Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. 48
  2. 16
  3. 14
  4. 13
  5. 13
  6. 12
  7. 10
  8. 10
  9. 9
  10. 9
  11. 9
  12. 9
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 8
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24.  @stormyprawn  Thank you for your counter argument and unlike some people, know how to keep it respectful. "I'll explain my analogy to show where you're wrong." - U may proceed. "Some cars truly aren't designed to drive on the road, there's some that can go off-road and on road but most are designed primarily to go on road." - Ok does not mean the car is required for the road to still be a car. So if Hitler's socialism "can go off the road," then it could still be considered socialism. "So too does socialism mean different things to different people." - That we can agree on, unfortunately socialism's definition has been distorted so badly that often people can't even come to a proper consensus on what it even means. However since I pulled most of my definitions from Oxford, I figured it was only appropriate to do the same for socialism definition which is the only definition that can apply for all its variants, or at least most. Socialism: "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." "Generally speaking however, the socialism described by Marx actually was about the worker and shifting power to them." - True which is why neither I nor Tik argue its Marxism. Just because National Socialists were socialists does not mean they were or even allied with Marxists. "The different sects of socialism describe the worker's control over the means of productions in different ways." - There are some that do, however you have to remember, socialism predates Marxism. Pre Marx socialism had variants that were not about the workers at all but rather ensuring communal control as a whole, worker or not. In fact, socialism's overarching origin can be dated even all the way back to politicians in the Roman Empire. And none of them so much as mentioned concepts as worker or class. "Some point to the state to control the economy as a representative of the workers (though I would scarcely call the Soviet Union, China and other examples as socialist)." - I mean they are failed socialists. And highlights one of socialism's fundamental flaws, but ur points still stand. "Most modern day socialists and some socialists in history believe in workplace democracy where the workers directly control their workplace." - Which no one is denying, however even as you yourself have admitted, not all of them did. If u want to come out and say that Hitler wasn't truly about the worker, I would agree with u. But frankly neither were many variants of socialism including many Marxist states. I doubt the Soviet Union under Stalin was really doing things in the worker's best interests, considering how many he murdered or starved. "Saying that socialism is just "state control of the means of productions" has so many layers of misunderstanding baked into it." - Which is why I don't define it as that. Its defined as Communal control. The state is just the extension of said community and technically represents them. "It's like a black-and-white understanding of politics and history with no nuance whatsoever." - I will agree to that to an extent, however socialism again, has been distorted in definitions throughout history so many times, that you kinda almost have no choice but to oversimplify it. Otherwise there would be no definition anyone could agree on. "Hell, look at the leftist anarchist movement: they hate state control! Their entire ideology revolves around dismantling the state! Yet they still describe themselves as socialist." - True, however looking at it from an objective standpoint, anarcho socialism is oxymoronic. How are they suppose to ensure socialism if the state does not exist? Its not like the power would come down to individuals since socialism is inherently about collectives and communities. So, to that extent, they propose decentralized structures, but the end result would only be many mini states, with states you cannot have anarchy but without it u cannot have socialism. "Or what about people organising in trade unions? (though unions don't need to specifically be made up by leftists, labour organising as a concept is a predominantly leftist idea and it's applications often lead to leftist activism)." - True but not all unionists are socialists. Unionists while at times allied with socialists, are not automatically socialists themselves considering that not all of them want to get rid of capitalism. They just work together as workers to get better work conditions and of course an owner is more likely to listen when almost your entire workforce is speaking rather than just one. "They don't need or want the state to control them, there's several cases of the state attempting (successfully of unsuccessfully) of crushing unions." - True, but not all states are socialist nations. "The Soviet Union basically neutered its trade unions because they often opposed the centralisation, central planning policies, collectivisation, etc." - True, which furthers my point. Why is it when Hitler does it, people are like "see this is proof he wasn't a socialist," but they are so quick to retract when Lenin or Stalin does it. Of course you do have some people that are delusional enough to say "that was not "real socialism" either." This is where the "State Capitalism" fallacy quickly takes surface which has often devolved into shifting blame to the other side of the economic spectrum for socialism's own failings. I do appreciate your attempted counter arguments, you did present them well, and I appreciate that you kept things respectful. That becomes more rare by the second, but I do feel your arguments are suffering problems on two fronts. A. I did not define socialism as exclusively state control. Yes state control is one form, but its not the only. B. Your emphases on workers shows me that you are subscribing too much to Marxist definition, yes, while some variants of socialism are very much about the workers. Not all of them are, and especially in Pre Marx Socialism, it was not emphasized anywhere near to the same degree it is now. In fact variants full on rejected worker's concept. I would argue Hitler was one of those people. He did lie about being part of the workers, and trying to help them. When in reality, Hitler's communal control was never going to be through the workers, but instead through the state and race. However, that does not debunk Hitler as a socialist. It only means he wasn't a Marxist or Social Democrat.
    7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 6
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. "But he hated socialists and communists and had them murdered in large numbers," - Communists were Marxists who he already explained. Being a socialist does not mean ur going to like every variant. Monarchs killed other monarchs, capitalists killed other capitalists. Does that invalidate them too? As for socialism, look at the 04:08:00 section. "before he even came to power." - He hated marxists who he viewed as part of the Jewish conspiracy. "He believed in the state above all else, not any sense of collectivism. How can you ignore that?" - Because your failing to understand that the state is a collective. There is no such thing as a one man state. States are the public sector, the ruling community of the nation. "That is why he is a Fascist." - Except he isn't. Strongly suggest looking up the real definition of fascism as described by Gentile and Mussolini. "He abandoned Socialism in prison while he wrote Mein Kampf." - According to what? Mein Kampf itself advocates him as a socialist. So clearly that statement holds no truth. "Is it possible to try to understand history without coming at it from either an anti-socialism or anti-capitalism viewpoint?" - Both yes and no. History is always going to have biases, the main thing is to look into definitions and be able to see how much the evidence favors? "Can we not do that anymore?" - Depends who u ask. At the end of the day TIK maybe bias, and there are many parts of his views I disagree with, however none of this is going to stop until people at the very least understand that the Nazis were not this far right thing. They were at the very least in the center with stronger leanings to the left when we look at it on how much political and economic control they had. "I have no need for him to be or not be a socialist." - Ok, then if he is a socialist, why would u have a problem with that? "I would just like the historical facts to be put forward without ideological bias." - Every person has ideological biases. The best way to get closer to the truth is to make those clear when describing and interpreting the evidence and come to your own conclusion.
    5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5