Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Stick to Tanks" video.
-
@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
-
Are you seriously even entertaining the thought of anarcho-capitalism? Capitalism is only acceptable when you keep the corporations somewhat in check while still leaving them free enough to innovate and create wealth. Left unchecked, capitalism is some distopic shit, with massively powerful corporations that'll do anything to maximise profit. I don't understand why anyone would even consider such a system. Capitalism is very good at innovation and wealth-creating, but some very serious side effects are that 99% of wealth eventually ends up in the hands of the 1% and that as corporations get more powerful they start to drown out small and middle-sized companies with vicious tactics. Capitalism only works when you find a good balance between regulating its flaws (really skewed wealth distribution and tendency towards monopolies/oligarchies by drowning out the competition) and leaving it unregulated enough to allow its benefits to flourish (massive wealth creation and very good innovation).
In its core unregulated form, capitalism is hell for all except the 1% that amasses an ever increasing amount of wealth and power. If overregulated, the benefits of capitalism are killed as wealth creation and innovation is stifled. Anarcho capitalism is absolutely unacceptable as a means of government, it's a seriously bad idea.
Oh, and socialism is not just "government does stuff". Socialism means that the entire economy is collectivised for the working class and all means of production are used by and for the working class. Other classes don't exist anymore and an egalitarian society without private ownership of any factories/etc. is created. Wealth is distributed purely by how much your work is worth. All wealth first goes to the government and is then redistributed. The US military is not "socialist" just because it's the government organising something. Socialism requires an entire economic revolution. A capitalist system with social policies or a generally big government is still capitalism; see most of Western Europe, capitalist social democracies. Essentially, their balance between regulating capitalism and leaving it free, skews more to the regulating side than it does in the US. It's really nothing more than that.
1
-
@bakters Complete abolition of class by having the proletariat seize the means of production, creating an egalitarian society (socialism). Solidification of class and having them work together in the common interest of the nation (or for NS: race), creating a hierarchical collectivist society (fascism).
There you have it, folks. Essentially, class abolition versus class collaboration, egalitarianism versus hierarchy. TIK is mostly accurate with his videos, but he really misses the difference between socialism and fascism. He sadly subscribes to the overly simplified "government does something = socialism" narrative. That's his only mistake from what I can tell (so it's not that he's totally wrong or "dumb"), but it has massive impact on his videos.
In truth, socialism is about a lot more than just collectivism; it's about abolishing class conflict by creating an egalitarian, single-class society. Fascism is also collectivist, but a different flavour: it strengthens the concept of class (they believe class distinction/hierarchy is necessary to run a strong nation), but stops class conflict by uniting the classes under the banner of one nation or race.
A good example of fascism at work would be Volkswagen. The Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, a Nazi government institution facilitating class collaboration) spoke with the upper class and workers and devised a plan that would benefit both of them, as well as the nation as a whole. A cheap car would be produced because the Nazis wanted a more mobile population (national interest). To achieve this, they sat with the upper class and working class to set up a scheme with which the workers would get cheap cars and the upper class would get a lot of orders and thus profit. Thus the Volkswagen was created. Central to Fascism is that economic projects are in the broader national interest, with the government having a large role in deciding what the national interest is. A scheme like Volkswagen would be designed to be in the interests of the working class, upper class and broader nation.
Under fascism, workers unions were illegal... because they only represent the interests of the workers. Instead the DAF was a union that represented the interests of both the workers AND the upper class, setting up projects that were in the interest of both of them. This is called class collaboration and is what sets fascism apart from capitalism as well as socialism.
1
-
@bakters >"Are you trying to claim that in Soviet Union there were no classes? That Stalin or Beria and your common Yuri Bezumov were of the same social class?"
Yes, because the difference between upper and working class is determined by who owns the means of production. The upper class owns the means of production and enjoys its fruits, the working class are wage employees of the upper class. Since the proletariat seized the means of production in the Soviet Union, there is no upper class in the Soviet Union. The entire point of the class struggle is that the upper class interest in max profit from their means of production and the working class interest in getting paid the value of their work and having decent working conditions, clash. Enter Hegelian dialectics and you have Marxism. Under Socialism this clash is taken away by having the working class/proletariat take control of the means of production and using it in their interest; with wages based on the value of the work you do. The entire point of the USSR was that the proletariat had decimated the upper class.
>"If so, both Third Reich and Soviet Union have failed equally badly. Where are the differences?"
The Third Reich never intended to have an egalitarian society; they HATED this part of Marxism (it's in fact the main and possibly only reason they weren't Marxist, as for the rest their ideology is actually very similar). NS is all about hierarchy, all about strengthening the class divide and even adding a new hierarchy to the mix: racial purity. And they were socially very conservative, with clear roles for women and such.
The USSR wanted to create an economy in which everyone is a worker and everyone gets paid what the work they do is worth. Equal, performance-based payment. There is no upper class that is of inherent higher social status by birth; there is no upper class because there is no private ownership of the means of production. There is no aristocracy. There is no superior or inferior race. And compared to the Nazis they were socially a lot more progressive.
>"I was raised under Socialism. Worker's unions were illegal. Where are the differences?"
That's a good question. Under Soviet Socialism, LOCAL worker's unions were deemed unwanted. The government-proletariat would represent the worker's voice under that system. Dissenting voices of any kind - including of other workers - were seen as going against the working class. As opposing the government utopia. Soviet Socialism was a heavily authoritarian kind of Socialism.
Under Fascism, organisations representing workers' interests were seen as inherently against class collaboration and therefore unwanted. The entire point of class collaboration is that the classes do not fight and instead unite to act in the interest of the nation. This requires the classes to not organise around their own interests, but to collaborate with one another. This collaboration was facilitated by the government/nation, which would essentially mediate between the upper and working class and organise projects to make both sides happy. Profit for the upper class, a decent life for the workers and production in the interest of the nation.
So in short, the Soviet Union disliked worker's unions because the government-proletariat already dictated what was in the workers' interest and they didn't want any dissent. Fascism disliked worker's unions because they were fundamentally against the idea of workers organising around their own interests in the first place. They HATED either the upper class using the means of production is their own interest (saw it as leeching off the Nation, kind of similar to Marxist criticisms on capitalism) and the working class trying to create a worker's paradise. They saw the class hierarchy as something a Nation needed to succeed, yet the class struggle (= Hegelian dialectics caused by each class organising purely around their own interests and clashing) as a threat to the Nation.
> "Under Socialism I was raised in, it was exactly the same.(...) Where are the differences?"
The difference is that the DAF (government) mediated between upper class and lower class to create projects that, to stick with the example of Volkswagen:
- generated profit for the upper class (Volkswagen sales, with artificially high demand created by project)
- gave something back to the workers (cheap cars, within their wage range)
- produced something that benefitted the nation (mobilised the German population)
The USSR just unilaterally dictated what the proletariat wanted. There is no mediation because no upper class exists, there is no profit as all value is distributed among workers. There are no clashing interests that need to be reconciled. There are only the interests of the working class to be dictated by the government.
1
-
@bakters - "Stalin owned the means of ... "
The difference is that the upper class owns the means of production PRIVATELY. I.e. purely for their personal benefit. The Nazi's employed the means of prod for THE GERMAN PEOPLE collectively. The USSR for the PROLETARIAT collectively. They were both collectivists and authoritarian, but similarities end there. For whom and why they organised the economy is different, as laid out before.
- "oh that's why the Nazi's were a workers party..."
The Nazi's were only a workers party in name. Though technically one could say that RELATIVE TO CAPITALISM they were a workers party, since they despised capitalism for the same reasons as the Marxists (abusing the working class and nation for personal profit) and wanted to create a society in which the upper class' private profit ambitions would be kept in check by the government to make sure they act in the interest of the NATION (and thus also the workers).
In short, the Nazi's wanted to keep the class' hierarchy BUT have them act in the interest of all, i.e. more BALANCE between the interests of the upper and working class instead of the upper class purely acting in their private interests. This means LESS power to the upper class and MORE power to the workers, relative to capitalism.
The Soviets didn't want balance, they wanted ABSOLUTE POWER to the workers. They wanted to solve the class struggle by making the upper class DISAPPEAR. They were fundamentally against the hierarchy of class.
Nazi's: more power to workers.
USSR: ABSOLUTE power to workers.
- "They were aiming for an egalitarian society for all Germans..."
National Socialists did NOT want an egalitarian society. They revered social and racial hierarchies. Yes, even ethnic Germans themselves were categorised along racial lines and were discriminated. Only the most "pure" among the Germans could for example apply for certain social programmes, other Germans could not. As mentioned earlier, they also loved the idea of class hierarchy, claiming that the working class needed the upper class for guidance. They believed that no not all humans are equal and that those at the top should get higher social positions and positions of power/leadership in the Nation. They HATED the idea of the common worker grabbing absolute power; that is the WEAK governing themselves. Yet, they were also against the upper class misusing their positions of power for personal gain; they should be there to guide the Nation, not their own monetary interests.
- "But then war happened and in order to win...."
Yes, and then America started its war economy and therefore they were Socialists! No..... temporary measures in war time =/= ideological identity of a nation. You have to look at how a country ideologically wants to shape itself to determine what ideology it falls under.
- "Lenin, Stalin etc were tyrants......"
You completely ignore the ideological groundwork of the Soviet Union (thereby by the way contradicting yourself, as you before rightly stated that the USSR wanted to create an egalitarian society for all workers). You can't just arbitrarily rank members of the USSR society by the power they had and say "therefore they were just the same as the Tsars". You have to look at how and why they used their power the way they did; then you see what ideology they were.
- "They were not conservative at all......"
Nice cherry picking. The nazis promoted women to stay home, under the nazi regime the amount of working women went down, they promoted other very conservative family values and of course their love for the class distinction and hierarchy is deeply conservative.
Saying what you did here is like claiming the notoriously misogynist Ancient Greece was incredibly progressive because famous philosopher Hypatia existed. Or that hyper conservative and women unfriendly medieval christianity was actually progressive because queens existed and figures like Joan of Arc. It makes no sense.
The USSR and Nazi's were not even close in terms of progressivism. The USSR had women actually fly and fight on the battlefield.
1
-
1
-
1