Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. I've already seen proximity fuses, radar and some other things from the Allies (mainly British inventions though), but British anti-submarine technology is also a very worthy mention. By '43-'44 they started making German subs just about obsolete. Very impressive feat in the Atlantic.
    122
  2. Highly interesting, TIK! You're one of the few youtubers to dive so deeply into the the thought process of the Nazis. You're doing highly important work here, as only by understanding their ideology can we effectively oppose it today.
    91
  3. "What's the final solution to the bourgeoisie question?" Hahaha, great
    70
  4. By 1944 they decided to extract food from occupied territory in the west too. My grandparents survived the Hunger Winter in the Netherlands
    68
  5.  @mickeymegabyte  Actually, Dutch = Deutsch. Deutsch/Dutch is old Germanic for "folk". All Germanic peoples used to refer to themselves as "Dutch" a long time ago. In the Netherlands, we referred to ourselves as Diets or Duits up until the 17th/18th century. In fact, the sentence "of Duits/Dutch blood" is still in our national anthem, though that also refers to how our king at the time came from Germany. The English simply called the Germanic people closest to them, "Dutch", which is 100% correct (and/or we introduced ourselves as "Duyts" during trade relations). After thousands of years of calling ourselves "Diets/Duits" and many older forms of that term, we stopped using it but the English never stopped. Germany didn't stop and named their nation Deutschland. Even though at the time all German-speaking peoples would call themselves "Deutsch". Nowadays the original use of the term "Duits" is largely forgotten and we only call the Germans "Duits".
    57
  6. You're forgetting that we were all similar Germanic tribes before that, for thousands of years, which also contributes to this sense of a shared identity. Ethnically, we are related to the Germans and are Germanic ourselves. My guess is that this genetic element is the main reason the Nazis were fond of the Netherlands, coupled with some cultural and historic factors that link us as well. Being as obsessed with eugenics as they were, that seems the probable main factor.
    54
  7. The main lesson of the early 20th century is that with one wrong ideological turn, you can make perfectly normal, intelligent people do unspeakable things. You can make a perfectly normal person think that the utopic future requires that dissidents today are killed. You can make a perfectly normal person believe that to save his people, he has to invade foreign lands and even massacre Jews for being Jews. All it takes is ideology, no stupidity, no evil, just a different ideological world view. Scary....
    25
  8.  @mickeymegabyte  And another detail I forgot is this: technically the term "diets" is still alive. The term for a united Greater Netherlands (Netherlands + Flanders or Belgium + perhaps Luxembourg, the Low Countries united) still is Dietsland. When High and Low German started to part, High German kept using the term Duits/Deutsch but in Low German that slowly evolved into Diets/Dietsch. So the term for the united High German peoples is (Groß) Deutschland and the term for a united Low German people is Dietsland. I looked up the translation for Dietsland and in English it's Dutchland! There were some Dutch Fascists who wanted to establish Dietsland/Dutchland in the 1930's/40's, like Hitler wanted Groß Deutchland. In German it's Dietschland by the way. Man, it'd be confusing to see Dietschland and Deutschland as neighbouring countries. That's worse than Slovakia and Slovenia haha
    17
  9. @slovene ball Oh lord, even worse
    15
  10. ​ @dankmemes7423  If we live in an economy in which you must work or else you starve, that is coercion. We are all born into that coercion. You only get to choose which business you forcibly work in. Even in ancapistan, coercion cannot be escaped. In a socialist state, the coercion of working or dying is replaced with the coercion of those that work forcibly having the fruits of their labour distributed to all in need of these resources. Coercion is a fact of nature. Trying to create a society free of coercion is attempting to erase consequences of our (in)actions. It's pointless. All we get to do is shift the consequences around, not eradicate them.
    14
  11.  @TheImperatorKnight  Thank you, your videos on this so far have been very insightful
    12
  12. A war time economy is not the same thing as ideology-backed state control of the economy. For a capitalist country, a war economy is done purely out of necessity and truly an exception to the rule. In a fascist state, that state-controlled economy is the goal and the norm. That's an important difference. I agree fascism is about a duty to the nation/people (in national socialism there is a strong emphasis on the people element of that), but creating a state-controlled economy that services the people instead of some business interests is an inherent part of that ideology. I don't think you can be fascist and have a capitalist economy that is mainly in the interest of businesses and maximum profit. It goes directly against their ideas about how a strong central government should provide for its nation.
    11
  13. Democratic socialists are not socialists. Socialism is a revolutionary, anti-capitalist system. Socialism and capitalism can't co-exist under the same system. Democratic socialists are essentially just called socialists, but really they are capitalists in favour of more leftist policies and not full-on socialists. Socialism is the collective control of the means of production so that the use of the means of production in theory benefits everyone. Capitalism is the individual/private control of the menas of production and the use of it to generate personal profit. Socialism as a system is fundamentally against capitalism, it was literally created to stop the owners of the means of production from using the labour of the working class to generate free money. They see that as exploitation because the workers get less money than their work is worth and the owner of f.e. a factory walks away with the leftover money. Capitalistic socialists are only socialist in name, in truth they are just more left leaning capitalists.
    10
  14. I think Finland is semi-axis at best. Finland was in a unique position because it was forced into its alliance with Germany. What typifies the axis powers is that they wanted to safeguard their expansionism and allied in their expansionist and/or anti-communist endeavours. Finland might have fought with the axis forces extensively, but they do not fit in the underlying strategic/ideological strait of that group. Greater Finland does make for a good case to call them axis after all, however. In that regard you might say while they weren't axis by heart and allied with them out of necessity at first, eventually they were pulled into the full aspects of the axis expansionism. So you could argue either way, it's a borderline case. I would say they are more than just a co-belligerent, yet not fully axis either.
    9
  15.  @neilbuckley1613  Interesting... so the English probably didn't distinguish between Duits/Deutsch and Diets/Dietsch and just call Germanic peoples in general Dutch. Thanks for the info
    9
  16. Whyever would Montgomery need to show the world he's bold when he had already commanded all ground forces in D-day and planned the Normandy breakout? He never seems to get credit for that. He surely was an overly proud prick, but he wasn't a bad commander all in all. I get the feeling that a lot of people take offence to Montgomery's personal attitude (horrible, admittedly) and go the extra mile to insult his achievements. Why do people always scrutinise his mistakes in great detail, yet never seems to commend his better work? Meanwhile a subpar general like Patton is praised into the heavens...
    8
  17.  @agentmulder1019  Bradley was Montgomery's SUBORDINATE in Normandy. Bradley's entire operation WAS PART OF MONTGOMERY'S LARGER STRATEGY. Look at it like this: you have local officers, then the general that plans and commands a specific operation (Bradley, Cobra), then a general that plans and commands the entire operation (Montgomery, the entire D-day operation plus the breakout of Normandy) and then you have an even larger scale where it is decided what large scale operations should take place in the first place and where (largely political function, Eisenhower). And on each level, credit is due for the planning. You can't take away the credit of a higher general based on what a lower general did as part of the higher general's plan . That makes no sense. Cobra was part of a larger set of operations within the breakout of Normandy. Montgomery's plan was to have Germans believe that there would be a breakout in the east, thin out the forces in the west as a result and then have the breakout happen there. And that breakout was operation Cobra. There is no one general that can take credit for that: Montgomery is the one to plan the breakout on a large scale and Bradley us the one to plan the breakout on a small scale. They both did their jobs excellently and this is NOT mutually exclusive. It's like saying Eisenhower failed his job because a random general on the field did "better", even though they have completely different jobs on completely different levels.
    7
  18.  @MrCarpelan  Not really. The ideological reason for placing dissidents in concentration camps was the same for both ideologies. The collectivisation of society for one group meant killing or enslaving dissidents. For the Marxist proletariat this means killing or placing in a concentration camp anyone who opposed the rule of the working class (part of this was eradicating the bourgeoisie) and for the Nazi government this means killing or placing in a concentration camp anyone who opposed the rule of the German race. The problem with the Nazi counterpart is that the EXISTENCE of other races in Germany was already seen as an opposition to the rule of the German race, so while in the USSR this ideology meant getting rid of political dissidents, in Nazi Germany this meant killing or placing in a concentration camp an entire race and more. So yes, National Socialism is much more nasty (at least under the USSR, you could switch your support to the working class rule, you cannot switch your race), but no that does not mean the ideological background for doing what they did were not the same.
    7
  19. Oh absolutely. And they're succesful too. They made the majority of the world believe that US soldiers made up 95% of the forces in Europe and made Omaha the reason D-day was succesful rather than a screwup that cost many US lives and almost cost the Allies the operation. They love putting everyone else down and boasting about their own contribution. Another nice one is the idea that during the Cold War, Western Europe was helpless and 'Murica protected them as the hero they are, rather than the fact that the Western allies needed eachother desperately to make do and it was very much a mutual need.
    6
  20. The most important lesson from WW2 is that perfectly normal people are capable of doing absolutely terrible things if they just take the wrong ideological turn. They were not crazy, they were no psychopaths, they were not insane. They were intelligent, perfectly normal people who somehow got to the point of believing exterminating entire groups of people would be a reasonable and good thing to do. That's the scary part.
    5
  21. Well it's not very hard to be against an anti-democratic and authoritarian system that had concentration camps and "progression" programmes that usually led to millions of deaths.
    5
  22.  @brittakriep2938  Yeah that may be the origin of that term indeed. Groot Nederland / Greater Netherlands is also a term I think was only used by fascists trying to unite the Netherlands and Belgium. Groß Deutschland may be the same.
    5
  23.  @StephenButlerOne  That's all well and good when we're talking about opinions, but TIK has made some real errors. For example, his definition of socialism is completely wrong and essentially comes down to "big government/collectivism", which in turn causes him to group fascism and marxist socialism as one and the same thing. But a closer inspection of those ideologies, as well as their history, would unearth some significant differences that explain why despite their similarities on the surface they still heavily opposed one another. For example, the proletariat (abolishing class) versus class collaboration (solidifying class, but having all classes work together in the interest of the nation/race), egalitarianism versus solidification of hierarchies, collectivising around the working class versus around the nation. TIK misses all of this and wrongly categorises these different ideologies as belonging to the same family. In truth, it's much more accurate to see Fascism (incl. NS), Socialism and Capitalism as three separate ideologies that all oppose one another. That's also in line with what Fascists said about themselves; they called themselves the third option besides capitalism and communism. This is a huge error that has a large impact on all his political/economic videos. All because he gets one definition wrong. Mostly he is still correct, however, so it's not like the entire videos are wrong. It's just that he uses the wrong terms for many things. All because of just one mistake that seeps into the rest of his videos. Fascism and Socialism are both collectivist ideologies with heavy government involvement in the economy, but similarities end there. I hope TIK revises this.
    5
  24. You're missing a lot here. The corporation gets its fair share for what it offers society, but how that corporation distributes this profit internally is not necessarily fair at all. If you're self-employed, what you earn is exactly what your fair share is. If you're employed with a corporation, your boss decides what your share is and how much of the profit goes directly into his own and/or shareholders' pockets. And most of the time an extreme amount of money is taken away from the corporation and placed in only a few private pockets, leaving workers in the dust. Workers, insofar their employed, do not get paid for what they contribute to society. Money always seems to concentrate at the top. Not because it's fair, but because that is what naturally happens in any competitive system; in the end the top amasses all of the resources unless there's a counterbalance. It's perfectly natural that the rich have the resources to become even richer, and this process repeats itself until the vast majority of wealth is located at the top. For example, being able to buy a few apartments to rent out is essentially free money if you can temporarily miss the first investment and wait for it to pay back. That money can in turn be used to start various businesses, the money from that can be used to invest elsewhere or expand, etc. etc. Simply having resources means you will naturally allocate a lot more in the long run, because there are so many opportunities open for you to make more money. In the end, this means the rich get ever richer and those without resources stay behind. The natural end game is that most wealth is right there at the top. But do we want this? It's difficult to say what exactly is "fair", as there are many actors within a corporation that all deserve a share, from the workers up to the managers up to CEOs and shareholders. How do we measure the "value" of their contribution? Is having money and lending it to someone else a lazy contribution because it requires no effort, or is it a huge contribution because without it the corporation'd be nowhere? Is working a 40 hour week to produce goods an unimportant contribution because workers are interchangeable and provide unskilled labour, or is it a large contribution because they spend the most labour-intensive contribution to the corporation and produce the goods that lay at the centre of what that corporation does? There is no such thing as deciding exactly what is everybody's "fair share". The only certainty is that the corporation at large gets exactly the amount of money that consumers want to exchange with it, and therefore gets its fair share from what it contributed to society. How that share is divided within the corporation should at least be generally proportional. If 75% goes to a few higher ups and, 10% is spent on costs and 15% is left for employees, I don't think that's fair. Yet that is the current reality. I don't see how anybody's fair share can be 50 billion dollars or something crazy like that.
    4
  25.  @kenmar4009  Look up the Catalonian anarchists then and how their community functioned. You also forget that throughout most of human history, we have functioned on almost completely free trade and authorities were never powerful enough to really exert meaningful power everywhere. The government used to be a very weak entity, not capable of enforcing rules like they can today. Kings had no meaningful power in remote rural areas of "their" kingdom during most of history. These societies ruled themselves for the most part, with almost completely free trade
    4
  26. That is becaise the social democrats are not socialists, the Nordic countries are capitalist as everything in the west is. Socialism is a completely separate system from capitalism that seeks to abolish capitalism altogether. The social democrats are just more social capitalists, not full blown socialists that want a USSR-like system. When talking about socialism here, we speak of the ideology and econonomic system, not socialist as we know them in democratic/capitalist systems. Unless your social democrats want a literal revolution overthrowing the current capitalist system, they are not socialists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
    4
  27.  @bobsemple262  If he had you, though, the war would have been won with ease. The Bob Semple tank remains the most advanced piece of military technology ever created
    3
  28. TIK, your definition of socialism is deeply flawed. There is authoritarian socialism, which you seem to focus on in the video, but also libertarian socialism. You even mentioned Bakunin's (a libertarian socialist) criticism on totalitarianism, call him a socialist (true) and then turn around and say that socialism = totalitarianism. You do this at 5:07. This is an internal inconsistency in your argument that requires your attention. You can't both acknowledge Bakunin's heavy criticism of the state and at the same time say that his ideology is for totalitarianism. He was a socialist and anarchist. Authoritarian socialism = totalitarianism. Libertarian socialism is entirely different and highly critical of big governments (or even critical of the government existing at all, if you look at leftist anarchism). This is not only an issue in this video (though this example is probably the most blatant internal inconsistency in your view of socialism), but across the board I notice that libertarian socialism is a blindspot of yours. Please look into this issue and adjust your definition of socialism accordingly. As it is now, it ignores the existence of libertarian socialism, which is a problem. I think you should think about how libertarian socialism and leftist anarchism fits into your views of public vs private and capitalism. There's a gap in your logic here. You claim that democratic socialists believed the "lie" of Marx (which is fair enough to say about authoritarian socialism and its use of gradual change to eventually usher in a revolution), but this is completely false for libertarian socialism. You know very well that libertarian socialist and leftist anarchist factions have historically fought authoritarian socialists and are against the state as much as capitalists are (hell, in many cases even more against the state than capitalists generally are).
    3
  29.  @Edax_Royeaux  If I recall correctly the US was far behind in jet tech and even after the war relied on British information to eventually develop their own stuff. Jet programmes of Britain and Germany were started long ago at that point, while the US still had a tiny military of mostly WW1 tech, so obviously those two had a massive head start. Same for the USSR, which relied on stealing jet tech from the UK to build their own (MiG-15 engine is f.e. just an enlarged version of a British engine they reverse engineered).
    3
  30. Found this only in my subscription box, even though I watched another one of your vids today and normally would have new ones recommended. Suppose it's time to hit the bell notifications
    3
  31. @Bhigr Bond First you research, THEN you doubt. You don't doubt first and go on youtube pestering people to do the research for you. So go on, do your research, come back and present why you think the consensus on this issue is wrong, THEN you may expect a response. That's how science works. The evidence is readily available, go look it up. And insofar you've already read up on the holocaust, still don't agree with the consensus, but come on YT simply saying you think it's wrong without evidence, I have another nice saying for you: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
    3
  32. So with half the population they tried to equal the US defence spending. Noice.
    3
  33.  @mniskin  You speak of an idyllic situation in which the owners of land are also the ones working the land. In that hypothetical situation I would agree with you. However, I am speaking of a situation in which there are landowners who themselves do nothing, but use their ownership rights over the land to employ others to actually work it for them. In theory they could even purchase land, leave it completely unused and forcibly remove anyone that wishes to use the land from it due to their ownership rights. I don't care how these owners became the owner. Whether a feudal king bought all the land he rules over or took it by force, feudalism inherently is a system of coercion. Therefore what matters is how owners can and will employ their ownership rights to dictate to others how they can acquire their needs. In ancapistan it is theoretically possible and permitted to buy up vast swathes of land and to literally implement feudalism there. And if theoretically almost all land is owned in this manner, and you only get to choose who your feudal lord is, you can impossibly escape this coercion. Any system which allows this cannot claim to not be coercive. Ancap allows coercion by private actors and even backs this up by force (enforcement of ownership rights). That is why I say that only a system in which ownership rights do not exist can be non-coercive. If it is legal for anyone to start using unused land, and illegal for anyone to forcibly take over land that is currently being used by another, only then is there no coercion. Only then is every land "owner" also the producer of food. Only then can you claim that in all cases, you either produce food yourself or you must exchange something to an individual who themselves laboured to produce the food. Only that is voluntary. Capitalism cannot exist without coercion because ownership rights inherently require coercion to enforce them. If I own a house but leave it empty and live elsewhere, squatters have to be forcibly removed and denied access to that home in order to protect my ownership rights. It does not matter whether the state or a private actor enacts this violence towards the squatter. The point is it requires (a threat of) violence, always. So ancap cannot claim to be non coercive. Any system with ownership rights cannot claim such. Or perhaps a system in which ownership rights only exist as long as you actually use the good you own, and expire after a set period of not using it. F.e. I can leave a house empty for a year before my ownership rights expire and the house becomes res nullius. By the way: I want to clarify that a mistake many make is thinking that capitalism = free market. No. Capitalism is only one specific TYPE of free market, which places emphasis on ownership rights and thereby enables use of capital to acquire ownership over anything and passively generate income. There are many ways to organise a free market because yes, even free market functions based on rules. And choices can be made in regards to those rules.
    3
  34.  @TheImperatorKnight  The cause is the aim for endless economic growth, not necessarily state intervention. Even without state intervention, bankers and investors are sure to create bubbles themselves in their strife for endless max profit. As long as we pursue endless economic growth instead of an economy that actually provides for people's needs and leaves it at that (which can and will include economic growth, but won't see growth as a goal in itself), bubbles will exist and pop. I feel you're putting too much of the blame on the state, as if they're the sole cause of this. In truth many different actors play a role in the creation and prolonging of economic bubbles, including the state. The root cause to me seems the aim for maximum economic growth, regardless of whether that is what society needs at that moment. I'm wondering if capitalism is possible witout this layer of growth-obsession.
    3
  35.  @iustinianconstantinescu5498  Socialism is the working class seizing the means of production. Not "gubberment does stuff, the more stuff they do the socialismer it is". And I know this will blow your mind but what if I told you that free market socialism exists? It's a system in which workers control the company they work at, but those worker-controlled companies still compete with eachother on a free market. Yes, that is socialism too. Or how about anarcho-communism, which literally doesn't have a government and has as its only principle to abolish all oppressive relations (like upper class vs lower class)? They all have one thing in common: the workers seize the means of production. This has nothing to do with private vs public. If I work for myself, I as a worker have control over the means of production in my own company. Technically I'm then conforming to socialist principles since I own my own labour. If we have capitalism and change literally nothing except that workers must have control over their companies (by for example voting on subjects where normally the CEO would make a unilateral decision), that is already socialism despite there still being a free market. The government/public sector CAN take a role in socialism (you see this with authoritarian socialism like the USSR), but doesn't have to. Public means that society collectively owns something, which is not the same as the working class owning something. For example, if the government (representing society as a whole) takes control of something that is public. But if a company decides that its workers (not society as a whole, JUST the workers in said company) collectively own the company and control it themselves, that is still PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. The workers then own their company privately (like how shareholders can own a company privately in capitalism. That it's a group of shareholders owning a company does not make it public), yet at the same time that is in fact socialism because the workers own the means of production. The only principle of socialism is that everyone should own their own labour. This can be achieved through both public and private means. Socialism can be achieved by centralised public control of everything (USSR), but it can also be achieved by having all companies privately owned by those that work there (in this case, everyone owns their own labour and thus, it is socialism).
    3
  36. No.... collectivisation is not just any group owning the means of production, it is a huge group owning the entire means of production of a country. You can't compare the proletariat or the German race to bloody shareholders controlling a company together because "hurr durr both are groups". The shareholders are seen as the bourgeoisie under these systems. Under socialism there is collective ownership of the means of production and EVERYONE, from the owners/managers of the factories to the workers, has a share in it. Essentially it means the means of production are no longer used in the interest of generating profit for individuals (something both Marxism and NatSoc hated), but are from then on used in the interest of the working class or the German race as a whole. Shareholders employ the means of production for themselves, to generate profit, that is not socialism. Collectivised factories in the USSR are used to benefit the working class as a whole (both the managers and the workers), in Nazi Germany they were used to the benefit of the German race (both the owners and the workers), in fascism they were used to the benefit of the nation (both the owners and the workers). In all three systems, the government created policies directing how the means of production would be used and what all the wages would be, etc. The government decided what was in the interest of the working class/race/nation and the corporations followed that. In theory you can even have a fully planned economy, but if the government still employs the means of production to generate profit and not to collectivise the means of production for a class or race or whatever, it is still capitalism. Socialism is not "government does stuff" or "groups do stuff", it is about collectivisation and the eradication of the capitalist idea of individuals owning the means of production and using it to their own personal benefit if they like.
    3
  37. That's a British invention though
    3
  38. Very well TIK. I'd describe myself as a socialist. A libertarian market socialist specifically. After I shortly explain my views, I'll tell you what you have to do to win me over. I like the free market, I just don't like the capitalist framework in which it functions (my main issue is the ability of capital investors to gain permanent ownership of a company, and a passive right to a portion of its profits even if they contributed nothing other than a one time investment). I think authoritarian states are abhorrent. Biggest lesson from the 20th century is that authoritarianism is ghastly and planned economies do not work. I accept the subjective theory of value, that's just basic economics. I think free market economics do a great job of allocating resources where they most efficiently meet the demands of the market(/society). And most importantly, a free market WORKS on a fundamental level. I'm in favour of a free market in which businesses ONLY distribute profits among people who actually directly contribute to it (i.e. workers, including the people at the very top of the business). And I'd like this distribution to be reasonably linked to how important the contribution of a person is (I say reasonably because it's rarely possible to put an exact number as to the value of someone's labour, since value is subjective after all). This way, if the business runs well, everyone who made this happen receives the fruits of it. If a business doesn't run well, there is no profit distribution and perhaps even a cut on the wages of that month. Everyone in the business shares in both the profit and the losses. NO third party can gain ownership of another's business. Third parties may loan businesses capital for interest (reasonable interest) and other means of for-reward capital investments, as long as the reward enjoyed is reasonable and NOT permanent. Beyond this, the worker-owned businesses compete on a free market in the same way they do within capitalism. One important element is taken out: the concept of a shareholder does not exist. Only those within the business itself are entitled to the profits of their labour. So.... tell me this one thing: why is the extreme emphasis that capitalism puts on rewarding capital investors NECESSARY for a functional economy (I call the idea of a one time payment entitling someone to a PERMANENT right to a part of the profits of others' labour extreme)? Or in other words, why can't a free market be organised in such a way that wealth is more evenly distributed? Why does a market supposedly collapse the moment you tinker with the ability of third party investors to grab a piece of the profits of a business? I'm open to arguments, if I think you're correct I'll watch the entire economics in one lesson video you proposed and seriously consider becoming a capitalist.
    3
  39. Hello TIK, thank you for clarifying your viewpoints. I understand them better now. Still, I have a few issues with your position that I will share. 1. Regarding socialism, you rightly quote various socialists' own definitions of socialism as, roughly speaking, public ownership of the means of production. What you have not considered, however, is WHY socialists want this. They do not want public ownership for the sake of public ownership, they have a specific goal to achieve with this public ownership of the means of production; socialism aims for (a representative government of) society as a whole to take control over the means of production, so that the economy is run in the interest of the entirety of society, rather than just a small, wealthy subset of it. Egalitarianism is a very important goal of socialism. By just quoting socialists' definition of socialism as "public ownership of the means of production" and stopping there, you end up missing a lot of the context surrounding what socialism as an ideology is. Essentially, you end up defining socialism by the means by which it means to achieve its goals, while ignoring the goals as such (and I hope we agree that the goals of any ideology are an absolutely central part of what that ideology is!). This is why I think you rightly point out the connection between socialism and public control over the economy, but wrongly end up with an absolutist point of view that EVERY type of public control over the economy automatically is socialism. To apply this to calling publicly owned shares in a corporation a form of socialism; yes, technically this is (limited) public control over a corporation (i.e. a part of the economy/means of production). Does this however fit within the ideology of socialism? No, because socialism does not aim for limited public control over a part of the economy, it aims for a complete seizure of the means of production in order to ensure that the economy is run in the interest of society as a whole. That is the entire point of socialism; creating an egalitarian economy by having the government take control over it on behalf of the working class/society. A few hundred/thousand individuals buying shares is NOT the same thing as wishing for all means of production to be used in the interest of the broader society rather than individual interests. You already seem to partially see this by naming that you see this as more of a hybrid between public and private (which I would agree with), but you still choose to call this socialism (which I disagree with for above reason). 2. Also regarding socialism, I want to point out you almost exclusively quote authoritarian socialists that want a dictatorship of the proletariat in the from of a government taking direct control over the economy, but there are many other forms of socialism that do not share this view. Especially libertarian or anarchist forms of socialism may not fit this definition well. By quoting mainly authoritarian socialists, you may end up equating only this specific form of socialism with socialism as a whole. I understand this focus on authoritarian socialism, because historically we have for the grand majority of instances seen authoritarian socialism in practice (and failing all the time). But remember when speaking of socialism as a whole, libertarian and even anarchist socialism also exists. I feel like you have too little attention for this, which I understand, but then you must specify you are only/mainly speaking of authoritarian socialism.
    2
  40. @Bhigr Bond Evidence is readily available in books, go read them. It's not my job to educate you. Holocaust denial is ONLY allowed when you read the proper evidence and provide a well-researched counter argument to it, with proper sources underlying it. Nothing else is permitted. ONLY scientific criticism. So do that, or go away.
    2
  41. TIK, saying Nazis and Soviet Communists are the same because both employ socialist methods is like saying the ultra capitalist USA is the same as European social democracies just because both are capitalist systems. The US and Europe differ massively , politically. I think the same applies to Soviets and Nazis. Both socialist, but very different.
    2
  42.  @mitchellline4242  Hmmm well then he is wrong. While he is correct about the similarities between NS and Marxism, he also should recognise that there are large differences between Marxist Socialism and National Socialism, even though they can both be called Socialism. Mainly class struggle vs class collaboration.
    2
  43. Go read a book TIK.... because I can't wait for more videos of yours ;)
    2
  44. From what I've read, the feasibility of a nuclear bomb was shared with the US relatively early in the war, along with other highly valuable information, but the British didn't share their progress until their own project stagnated due to the war damaging their abilities to further research, somewhat later in the war. And Oppenheimer said about this that the later British shared research sped up the development by months, perhaps a year, as despite having to shelve the project later, they had made farther progress than the Americans thus far. But yes, this would be an interesting video indeed, I don't know whether this is all correct (perhaps Oppenheimer f.e. downplayed the role of British research?).
    2
  45.  @WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs  The US wouldn't even be the main superpower today if WW2 hadn't happened. I don't think you understand the ridiculous amount of wealth and power that the US accumulated during WW2 and to what degree Europe was destroyed. In 1939 Western Europe was twice as rich as the US, all of Europe almost 4 times. After the world wars destroyed us, with the EU we tried to regain some of that vigour. In the early 2000's we were finally richer than the US again, then with the 2008 crisis which hit us harder we are now a bit poorer but overall about as rich as the US. So we went from twice as rich as the US and the main global superpowers down to about as rich as the US and an ally of your superpower status. In 1939 we were twice as rich (just Western Europe). By 1960 the current EU countries (Western Europe + some Eastern European countries) had a GDP of 359 billion and the US 543 billion. The second world war absolutely destroyed European supremacy and significantly boosted the US. Without WW2 we'd probably still be twice as rich as you, if not more because of added benefits of being the most powerful region in the world.
    2
  46. 18:30 Gulags are the most powerful weapon of WW2, comrade! Next only to starving your own population.
    1
  47. There are plenty of professors supporting TIK's point of view that National Socialism was a form of Socialism, even though he could have portrayed it in a better way in this video. So no, western education does not circumvent the idea that NS could in many ways be seen as related to socialism. The problem is that there is also a surprisingly large amount of marxists in universities that are not willing to acknowledge this and with ideologues you never know whether they are being honest or twisting facts to fit into their world view. There is literature on NS being seen as socialist, and literature on NS being seen as capitalist, it both exists in the west. Overall, National Socialism is a bit complex because it shares elements of both, but especially from socialism.
    1
  48. National Socialism places the means of production in the hands of a particular race instead of the working class. The economy is controlled in such a way to benefit all of a certain race. Members of that race are allowed to privately own the means of production, but may only use it in a predetermined manner that benefits the race as a whole. There is no hierarchy in that, except between different races.
    1
  49.  @LibertarianLeninistRants  What's the difference between nationalising the means of production in name of the working class and nationalising the means of production in name of a race/nation? The only difference in my eyes is which group takes control of the economy.
    1
  50.  @LibertarianLeninistRants  What you seem to be doing here is redefining socialism in such a way that any socialist state that ever existed doesn't even fall under that definition. There is no democratic control by the workers over the means of production in any socialist system. It has always been the dictatorial central government, in the form of a communist party, setting up a planned economy. Furthermore, there always will be classes and hierarchy, you can only stop them from exploiting one another, as socialism attempts to do. In socialist states, you still had government officials contributing to the planned economy, you still had factory managers, you still had workers. And the former got paid more than the latter for their work. In that sense you still had upper and lower classes. The difference is that the upper class using their property of the means of production to exploit the working class and live off others' work was not possible under socialism; the classes worked together for a common goal and the means of production was collectively owned. You got paid for your actual work, not merely for owning the means of production. The manager still got paid more than the worker for his work. Comparing that to National Socialism, you see striking similarities. Hitler hated the exploitation by corporations under capitalism, yet he also hated the universalist/egalitarian aspects of traditional socialism. National Socialism creates a system in which a dictatorial government, the NSDAP, creates a planned economy which takes control of the means of production to ensure they are used to the benefit of the German race (claiming this must be an economical category like the workers class seems arbitrary to me: the point of socialism is to stop the class struggle by having everyone work for a common goal). Farmers and factories get paid a fixed price for what they produce, exactly like under socialism. Managers and workers alike work for a common goal instead of exploiting one another in a class struggle, just like under socialism. The only difference in this regard might be the relationship between the factory "owners" and the workers. I'm unsure whether the wages in NS Germany were also fixed, in which case there would de facto again be no difference between traditional socialism and National Socialism, but if the factory managers (who were often government officials taking the place of the actual owner, but let's ignore that) could themselves decide the wages of the workers and how much they themselves would get, that'd be a clear difference. NS may seem like capitalism on the surface, but it really wasn't. Under traditional socialism the means of production would be nationalised, while under NS private property was still allowed. However, the owners of a factory were bound by the planned economy and were dictated how to use the means of production they owned. In practice, instead of outright taking control of factories themselves, the government simply "outsourced" their management, if you will (and a lot of the time even sent actual government officials to manage factories that were de jure still owned by private entities). The outcome is the same: government control of the means of production and prevention of class exploitation. The main difference between NS and traditional socialism is who takes control of the means of production (workers class vs a race or nation in fascism) and how the planned economy is organised (but to the same result). So yes there are some significant differences between the two systems, but mainly theoretical differences laid in the attitude towards nations and races. So I don't see why NS could not be called its own separate version of socialism.
    1