialism is not "abolishing private property," but replacing private property with community ownership. Also, that's all a moot point, because in no way, shape, or form was private property abolished in nazi germany.
BTW, the government was literally funded and primarily influenced by private individuals. Which is why the NSV was ran by a businessman and a landowner.
All other charities were amalgamated into that anti-socialist whole. As we've been over, you don't understand the definition of socialism, and you certainly don't understand the definition of anti-socialism. Socialism isn't "when no charities." You've been debunked again.
1
-
@UltraKardas Literally every program Nazi Germany made was highly anti-socialist. That means they either abolished different worker run institutions like how all autonomous unions charities were dismantled for the private market's anti-communal-welfare mentality.
You had the anti-communal labor front that controlled the wages of every worker in every job, that dictated the pay, the time off, and the rights of every worker, all according to whatever their bosses wanted, while giving no actual communal power to the workers.
No communal systems or collective bargaining was allowed. You had one massive anti-worker "union" that controlled wages for every worker, and was only directed by said worker's private bosses. Literally every part of Germany was in the hands of corrupt private individuals working with a corrupt state, to the point that the entire country was controlled by the Anti-Socialist Nazi Party.
You had entire industries run by the private Germans for the sake of indoctrination. Germany had a tourist industry just to make other people anti-leftists.
Socialists/communists and fascists are about as far from eachother are you can get. Socialists just want community control, with or without a state. Communists don't even want a state. And fascists love to work with private industry to destroy leftist thought and power.
The funny thing is, everything I said here was true, and I have proven that to you time and time again. However, like a true far-right cultist, you just repeat back the same lies without even providing a rebuttal for why you still believe them. Abolishing private property isn't socialist, and it didn't happen under nazi germany, and nothing about nazi germany was "communal." (calling it that is literally holocaust denial) this is a point you've been corrected on time and time again, and yet you provide no rebuttal to the facts i present, only deflection. Just admit it, fash. We can tell from your hatred of socialism you would have been a happy nazi.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
I have, though. You only deny it because you have no other basis to prop up your ahistorical views. I have given you the objective, historical definition of socialism, one you despise because it proves you wrong so easily and efficiently. You long ago stopped trying to prove my facts wrong, and instead switched to asserting the same disproven nonsense.
You are so wrong that its literally the easiest thing to do to disprove you, which I have.
Nazi germany despised command economies, and used the economy of the soviet union under stalin (not lenin's NEP) as proof of the inefficiency of command economies. This is the fourth time I have shown you this, not once have you even addressed it, opting instead to repeat the same lies time and time again. The nazis despised communal programs, which is why the German Labor Front and their restrictive healthcare systems existed, as an effort to dissuade communal power and collective bargaining. The private corporations still held the vast majority of their power, and yes! This ability was handed to them by the nazis.
The nazis weren't socialists. That's why they attempted to redefine the word "socialism" after rightfully being called out by actual socialists. You are literally so brainless, that you correctly call Italy Fascist, then falsely call Nazi Germany socialist, without realizing fascism is inherently anti-socialist.
And yes, they were both fascist systems, with many similarities, those being extreme nationalism, traditionalism, opposition to leftism and socialism of all forms, corporatist economic systems, and so on. Socialism and fascism are antithetical to eachother, howerver, the anti-socialist fascism of the nazis and the anti-socialist fascism of the italians were similar.
And yes, congratulations! You found out that Mussolini changed ideologies.
Mussolini started out as a member of the socialist party, but was quickly expelled. He then wrote books and articles outlining the system he now preferred, called fascism, and he explicitly denounced socialism and leftism in these works, saying that fascism was system that left both socialism and capitalism behind, while belonging to the right.
There is so much you can't even disprove... which is why you repeat the same old disproven talking points without once addressing my rebuttal 🤣
1
-
@UltraKardas Ironic how you call others projectors for proving you wrong. There's a little word called projection. :)
Social Democrats are capitalists, but i'm willing to bet that you'd call them socialists anyway, so deep is your economic ignorance. And yes, socialists can be rivals, many were. That does not mean every rival of a socialist, however, is just a different type of socialist. The nazis still weren't socialists. You're arguing someone must be a cannibal because they opposed cannibalism.
Nazi germany was anti-socialist. It had anti-socialist policies, a corporatist government, ran by anti-socialists, and found its strongest allies among international capitalists like Ford and Koch Sr.
And thank you for admitting that capitalists have rivals too! You'd be happy to admit they also had friends, right?
...friends like the nazi party, which propped itself up on sympathetic international industrialists.
Funny how you have absolutely fabricated false information about the restrictive "social healthcare" of the nazis, which was more private under the nazis than under their capitalist forbearers. And of course, social security is a product of capitalism, and the nazis weren't socialists, but then again, that's all been proven to you before, time and time again.
And yes, the nazis were anti-union. Anti all union, but especially leftist unions. Instead, they abolished all collective bargaining, and reorganized what was left into a "union" made with the explicit goal of helping private owners, as you have admitted in the past. A private "union."
And I have to agree, yes, you are willing to lie about the truth about the nazis, past the point of absurdity. Every time you respond, I write a response paragraphs longer than yours, addressing each sentence and statement individually, systematically dismantling them with facts you don't have the historical knowledge to oppose. Your next response then is usually short, and full of the same disproven assertions you are afraid to admit are incorrect.
The nazis weren't socialists, and asserting others only helps modern nazis, which ironically enough it seems you'll find you don't seem that opposed to, fash.
1
-
@UltraKardas
But... they weren't socialists. Objectively :) You know this fact, which is why you refuse to even respond to be me before, although to be fair your prior responses always failed to address my arguments so this isn't too much of a change. Of course, the "socialist" in their name was a lie, especially given hitler opposed it, and then attempted to redefine the word. Their economic policy, government actions, worker policy, healthcare, and welfare were all distinctly non-socialist or anti-socialist policies.
The nazis had 100% anit-socialist policy, as we've been over, and as I proved to you as you ran away. The government didn't control the wages, the private market did. There wasn't "social security," that was a wholly american policy. They in fact bolstered the private option, over and over again, and put more control into private hands. Socialized healthcare? They restricted it from the capitalist policies that had preceded them. They wanted something done? They bribed the private market. And the funny thing is, none of the policies you describe, lies as they are.. would make the nazis socialists. :)
They made anti-socialist allies (Ford, Koch, IBM, ect) openly despised the programs of actual leftist nations, and openly admitted to being anti-socialist. You don't know what a strawman is, just like you don't know the definition of socialism.
The funny thing is, China in the modern day is capitalist, while North Korea is quite literally a self identified monarchy. The nazis, of course, were far right anti-socialists. None of them fit the definition of socialism, that being "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," all for different reasons. The reasons the nazis had is that ideologically, they never even wanted to be socialist. They hated socialism more than you.
You can insult people who understand history better than you all you want, after all, you can't respond to a single one of our arguments. It only takes a single glance at the definition of socialism, as well as a overview of the history of the nazis, to determine the truth, that they were far right anti-socialists, like you :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesterbeats2898 first off, learn to use punctuation. Second off, what? I did disprove everything they said, over and over again. First off, china isn't fascist going by the definition, they are simply a state capitalist economy putting out propaganda claiming the opposite. Furthermore, even if they were fascists, that doesn't mean we can assume anything about historical unrelated fascist groups, given that even said groups disagreed with eachother. In any case, no, I'm sorry, china is not fascist and nazi germany was not socialist, these are the facts of the matter and I have yet to see a coherent rebuttal to them. The nazis weren't socialists in a different sense... They just weren't socialists at all. That simple.
1
-
1
-
@Timenaught actually, unlike you nazi supporters, I proudly back up every single argument with an example, or citation, which is why you all never seem able to actually address my arguments, just as you refuse to engage with a single one of them in your comment right here. rather, you engage in petty insults and assertions with no base in reality. If I am so willing to say "I'm right because I say so," why have I provided so many sources and quoted that support reality?
The nazi party literally privatized huge swathes of industry, despite TIKs attempted redefinition of that word, and empowered huge amounts of private business within their economy. Socialism has never been state ownership, as of course you know, and of course the nazi party in no way took complete state ownership of private property. In fact, private property was never abolished, as I showed time and time again. You're free to disagree, but try to provide sources, not just assertions. You also seem to believe TIKs u cited conspiracy theory that anyone claims the Nazis were capitalists.
All of you nazi supporters say the same thing, that despite citing quotes and timestamps from all of TIKs videos, I somehow have never seen them. This is your attempted to shut down the truth, as you wholly refuse to deal with someone like me that can do effortlessly prove you wrong. for example, have you even watched the video? If you did, you would know he has an entire section dedicated to making excuses for the fact that the vast majority of his historical sources disagree with him totally. Now, is that an insult, or will you admit to being a liar about my part in debunking TIK?
And funny, that last line perfectly explains you TIK fans, eager nazis all too willing to run rampant through comment sections asserting total nonsense, and attempting to censor those that prove them wrong. Like you're doing, nazi fan boy. And like i'm calling you out for, though i'm sure you'll proudly deny it and then go on accusing others of being nazis for... daring to call out nonsense.
1
-
1