Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
1000
-
859
-
588
-
545
-
163
-
151
-
147
-
@dr1flush But by the Definition seen there, Fascism would be Socialism.
The definition does not state what the people are made up of. If say the nation was literally one "Race" they would be the people, so regardless it would still be a form of Socialism. Maybe not the form many would like.
TIK has made it quite clear, the National Socialism, is not Fascism, nor is it not Marxism, nor is it Classical Socialism like that of the Social Democrats, but it is National Socialism, which is a FORM of Socialism, not the same, but still Socialism. Socialism is the State control of the means of production which all those definitions make quite clear.
126
-
124
-
121
-
119
-
110
-
104
-
@dr1flush Socialism is more of a tree than a box with branches that can be radically different as they spread farther from eachother. Similar to Christianity and Islam believing in the same god, there is no written rule that states a Racial Socialist isn't a Socialist vs a Class Socialist, or Nationality Socialist (Fascism), or a Sexist Socialist. etc etc.
Socialism is the common core that links them together, some of them are worse than others, while some are vary mild. A Libertarian Socialist believe in Free Market Capitalism, private property, limited state control over people, etc etc but are very supportive of socialist style state welfare programs as just one example, they're Socialist, but no where near as extreme Socialist like Marxist, Fascist, or Nazis.
103
-
102
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
88
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
70
-
@andreialexandrunichiforel Personally for how bad the USSR was terminally wounded by Nazi Germany, in a fashion they never recovered according to TIK's video on the post WWII Soviet Economy, when taken into consideration how little resources the Nazis had at their disposable. Even if Hitler became a painter, honestly the USSR was always doomed to fail, just like Nazi Germany.
So a RA Hell March Scenario is a technical impossibility. If WWII didn't start and say the USSR decided to start WWII, imagine Finland, but on a larger scale, on a larger front, against more countries, the red army likely would of been obliterated, maybe not everywhere, but everywhere in which the country had competent armies/officers, even if small, as they didn't get that Finland experience to realize how F***ed up their military was. If Finland was a disaster, a larger scale version of it could of ruined the USSR.
70
-
66
-
66
-
60
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
54
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
A Rock and Hard plate is a good description of the civilians trapped between the USSR and National Socialist Germany. I've often described it as being stuck between an anvil and a hammer. For example one description I often describe about Ukraine. You had pro Communist Partisans, Pro Nationalist Partisans, Pro German Partisans, AntiSemites among all their ranks. If you helped the Germans you were likely going to get murdered by Nationalist, or Communist Partisans. If you helped the Nationalist Partisans the Communist, Pro German and German forces would likely kill you. If you helped the Communist, the Nationalist, Pro German and Germans would likely kill you. If you refused to help anyone and tried to be neutral they'd likely accuse of you treason still and likely kill you. So I ask, if you were a farmer, and someone came by asking for food, what are your options? There are reasons why German patrols would come across farm villages completely empty of life after a ruckus was made by the partisans, and there are reasons why many fled with the Germans when the Germans retreated as well. These people were not given many options, and often punished for actions beyond their control. You can imagine a German Patrol forcefully taking food/livestock from your farm, then the partisans come by and find out your live stock is gone, and much of your food when they themselves came by wanting the same, imagine their reaction when you say the Germans took them, some of them would likely accuse you of treason. Imagine if the Germans came by and found out you allowed partisans to do the same, they would accuse you of aiding the enemy.
41
-
40
-
39
-
I think one of the biggest issues people often have is they fail to understand what Nationalism even is. A Nation is an Identity, not lines on a map. It can mean almost anything under the sun when you break it down. Why do you think almost every Community thrives to make flags to represent themselves? Because they've created a Nation. They've not created the Nation State that they live under, they're often hostile toward the Nation State. But they've created their own nation within an already existing Larger Nation. The Nation State system has been confused with Nationalism, and many people actually think Nationalism is exclusively racist or Statist. Which isn't really true. A lot of Nations have no "State." But the Nation exist. Many Nations existed as slaves of other larger States, and throughout most of European history there were no Nation States, the Nation existed under the surface ruled by Monarchs and Lords who often had little in common with the people's they ruled. Why today is the era of the Nation State is because most of those Communities formed their own "States" often built around some kind of similar Identity, ie Nations, Nation States. But this happened after the fall of Monarchism, so their National Identity was the glue used and at times failed when forming their new "States" again hence Nation States.
In this context, the Working Class is an Identity, it is a Nation. As TIK has explained many times, it actually makes Marxist Nationalist who mascaraed as Internationalist. Because Marxist don't understand what a Nation even is. You see this with a lot of Leftist today who are obsessed with Pride Flags, they literally created their own Nations, their own Identities, and proudly go around parading it in front of other people's faces. They're Nationalist even if they refuse to admit it.
Nationalism in short is a very gray, murky word when you really break down what it means to be a "Nation." The American Nation for example wasn't built around Ethnic or Racial Lines. American Nationalism as little to do with Race, though some white supremacist, and black supremacist will argue otherwise from opposing camps. Nationalism doesn't = Racism in short, but Nationalism can equal Racism. Today many consider Nationalism and Racism to be the same thing which is just so blatantly wrong that it openly shows those who think that, literally fail to comprehend what a Nation even is.
36
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
@jrenjrapiro817
"I know the first desire of an ideologue like yourself is to leap to insults when called out on it, but I have quoted the definition back to you. You seem unable to address that."
^ sorry but yours are not dictionary definitions, so to me meaningless. They're likely ideological definitions, but they're not OFFICIAL definitions. Yet you're accusing me of being the ideologue. Project very often?
" And again - the community. not "one community of many, picked out at random, based only on one or two traits held in common" '
^ Ironic that you're able to accidently admit there can be separate communities. That being said what you typed, that sounds a lot like Fascism. One of it's primary goals was to bring all the different social groups in society into one greater National Community. However, that still doesn't disprove a nation can make a Racial Community. Your definition of Community is not an official definition of community at least one I've ever seen.
"You're stretching the definition of socialism now, to really mean any community. So, let's bring up a fact I brought up previously. Everyone, socialists, anti-socialists, historians, ect, agree that socialism is an ideology that finds its most prevalent and important roots in at earliest the 17th century. You do, however, realize that ownership of the means of production by exclusive groups existed long before then, right? I mean, why use NK as an example, why not go whole hog and use medival england? the roman empire? hell, ancient egypt?"
I'm not stretching the definition of Socialism. Did the Roman Emperor own the Farms? The Shops? The Senate? Even in Feudalism, the Kings didn't own the blacksmiths, artisans who built the castles and cathedrals were paid and contracted to do so. A lot of people seem to have a weird view of the middle ages, Serfdoms perhaps but those were primarily exclusive to the farms. North Korea is a great example, because it is a Socialist country. Yet it's ruled by a dictatorship that morphed into a Monarchy.
And referring to that there is little difference between a Dictatorship and an Absolute Monarchy outside of one being Hereditary and the other not. But a dictatorship can become a Monarchy. So I guess Stalin isn't a Socialist. Lenin wasn't a Socialist, Mao wasn't a Socialist. Because they were all dictators. Only difference is they didn't pass their power onto their children. That being said, did Lenin have children? Stalin and Mao did but... irrelevant. Kim did pass it on.
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
@jrenjrapiro817 General and TIK are correct on the definition of Socialism however. It's the same definition I was taught in school. It's the definition literally found in all offiical English Dictionaries. HECK even Google's definition.
Google Definition: Socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Websters: Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Being General already posted the Oxford definition I'm not going to.
However both Google, Oxford and Websters state the Public Ownership of the Means of Production, and being the Public Sector is the State, hence why the state is referred to as the Public Sector, it is LITERALLY State ownership of the Means of Production.
When a definition states Common, Society, Government, State, they all relatively mean exactly the same thing. Public Control of the Means of Production. Capitalism is the Private Control of the Means of Production. That is literally the fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Private Ownership vs State Ownership.
Private Police = Capitalism (Security Guards)
Public Police = Socialism (Local, State and Federal Law enforcement)
Private Hospitals = Capitalism
Public Hospitals = Socialism
Private Farm = Capitalism
Public Farm = Socialism (Collective Farm, State owned Farms etc etc etc)
Over and Over again. Fundamental Difference. How much your nation is one or the other defines how much of a Capitalist country you are vs a Socialist Country. So it's why you can argue there has never been a truly Capitalist country, as it would require a VERY weak central state. Were has Socialism has been tried and failed many times over. USSR being one of the best examples, were the state literally owned almost everything.
22
-
22
-
22
-
To be honest, in a round about way I'd say "YES" Regardless. Similar to the effect Prussia's defeats against Napoleon reshaped the Prussian Military, and helped introduce German Nationalism. The Franco-Prussian war had a similar effect on the French. I'd say of course losing, and given cruel terms would do the same to post WWI Germany. Though, to defend the British/French post WWI, the Franco-Prussian war saw some pretty harsh terms and even reparations forced upon the French by the Prussians. So what you see with Versailles was more common than people think, and should of been expected, though I still think the terms were too harsh. I just don't believe an entire nation should be punished for the decisions of it's leaders. All you do is give ammunition for political extremist to use.
Now is the Treaty of Versailles responsible for Hyper Inflation? I'd highly doubt it, as it's mostly caused by internal economic decisions not external. I mean, without all the military spending, you'd think Germany could afford the reparations? So the Versailles treaty kind of gave Germany the ability to pay those reparations, even if they were high reparations.
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
As a former Fascist myself, dropped it years ago, he even understands Fascism considerably better than most people including most history tubers.
I mean I ran into one history tuber that said Fascism was how did he put it, a Ideology of Contradictions and Redundancy? Basically saying it had no core economic and social foundation, and was entirely a nationalist military totalitarians reactionary movement that is whatever it wants to be at the time to react to some other form of social revolution. Which seems to be the common impression of Fascism. Which means Fascism has no definition, to to them but a Nationalist Reactionary Movement.
Mean while they link ideologies to Fascism that are not Fascist, so they can claim Fascism is an ideology that has no core foundation, as all Fascist movements are TOO radically different from each other. Where I would say that shows a serious flaw in their definition of Fascism and would question whether many of those regimes are even Fascist, something Orwell seemed to notice, and even questioned, which TIK presented in the video "What is Fascism?" Which Orwell openly admitted most people's view on Fascism is well idiocy not his own words.
In short when you read between the lines of what they're saying, any social movement which is counter to the glorious Marxist Revolution is Fascist. Which you know is incorrect, but that view, that foundation of what Fascism "is" (Isn't) is what most people use to build their foundation of Fascism in their head, so in turn few including those making YouTube videos understand what Fascism even is.
Of course historians who are not socialist who use those sources as sources, even if they're not socialist themselves may or may not catch the falsehood in their statements which is why so many youtube videos get this wrong, even if the youtuber making the video may not be a socialist.
TIK actually tried, and did very good in his Mussolini and Fascism Defined video, he actually cared to figure out what Fascism was, at a fundamental level. He used sources with are sympathetic (not supportive but uses Fascist sources directly) but are willing to actually use sources that went to the mouth of Fascist themselves for their information/understanding of the movement. Fascism was, and has always been a Socialist ideology, even back when Fascist didn't want to openly admit it. Fascist did not want to be associated with Socialism 'directly' but the entire reason they called themselves a 3rd way was so many people were terrified of Marxism, and tried to disassociate themselves from the Marxist Socialist movement. It was almost required at the time. As so many throughout society were terrified of Marxism. This is why Nationalist Focused Socialist movements dominated much of Central Europe, and the Balkan States. Why countries like Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Greece, among others all leaned toward Fascism, and some of them turning directly Fascist even before the start of WWII.
Why? People wanted Socialism, they just didn't want Marxism. Fascist brought a new option to them, and the Fascist knew they were Socialist. Which is why Orwell listed them among the parties which needed to make admissions in his article "What is Fascism?" at the time when Orwell wrote that, most Fascist didn't like openly admitting they were Socialist, and Socialist didn't like openly admitting Fascism was Socialist, Fascist today openly admit being Socialist today, and it's only none Fascist Socialist who are in denial still. Orwell seemed to of figured it out. He just didn't openly admit it, I figure to keep many of his socialist readers from "running away" from his writings.
Basically Fascism was a nationalistic centered rebranding of Socialism, if you want a super simple explanation why it exist.
19
-
19
-
@On_The_Piss To be honest he made that point in earlier videos, yet people didn't care to accept them. I'd say between 1 hour to 2 hour 30 minutes if you watch that, it is almost undeniable, the Nazis were Socialist. It's an argument I often try to make with people. You have to view Fascism, Marxism, and National Socialism like Religions. They're Socialist or at the very least were born from the Socialist movement, and hold many Socialist elements, and ideologies within their own ideology. It is like comparing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam of which themselves have multiple different splinters, and sects. Yet they all worship the same "God." That is how Marxist Socialism doesn't look the same as Fascism, or National Socialism. Leninism, or Maoism. All created by 'men' who had different ideas on how to reach Utopia of Socialism. That being said though. TIK's comparisons between Marxist Socialism of the USSR and National Socialism of Nazi Germany do make the Nazis look more like the Soviets than they do Mussolini's Fascist. Which is a breath of fresh air for me, as I would often compare the regimes, but I never knew it went so deep.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@dr1flush Personally I care more about describing what they were in context beyond where they fall on a political chart.
Hitler was anti capitalist, anti marxist, anti conservative and at the same time anti liberal. His movement went against traditional German conservativism. Yet they were also not progressive, quite anti progressive in many areas. It's why it's difficult in my opinion to place them on a chart involving left/right. TIK described it well, Nazi ideology was held together with glue and silly tape and filled with contradictions.
Good example, they claimed they were pro family a very conservative thing to say. Yet used the Hitler youth to brainwash/condition kids, and even have them spy on their families.
Soviet Union and Communist China did the exact same thing with their youth programs as well, but they're not associated with the right.
Mean while Hitler was very pro animal rights, against eating meat, and a few other things, some things which you could accuse him of being a hippy for. Yet was anti homosexual, believed women belong at home, among other conservative values.
So yes, I think it's far more complicated than Liberalism vs Conservativism or Left vs Right. It's why I don't like accusing one as being one or the other. Try avoiding adding that label onto anything if I can. People are too complicated.
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
@jrenjrapiro817 I'm curious how thick you can be still no able to grasp, that there is no rule to state that you can not have a Racial Community! If the Nazis removed everyone else from Society by Default there would only be the Racial Community. THEY WOULD BE THE COMMUNITY, the only COMMUNITY. There would no singular, or separate communities without the community as they would be THEE Community. Seriously, that isn't a hard concept to grasp. As I said before, a Community doesn't have to be inclusive to be a Community, putting "THE" at the beginning doesn't make it any different. It is a Community. But as I already explained, a Racial Community would be literally that, a Racial Community, it wouldn't have separate communities because they'd be all gone. There is a reason the Nazis planned for mass depurations. Which ended up becoming something far worse.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, not True Socialist? I guess no one was a Socialist then if the USSR, and Communist China were not Socialist nations. I guess the Weimar Republic were the true Socialist? Oh, how about the Fascist? Oh oh, wait no I forgot, they're not TRUE SOCIALIST. Sorry but the USSR was THEE Socialist nation of history. Lenin was a Socialist, Stalin was a Socialist. Sorry but State collectivized Farms which helped lead to the Holodomor is an example of Socialism..... oh wait... I FORGOT, you don't think State control is Socialism. Golly... sighs
It's like talking to a Brick wall.
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@dr1flush For obvious reasons. Republican support of the US Constitution insures rights/freedoms that would allow them to exist in the first place, and the Democratic party has been increasingly against the US Constitution, if those rights vanish their very existence might be put at risk. That's not even including how the constitution allows them to operate their own armed militias, which makes themselves feel more legit. Let alone immigration, for racist reasons, and the Democrat's increasing association with Marxist, why wouldn't they?
However, if you asked a Neo Nazi in the 1950/60s who they voted for and they likely would of claimed the Democrats because of it's association with ethnic segregation at the time, among other things. That being said, it isn't so black/white.
That and a lot of Neo Nazis are not even really Nazis. They don't even understand the rhetoric they seem to preach often made darn apparent when they try to use stupid Nazi slogans and can not even pronounce them correctly in spite plenty of audio speeches of Hitler being widely available to do so. Honestly miss when they had videos on youtube, as you were able to see how utterly stupid most of them really were. I mean that was made quite apparent when they tried to march with tiki torches, that is how LAZY they are to mimic the people they claim to praise/follow.
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@BiharyGabor Every Marxist I've argued with has always fallen back to declaring that a Capitalist is someone who accumulates wealth. Capitalism plural is an economy built around the free market and individuals being allowed to accumulating wealth. ie a economy built around selfish money grubbers. Sarcasm
It's why Lenin was able to get away with declaring a farmer who had too many cows as a Capitalist, Class Traitor and a kulak, equal that to a factory owner or nobleman, in spite being quite poor, because to afford too many cows, ie not the proper amount of cows, would imply they are accumulating wealth so they can afford said extra cows. Ironic that my definition of a dirty money grubbing Capitalist I can present practical evidence of it in practice, quite easily. It's why such a regime was able to ethically steal whatever it wanted from it's people whom they believed earned it unfairly to begin with because they were practicing Capitalism. Poor farmer doesn't deserve his tractor, doesn't deserve having more than 10 cows, doesn't deserve having a surplus of grain. In the eyes of the USSR under Lenin wealth didn't just equal money but property to boot, but property is a form of material wealth so it still circles back to "Money."
You dared to declare it untrue, but insist on refusing to presenting real proof that it isn't. Going so far to declare it's too complicated to be defined in such a simple manor. However, no philosophy is too complicated to be defined into a singular definition, unless said philosophy is filled with contradictions. If it's filled with contradictions, then it's either built upon broken logic, or worse, intentionally done so to make it easy to switch what it means at a whim when it's necessary, then it's built upon untruths, and dishonestly. Then again TIK has already pointed out a few times where Marx was most definitely lying to his readers, and moments in which he did love Contradictions. So he was either an idiot or a liar.
However, in spite of that, there still has to be a core clearly defined definition, otherwise, such a ideology could never be instituted in practice to counter it.
13
-
13
-
13
-
@jrenjrapiro817 To be frank, I've never seen a single comment you've made which actually disproven anything I said outside of conjecture. All my replies have only been trying to really find out how you have some twisted views on words like Socialism, Community, and oddly apparently even Communism.
Honestly, I think any ounce of credibility which you didn't really show much sign of prior anyways, was thrown out the moment you claimed Communism wasn't a form of Socialism, even though from time to time in history they were synonyms of each other often used by some of the same people meaning relatively same thing. You can argue against Fascism, or Nazism not being forms of Socialism, but seriously Communism? I've never seen someone make that claim.
There is a reason the definitions of Socialism often includes "Common" Control. Because Socialism's Association with Communism.
It's literally in the name of Communism ie straight from Wikipedia "Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal' is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."
Key phrase: common ownership of the means of production < Strange, didn't some of the definitions I posted earlier from the dictionary for Socialism use common ownership? Almost as if they're often synonyms.
Wiki Socialism:
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production.
Social Ownership: Social ownership is the appropriation of the surplus product produced by the means of production by a society or community as a whole, and is the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system.[1] It can take the form of state ownership, common ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, and citizen ownership of equity.
Oh, look it includes State ownership, and omg seriously? Common Ownership!? As if I acutally knew what I was talking about when I said Community and Society can equal State Ownership, yet you were in denial of it. In spite Social Ownership can include state ownership, and yes this is all cited. =D
I'm sorry but, you utterly failed when you said Communism isn't a form of Socialism.
13
-
13
-
13
-
Honestly, I think one of the biggest issues for the Red Army Early war was, numbers. Not in men. But planes/tanks. I actually think, and I wish there was evidence to prove it, that out of fears of Stalin, everyone wanted to make positive reports back to Moscow. This is how you end up with scenarios in which the Red Airforce as a HUGE number of planes, but hardly any trained pilots to fly them. How they have more tanks than the next three nations combined but no logistics to support them. Why it all literally fell a part over night almost, despite on paper the Red Army was one of the strongest in the world, and attacking them should of been suicide. Yet they got steamrolled.
I know people blame this on Stalin's purges often, but that doesn't explain why you'd have an entire tank divisions without any logistical support in my opinion, or issue new planes to air fields without pilots trained to fly them. It's like they had their priorities backwards. ie get the equipment to the front line before the personnel to operate them or support them even existed. I honestly think this was Spreadsheet warriors at a State/Military level all wanting to report back positive figures to the top man, not really expecting they'd actually have to have those personnel fight.
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
@standupaddict94 They had access to outside markets though. Any failure or short coming could easily be made up with trade. Central Europe did not have this option during the Great War. TIK in one of his earlier videos brought up a good example of this when the UK put crop production under national control during WWII, and crop yields and over all production went down instead of up. UK didn't starve during WWII did it? No, she had imports to fill the gaps. Also yes they "DID" Socialism. I brought it up before on other videos in the comment sections, but no nation on this planet is purely Socialist, nor are they Capitalist, they all fall somewhere between the two. Even the USA a nation often pointed at for it's Capitalism is filled with examples of Socialism, even today. Point being though, when the state messes with fields it shouldn't touch, agriculture being a good example, mismanagement, or incompetence can lead to utter disaster, definitely during situations when you're nation is a closed economy, whether forced by outside powers (embargos) or within. Good example recently was Wuhan China. People were starving, and the state refused to allow local farmers to sell produce in the city, and even directly confiscated it by force when they tried. Because despite what some say China isn't Capitalist. Food situations in China are so bad that when the state brought the price of Pork down to 50% in the City of Wuhan the local stores that actually sold Pork didn't have the stock to last even a single morning with such cheap prices as the only people in the city who normally could afford Pork are the middle class/wealth of the city. There is a reason China has Blackmarkets, and ally way food markets that sell rat, dog, bats and just about any meat Poachers just outside the city can get their hands on. Once you get away from the wealthier areas of China's cities, it starts looking like North Korea.
9
-
9
-
9
-
To be honest, anyone who says Hitler didn't Start WWII is nuts. Most of the arguments I've come across are generally loony. For example: "Well if Poland just gave Germany Danzig none of this would of happened." My reply would be, "Well that still means Hitler waged a war of aggression against Poland, at the VERY LEAST for the Danzig Corridor." Though I honestly believe giving Poland the Danzig Corridor was a huge political mistake by the Western Powers after WWI, as it did give someone like Hitler a major political excuse for war which helped greatly at convincing the masses to fight said war, but even the Danzig Corridor wasn't enough, but it did give him fuel to burn. However that does not mask the fact that Hitler shot first, and I don't care what some of the pro Nazi Wehraboos say when they say "No the Poles shot first." All the examples they often bring up are idiotic, even if the Polish Nationalist wanted a war with Germany, they were still not the ones to start that war. But in my Opinion, even if the Polish Government caved to German demands for Danzig, Hitler would of likely just found another excuse later on for a conflict, it was not beneath the Nazis to conduct False flag operations, we know they did prior to September 1st and they would of likely done so anyways.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@orclover2353 That would make sense if Stateless Nations didn't exist, but Stateless Nations do exist.
Friesians for example have no State, yet are a Nation. Native Americans have Reservations, with some political autonomy, but they're US Government Reserves. Yet Native Americans refer to themselves as Nations, even those that do not live on Reserves.
Prior to Israel, Jews also didn't have land, a border on a map. Yet they viewed themselves as a Nation. The whole Zionist movement was so they could establish a Nation State for their Nation as they were a Nation without territory in a world of rising Nation States, in their eyes, if everyone else is allowed to create a Nation State, they wanted one as well.
Sorry but you're blatantly wrong is the concept of Nations and Nationalism. Tribalism is literally just a synonym. You can find this contradiction literally by just looking up Definitions for "Nation."
Examples below:
"a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status"
" a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"
See how they refer to a Nation can have one or more Nationality and be a Nation. Basically both definitions us Nation, National or Nationality as meaning two different things. Land/Territory when they say Nation and a "People" when they say Nationality. But why do you call a "People" a Nationality? Because they're a Nation. Around the bad logic goes.
This is why people fail to understand what Nation means, because they can not even make a Definition of Nation without even contradicting themselves.
Basically to sum it up Nation and State or two different words. Nation State = a Nation with a State. A Nation without a state, wouldn't have territory, so Nation = Land/territory is stupid. So a Nation must equal "A People."
9
-
@elijahrivera2858 To be honest, I don't like using left or right. The concept oversimplifies things.
If Liberalism is the Freedom to Life (Choice), Liberty (Freedom from the State) and Property (Owning Stuff). Wouldn't that make Capitalism Liberal?
Only reason it's Conservative in the USA in particular is because those core Liberal principles are part of the core of American Law. Which makes old world liberalism today's American Conservatism.
This isn't interchangeable either. What is conservative in one part of the world isn't the same in the other either.
A far right Conservative in say Europe might be pro Monarchist, and yes they still exist. Some still want to bring back specific monarchies. But in the USA a far right Conservative are normally Anarcho Capitalist, pro Constitutionist, and anti State. Very very far from being the same thing. These Conservatives have a lot in common with Libertarians even, yet they're call Conservatives and Right wing.
And core American values have also been adopted by some Socialist, like the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence modeling itself off the US Declaration of Independence. BTW Property isn't in the US Declaration of Independence it was replaced with Pursuit of Happiness, where in Classic Liberalism by John Locke, it was actually Property.
This in particular is why I dislike using Left or Right wing in particular. Most political charts are broken because you can not just place something to the left or right of something, definitely when the center may be very hard to define.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I often try to convey to people. "Were the Germans really that good or were their opponents really that bad?" You often see a common trend with a horribly unorganized command structure, infighting or flat out inexperienced officers leading to a lot of military disasters in WWII. Having good soldiers and good equipment can only take you so far. Not to defend the Soviets really on this one, not aiming to. But people often point to poor officers and Stalin's purges on why the USSR performed so terribly in the early years of the war. Issue is, so did the French, and British... they also performed poorly early on in the war so what was 'their' excuse? The British however rather than admitting their own failures often, will uplift "German Superiority" as a crutch, an excuse. "We were fighting the very best! So of course we took some licks."
I would argue, that the German Military at this time were not super saiyans. But... were just actually competent. The only real competent military at the time, in spite of all it's shortcomings it was the competency that kept it alive.
When looking back on it from a modern perspective it's honestly hard to see how so many militaries could be so incompetent.
You actually see this in the Pacific theatre as well, British in Indo-China pretty much gave up with barely any resistance the moment their battle plan was compromised ie the moment the Japanese went around their positions through the jungle, instead of trying to reform new lines elsewhere they surrendered the entire garrison! Meanwhile you have the Phillipines and Wake Island where local US Marines, Filipinos, and armed Civilians actually held up really well against the Japanese, in spite of fighting pretty much hopeless battles, losing in the end but giving the Japanese a black eye similar to the Russo-Finnish War. Making the British collapse in Indo-China look that much more embarrassing for well British pride.
That being said the US Military wasn't perfect, but I think that kind of digs that knife a bit deeper when you think about it.
I'm honestly curious how bad the British Officer Corp really was at this time in history. It's obvious they had some good officers who understood their shortcomings and tried to make something good out of the British military early war. But my god... man. It's a mess.
8
-
@gargravarr2 I'd say YES and NO.
1. A lot of prisons have been corporatized outside the direct control of the Federal Government.
2. These "Business" like Prisons wouldn't get away with Enslavement like the Federal Government could back in the day.
3. Some Federal Prisons still exist, and still use prisoners for labor.
Generally though Labor anymore in the prison system is frowned upon. If it exist it's often voluntary definitely in the Corporate style Correctional Facilities as they nicely call themselves. Which prisoners even get paid for it, though not much. Basically a prisoner can voluntary to work and get paid, being they have no living expenses it's not a bad deal for someone waiting out a prison sentence. Prisons also offer educational routes as well, if you didn't have a GED you can earn a GED while in Prison, and some college courses are also available to prisoners.
It's not like Shawshank Redemption stereotypical days in short. But there was a period in American history starting some time in the late 19th Century which Forcing Prisoners to Work was considered necessary for Rehabilitation. As it was deemed someone who is stealing instead of working to earn their bread must be broken, so they must be fixed, sending them prison, learning how to "WORK" was the cure for their decease.
It's no different than the Gulags in this context which Capitalist and those deemed enemies of the Working Class were enslaved and forced to "WORK" or die in the process, if they learned to work, they could be set free. Though sadly for many that didn't happen. They would often get set free in LABOR colonies so they could be continually exploited by the Soviet Government even after Stalin's death.
So the idea/principle is sadly far more universal than just the Nazis or Communist. But I'd say the Nazis and Communist were the absolute worst as they'd work people to death. American prisons wouldn't get away with that has they would have to contend with the Court of Public Opinion, and worse.... being elected out of office. OH the HORROR.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@jrton1366 The concept of Left vs Right today dates back to the French Revolution. ie even the concept of Liberalism pre-dates the concept of the Political Left or Political Right.
Since then the Revolutionary Left hijacked the word Liberal even though they've rarely ever supported real Liberalism. Even Napoleon's Code of Law which is the foundation for all modern Left wing Dominated countries today in Europe, and one of the champions of the 19th Century Social Revolutionaries himself, was also very antisemitic. Despite created the Napoleon Code of Law, he did exclude J**s from the rights provided by that Code. So... ya. Marx himself who came onto the field many years later also had a nasty tendency to use antisemitism quite a lot. In many respects the very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of Christian stereotypes of J**ish people.
This is FAR removed from Jean Rousseau, and John Locke who are the corner stones to Liberalism in Europe and the Americas. Yet the left who themselves are the ones who defined what Left and Right even is, declare themselves Liberal. In spite of the very fact that Economic Liberalism (Capitalism) can not exist without a Liberal Society, a Liberal Society is required for Capitalism to exist, and is actually ideal for a Liberal Society as private Property is one of the fundamental cornerstones to John Locke in particular as it's required for Individual freedom as that private property protects you from the collective group, which includes the state, at least theoretically.
Leftism is also against Individualism at least has been since the 19th Century. Yet another reason why the Left shouldn't be considered Liberal. The Left is Progressive, not Liberal. Because of this however, Progressivism is a forever changing movement, and as a result everything under the sun has been accused at one time or another as being "FAR RIGHT" why? Because Progressivism has been all over the place so much so that they've been in opposition to just about every political issue throughout history. Even today, modern Libertarianism which is just about the purest form of Liberalism in society today is often called by some on the left a FAR RIGHT ideology... despite that the first generation of Libertarian from the 19th Century were Marxist.
Similar to how Socialist don't know what Socialism is because after 200 years they've still not come to a consensus on what it even is still. Leftist don't even know what Leftism is, nor what Rightism are, as they're social constructs that they've torn, ripped apart and defiled so much that people don't even know what either of them are anymore. So in this respect the concept of Left and Right should in my opinion be thrown out. It's no longer relevant.
So in this respect, Leftism and Rightism should honestly be defined as Collectivism vs Individualism, or Progressivism vs Liberalism, as even Conservatives today are more often than not more Liberal than Progressives.
8
-
8
-
Reminds me of some good old 90s style historic games like Red Baron II/3D in which nearly the entire in game interface was entirely done with chock boards, time tables, journals, books, paper works up the wazoo. Though I think Valkyria Chronicles 1 and 4 hit it out of the ball park. First game is based in a book written by one of the secondary characters a journalist, while the second is the personal journal of the protagonist. Everything including in game menus, music players, glossary, history, cutscenes, missions, everything is access through the fictional book by turning pages, skipping to chapters, it's done so beautifully.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@Gvjrapiro
For one. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Barack Obama both his terms. Heck I voted for him when he was running for the Illinois Senate.
You. "Is a neighborhood watch a state? Is a company a state? Is a club, o even an international organization a state?"
You. "That would be like saying rich people both run the government and the companies, ergo amazon is actually a separate country"
Equivocation Logic Fallacy: A Neighborhood Watch can not be compared to a Trade Union council which is what the USSR had when compared to say the US Senator or UK Parliament. Apple does not have direct Representation in the US Senate or Congress. Apple is not the State, even though they can lobby/bribe officials the best they can. They're not the State. Compare that to the Soviet Union in which the Local Factories and Trade Unions elected representatives to be on the Soviet Council, which in turn chose the Premier. That is a significant difference. Apple can not choose a politician to represent Apple in the US Senate or Congress, Apple can not do this at a National or Local Level. If a politician gets caught, being bought even in the USA it's illegal and they can go to prison for it as that is Called Corruption. Private Business or Public Corporations are not allowed to be part of the State which however, does not mean they do not try to influence it and they do try and succeed but legally they're not part of the State. That is not the same in the USSR, or the PRC, in which the State owns the business, either by way of direct representation like that of the USSR or by general ownership like the PRC.
"But again, it's very telling that you define socialism as "government control" or "anything besides perfect capitalism" because even the first socialists, and the most influential, would spend decades advocating against government control."
Definition of Socialism. Right out of Webster.
Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You should watch TIKhistory's Hitler's Socialism Counting the Denialist Arguments, or his more recent "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming"
Also he wasn't a Fascist. Fascism was built on the foundation of National Syndicalism. National Socialism, well Nazi National Socialism as there are other National Socialist parties much older than the German Worker's Party. However, Nazism is built on the foundation of the People's Community, which dates all the way back to the early 18th Century. Contrary to the common belief Hitler didn't change the German Worker's Party much, outside of Para militarizing it. Nearly every single tenant that the German Worker's Party believed in was adopted by the Nazi party and they stuck to it til the end. So Hitler didn't change the party, the Party Changed Hitler more accurately.
Where as National Syndicalism branched off of Marxist Syndicalism. Nazism's biggest core pre-dates even Marxism itself.
These two ideologies evolved independently of each other in short.
Also there is enough evidence to make it convincing that Hitler was a Marxist prior to the summer of 1919. He was even a common patron to Cafe Central in Vienna a Socialist hot spot that most of the greatest Marxist figures of the early 20th Century had visited.
Wiki quote "The café was opened in 1876, and in the late 19th century it became a key meeting place of the Viennese intellectual scene. Key regulars included: Peter Altenberg, Theodor Herzl, Alfred Adler,[2] Egon Friedell, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Anton Kuh, Adolf Loos, Leo Perutz, Robert Musil, Stefan Zweig, Alfred Polgar, Adolf Hitler, and Leon Trotsky. In January 1913 alone, Josip Broz Tito, Sigmund Freud, and Stalin were patrons of the establishment. Tarot games of the Tarock family were played regularly here and Tapp Tarock was especially popular between the wars.[3]"
A fact that is pretty much never brought up by most historians. I stumble upon this on accident when reading up on Vienna. If people wonder why Hitler learned how to give the conduct speeches in the style which was most known by socialist revolutionaries, this location was likely it. It's also very likely Hitler may of even met people like Lenin or Trotsky something he would NEVER of admitted later in his life being the political stance he took by the 1920s. Though I do vaguely remember someone somewhere saying Stalin claimed he met Hitler before. Though I can not confirm, nor deny that claim to be true. If it was true, it was likely at Cafe Central. Since I can not prove it, take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@orclover2353 Again, many can not properly define nation, as the two examples I presented. I didn't present them as proof of a Proper Definition, as they're definitions that contradict themselves.
Meanwhile you literally just posted a Definition which uses part of the definition of a State, and merged it with the concept of a Nation. They just avoided using Nationality within the definition, likely because whoever wrote it realized that contradiction so they avoided it. But by doing so they failed to even define a Nation. But defined a Nation State but only calling it a Nation.
First paragraph from Wiki on "Nation."
"A nation is a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and/or society. What constitutes a nation can vary widely, as some nations are constructed around ethnicity (see ethnic nationalism) while others are bound by political constitutions (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).[1] A nation is generally more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2][3] A nation has also been defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.[4]"
"Nation State"
"A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent.[1][2][3][4] It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant national or ethnic group."
Ironically what you posted matches Nation State, not Nation.
Again as I said, many dictionaries sadly have been written by people who don't understand what a Nation is, and often mix Nation up with State. They view Nation and State as Synonyms. When Nation isn't a Synonym of State, never really has been. It might be in some circles, but only because they don't understand what Nation means.
6
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 Honestly you're in over your head. The whole argument has been whether Nations REQUIRE Territory to be called a Nation, not that it "CANNOT" occupy territory. So this " "nation" being used to indicate a group of people tied by something that is not a shared language, history, territory, religion and race. " Statement of yours isn't even relevant.
At the very least for god sakes read Jack David's "Ethnicity, Culture, and "The Past" which is an essay. He defines the difference between an Ethnicity and a Nation quite well.
Anthony Smith's The Origin of Nations literally considers a Nation as "..as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests." Which is fun when I hear Marxist say they're Class Conscious.
Again, the reason you think Nation means what you think it means is because you're mixing up Nation with "State." That a Nation requires territory to be a Nation, which it has never required. Otherwise a Nation State would be oxymoronic. A State is a Politically Organized Community which occupies and governs territory. A Nation state is when a "NATION" is that Politically Organized Community that runs the STATE. The last definition you posted LITERALLY says that as plain as day.
For example. If Nation = Ethnicity which it doesn't but "CAN" then the USA wouldn't be a Nation. If Nation = an Ethnicity, which it doesn't, then Russia, wouldn't be a Nation as she is also a massive multi ethnic Empire. Nation CAN mean an Ethnicity but not exclusively. So sharing a Common Language, territory, or what not can mean a Nation but not exclusively.
USA is a Nation built on an Idea, and the Idea, that Identity is the Nation, not a skin color, language, or ethnicity. Hence CIVIC NATIONALISM. I really don't understand how I can pound this concept into your head.
6
-
@dr1flush There is nothing ahistorical about it.
Why I brought Black Nationalism because it's a complicated subject. Counting which particular group within the wider movement, you have Marxist, Black Nazis, Liberals, and Conservatives, and often very strong roots of antisemitism as well.
Would you consider them right wing or left wing? They're inherently the enemies of White Supremist, and today are found supporting the left for defacto reasons. In spite often being just as horrible and racist as their white counter parts.
Then you also have National Communism. A pro Nationalist version of Communism, also built around similar white only racist nationalism often associated with Nazism, but wanting to bring back Communism within Ukraine and Russia, making them what I often like to use Communazis. They literally walk around with a Nazi style flag but with the Hammer/Sickle of the USSR, instead of that famous cross of theirs.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Nelson-gs9yv I would emphasis that this has more to do with the German Army not being as "Mythologically" godly as people claim while the Red Army became competent. For example, most of those 'glorious' stats/figures people often throw around came from 1941/42 in which most of the offensive fighting was done by the very best German units, (you know those 10-14 to 1 figures) they also would suffer the brunt of casualties, and loses in return. These were also irreplaceable loses, as it takes years to train crack divisions.
That being said, the quality of German infantry divisions, and reserve divisions wouldn't be up for the challenge to fill those loses. Most of which were conscripted in a hurry prior to the start of the war, to fill in the ranks needed for these "Grand" Campaigns. The causalties between the two leveled out considerably year after year, but always remained in favor of the German Army, save for as you pointed out some local victories for the Red Army, but the same goes for the Germans. But even in the later war period, the Red Army still suffered double the casualties between 44/45 cross the entire theatre, when compared to other theatres fought by other parties, that isn't something to gloat, or praise. Definitely when you take the quality of the vast majority of German divisions the Red Army were facing at this time.
The Allies had a hard time for example, but that was because most of the divisions they faced in the west were well equipped (for 1944 standards) and experienced, hoping to stop the Allies cold with some of the better divisions available at the time. Despite this, the Allies still came out on top with loses in casualties, when the Red Army didn't in the same time period, while not holding the same major numerical advantages either.
Again, I'm not roasting the Red Army intentionally. From what I've read, it's been just as over glorified as the Wehrmacht. If an equal strengthed crack Red Army division faced a German one in the field in 1944, I'd still place my money on the German one. I'd place my money on an American one above either. That being said, to me I consider the British though to be the most over glorified and hyped Army from WWII, despite performing poorly in nearly every campaign, even the ones they won.
5
-
1:00 damn right out of Andrew Carnegie's mouth. Wiki on him "During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away around $350 million (roughly $5.9 billion in 2022),[6] almost 90 percent of his fortune, to charities, foundations and universities" One of the Richest men in American history. In fact his charity allowed a lot of colleges to operate for generations without much funding.
To me he is the ideal Capitalist. Favorite quotes below.
“No man becomes rich unless he enriches others.”
“The man who dies rich, dies disgraced.”
“The Republic may not give wealth or happiness, she has not promised these. It is the freedom to pursue these, not their realization, we can claim.”
Carnegie believed a first half of a man's life was to pursue wealth. Being he believed you couldn't take that wealth with you, he decided by the end of his life he would give most of it away before he died. He left enough behind for his family primarily wife to live a modest life. He didn't believe in giving money to his son either, the believed his son had to earn his own wealth.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@PutasZG No where near as bad as when a historian spits out that the P51 was the best plane of WWII, or that a Tiger Tank could be killed only by being shot in the ass. TIK actually does research instead of vomiting WWII memes like most other channels. Willing Criticizes things he finds odd, or wrong. The only one that seems to really come close is The Time Ghost team but they're an entire group, doing roughly what TIK does alone. TIK also already stated that historians and researchers are bias, which included himself in said statement.
Also honestly, I don't see where the complaint is at. The state manipulated it's agriculture to bad results. While under the control of a Commissariat, or a Commission, whichever you like the call it. Even if either of the two terms were not used, it was a Socialism over reach, which lead to stereotypical state mismanagement, and suffering.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@oscartang4587u3 To be frank most socialist need to go back and redefine what Socialism is because the definition often used can easily be applied to almost any regime with enough power to control the economy. Which ironically makes them look like idiots when they deny the Nazis are socialist.
Which is ironically why I like TIK's definition of Socialism, which is Social Ownership. Social Ownership doesn't exactly exclude private ownership if the private owners are part of the social group that controls the economy. If you've noticed almost all Socialism is about "A" Social "Group" Rising up and taking Control of the Means of Production from the "Other."
For example, Marxism and all variants based off it, it's about the "Working Class" Rising Up and taking Control of the Economy and State from the "Land Owners" if you use plain English instead of their rubbish religious rhetoric. But, if you refuse the accept the concept of the Working Class, or Classes in General, you pull the rug right out of Communism and most Variations of Socialism along with it. As without it, it can not function at all. Which is why Marxism has utterly failed in the USA, with the Adoption of Neo Liberalism or more accurately Classic Liberalism since the 1980s. Where people were raised to view people as individuals vs rather than "Groups" as a result almost all collectivized movements lost power, including trade unions as everyone by the late 90s wanted to take charge of their own lives, and it's hard to do that when you're part of a union of sorts. This is interestingly why the Left as switched to Racial and Gender Politics, they need "New Groups" to fight for Social Control, if they want their Social Revolution. They've lost the war for the Working Class, as those often deemed as the Working Class are in support of their opposition anymore. It's fun seeing how horrific of failures Marxist and Socialist in General have been in the USA.
Feminism it's about giving women more power in the economy, business and short, but doesn't exactly mean total social control, or collective ownership. Feminist use a lot of Marxist rhetoric reworded around gender boundaries. But it's basically Gender Marxism. But all that matters to the radical elements of feminism is Women Dominate Society, that's their goal. Not exactly equality.
Modern CRT, when I literally hear them say "Race Consciousness" it's hard to not refer back to Marxist who say Class Conscious. So you know those who support it are reading off the same hymn sheet yet again. Again it's just Socialism rebranded with a "New" Social Group, this time a Racial. Ironically not that dissimilar to Nazism in that respect.
It's sad when you see Liberalism actually being the enemy of these groups as well. Liberalism is about Individualism and Individual Liberties. This is why the Left has since coined the term Neo Liberalism, because it's hard to argue against Right Wing Liberals, who are actual Liberals when they call themselves Liberals. Because the things they support are Liberalism in it's purist forms. So of course they created Neo Liberalism as a means of demonizing Liberals who are opposed to their "Revolution." Going so far to calling them Far Right, which I find funny, being Far Right means anything they want it to mean anymore, either Anarchy or Totalitarianism? Which is it? lol
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@peterainsworth4841 Better than a Communazi who thinks the USSR was the greatest thing that happened to the world. "USSR Had the best quality of life for it's citizen, they had the most advanced technologies in the world." And other Wehraboo like Soviet Supremacy nonsense, hence why I use the term Communazi to describe such people. God, if I did this vs the Germans I'd get the same response but from someone other than you. And no, it's not Russia bashing, it's Communist Bashing. The reason they had to steal so much technology is because the system was so inflexible, innovation was almost non existent. I mean, why do you think a Soviet Soldier in the 1980s look almost identical to one from the late 1940s? Uniform/Kit wise.
To push this home. When NATO switched to the 5.56mm Cartridge the USSR was troubled, they had no idea why, so guess that they did? Monkey see Monkey do. They switched to a similar cartridges the 5.45mm which is why the AK-74 exist with almost no changes but the ammunition it fires, over the AK-47. This is what they did. They saw something we did, or had and they had to have it to to the PROVE they could make them as well, or assuming we adopted something for a GOOD reason and that they should as well. They had no real understanding why much of the time. But because we did it, they believed they had to also. That's not bashing, that is actually a fact.
They did it literally everywhere. I already mentioned many examples in aircraft, and now I just mentioned a small arms example.
And if you believe the USSR was so great, I can easily ask "Why did it fail?" "Why did it collapse?" Because I can point you to a channel hosted by a Former Soviet Citizen who can easily answer those questions in a fashion you would not like. Including that the USSR lied about figures/statics.
5
-
Honestly it makes sense militarily going from having universal tanks to specialized tanks, vice versa. For example, the British didn't have a lot of success because of combined arms warfare didn't allow the break through tank to work properly, it would just get destroyed. The Germans had great success with their Panzer III and IV tanks, but as the war went on that success faded, combined arms concept collapsed because of material shortages, no more stukas raining from the sky and artillery and armor always being available. Of course this would logically come out in the eyes of someone who isn't always on the front as "Well our old way didn't work, we gotta do something different." Being the Tiger tank was very successful at the break through role, it's kinda obvious why they kept going down that path, after blitzkrieg had already crumbled, and became ineffective on the German end. Without combined arms to back up the tank, the tank itself needs to be strong enough to do the job almost on it's own. So the Germans started getting ridiculous, to make up for the fact they couldn't have the Stuka rescue them anymore. Honestly, if you view it that way the heavy tank obsession starts to make some sense.
5
-
I don't believe there is a Left or a Right when it comes to Socialism. I think it is a fallacy to claim that Socialism is a Leftist exclusive ideology, and honestly, I'm not a supporter of the Charts that try to label an economic system as politically right, left or center. Socialism can be championed by anyone, including conservatives and liberals. Marxist Socialist are obviously Liberal Socialist, who believe in Social Class Struggle, want Social reforms that benefit the lower of society. Fascist are National Socialist who want a Socialist economic but with a strong nationalist focus, nationalism in itself is often viewed as Right Wing, but yet these people are also Socialist. Socialism in itself is not limited to just one side of the political spectrum in my opinion because of this. It would be like claiming you can not be a Capitalist if you're a Liberal which is silly. Heck there used to be liberals called Red Dogs, Liberals who were center line, but considered themselves liberal, today this term is kind of being replaced with South Park Republican in the USA in particular.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RussianThunderrr The Russian Divisions were depleted, that is without question. However, this didn't stop the Red Army from conducting mass forced conscription in liberated/occupied territories as the Germans fell back. This is why despite, the Red Army suffering horrific loses between 1941/42 even in 1944/45 they seemed to have limitless men. Most of these conscripts were giving little to no training, just equipment and uniforms, they were also often squandered in mass to weaken German positions so the more experienced Red Army divisions could mop up, and exploit any successes created by these conscripted liberatees. General Zhukov himself referred to these conscripts as "effectives" and "bayonets." As i said, one of TIK's videos of this particular series mentions this directly, I can not pinpoint it specifically though, I would have to go back and review each one first. This is also why it's a mistake to call the Red Army "Russian." By 1944 most of it's ranks were not Russian. But the same could also be said about the German Army. I remember reading somewhere up to 1/3rd of the soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht throughout the entire war, (which includes the SS/Navy/Luftwaffe) were not Germans. Similar to the Soviets some of these foreign divisons/regimates were also squandered. There is likely a reason you see so many foreign "Legionary" divisions in Estonia Dutch/Belgium/Nordic, and Baltic SS were all present, vs when compared to the German divisions south of Estonia, ie they were considered the most expendable, though saying they were so far north because they were "expendable" in the eyes of the Army, is my personal opinion.
About the Allies situation in the West. Well it was peachy. Allied soldiers had near limitless supplies and equipment, food, and outside of German bullets/artillery didn't even have to worry about being attacked from the air. US and British armies also had a vast superiority in support troops, and rear line units, including field hospitals of the likes not seen anywhere else. Most allied casualties would survive their injuries. Allies performed very well from 1944 and on. Comparing their situation to the Red Army is like comparing a Peasant to noblemen. It's also why I would rate any of the allied armies considerably higher than the Red Army, and still higher than the German Army. At least what existed in 1944/45. If we are talking about the Allies in 1940/41, well....
On the topic of the German Army in the west. The Germans units they faced were better equipped than their Eastern Front counter parts. Mostly because most Divisions redeployed to France prior to D-Day were there recovering, training, and being equipped, ie reequipped. They were rotated in and out of France in this fashion. It was done so specifically to provide a "defense" when an invasion would come, while serving a dual purpose of being a location divisions could train, recover, and reequip. A lot of divisions throughout the war including the infamous Totenkampf 3rd SS Panzer were first equipped for battle in this fashion in France before being deployed East. Strength wise this meant that many of the Divisions in France, were often in better condition than their Eastern Front counter parts. Even some of the newest Divisions like the 12th SS Division were being training in the region. Of course all German divisions at this time suffered short comings. Even the 12th SS did not have all the armor and vehicles required to be a 'full' division, but no Germany division had this luxury anywhere, and was short of officers as well, a short coming often not mentioned, Germany had more divisions than it had officers to lead them.
Here is a Cookie for thought. TIK made it quite clear how often Hitler was used as a scapegoat. Do you think Stalin has been used a lot as a Scapegoat for the USSR's failures in the war? I know for a Fact Rommel is used as an excuse for the British failures in North Africa in the same fashion. Rommel is propped up as the greatest general ever by British Historians, a Dragon to be slain, and an excuse for how badly they were beat in Africa early on, despite the inferiority of the Afrika Korps. I sometimes wonder if Russian historians have done the same with Stalin.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think you missed the point entirely. The point is, Antisemitism LEAD to the Stereotype of "The Capitalist." The very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of antisemitism. Socialist practice a anti capitalist faith fighting an enemy that is literally an antisemetic stereotype that had only just been rebranded under a new name. Issue with Socialist is, they don't realize it.
Socialist use this terrifying stereotype to scare people. Whether they target Jews or not is irrelevant at this point. They literally took OLD Christian Antisemetic Propaganda and rebranded it for their own use.
It's also socialist are not entirely immune to it either. There have been plenty of Marxist parties that have been Antisemetic. Taking some of the comparisons that Marx himself made between the "Jew" and the "Capitalist' seriously. The Czech Communist Party, the West German Communist Party, being good examples. Apparently the British Labour Party as well, caught with their pants down a few years back making some pretty nasty antisemetic comments. I still remember when the DNC emails were leaked, that many in the Democratic Party were calling Bernie Sanders a "Dirty J*w." So it exist, just not as in your face. So TIK's points are not irrelevant, or really misguided.
It doesn't take much going from an Anti-Capitalist to becoming an Anti-Semite because the origin of the Capitalist came from antisemetism. Which is why TIK included this part in the video 25:30.
Best example I can think of to ring home the point is how many radical Socialist keep pushing that the US Federal Reserve is "Privately Owned." Despite those running the Fed being appointed by Congress and officially being a State owned Corporation. They claim because the Fed was originally financed by selling shares to Major Banks in America so it's actually owned by a handfull of fat bankers. Ignoring the whole point of doing that was to make all Major Banks to be linked to the Fed, ie partial Nationalization of Finance. Giving the Fed roots into all major banking institutions. Issue is, Antisemites believe the exact same thing, but instead of big fat Bankers owning/ running the Fed, they just say Jew. They will use the same arguments.
Why? Because the Propaganda is identical. The Propaganda has the same roots.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Soviet Union wasn't better. Working Conditions were horrific throughout the 1920 to 1960s. Under both Lenin and Stalin. Great example, Stalin cut wages of the work force to encourage both men/women to work, to increase the number of laborers in the work force. Basically to feed themselves/buy any goods he forced the entire household to work, and they worked hard. It could often take a few months wages to save up enough money to buy a new set of clothing for example, just one outfit. I still remember the working conditions described by an American Socialist who moved to the Soviet Union hoping to live the Socialist dream, he described welders with ragged clothing working from dangerous heights in the middle of winter with steel beams covered in ice, and he did describe people falling to their deaths, and the attitudes of those at the work camp was sad, "Oh well."
TIK History's video about Operation Keel Haul actually has some witness accounts of soviet citizens who found being a slave laborer in Nazi Germany BETTER than working as a laborer in the Soviet Union. Which shouldn't be possible, so it actually makes that man's accounts of working conditions in the USSR believable.
Basically, "TRY AGAIN." lol
Btw the story I mentioned about the American Socialist was a story presented by TheUshankaShow who is a former Soviet Citizen. =3
4
-
4
-
4
-
TIK makes it quite clear what National Socialism is, and what Socialism is, what Marxist Socialism is and what Fascism is in his videos. National Socialism is Socialism, but so is Marxist Socialism. They're variations of Socialism, built off the core of Socialism itself. They're not the same ideologies. So calling Socialist Nazis, isn't correct. They have to want to make a Racial Socialist State to be Nazis. That is the distinction. So yes, the Nazis are Socialist, but just because the Nazis are Socialist, doesn't mean all Socialist are Nazis. It's a very simple principle.
You can argue that since both Fascism and to an extent the German Worker's Party which Nazism was built upon, were also built originally on Marxist Socialist principles, and most Socialist today including Democratic Socialist are as well. We can argue that nearly all Socialism in the modern age however are Marxonian at their core. Even if they hate each other. Including National Socialism, Fascism, the Communist, Syndicalist, Corporatist, Social Democrats, and the list goes on and on. So it may not be accurate calling Socialist Nazis, it is very accurate calling Socialist Marxist as it's influenced them all and in cases like Fascism directly branched off of already existing branch of Marxism. ie a mix of Anarcho-Syndicalist, National Syndicalist and Marxist Syndicalist were the signers of the first Fascist Manifesto in Italy in 1914.
4
-
4
-
@jussim.konttinen4981 To my knowledge he ran a farming equipment supply business or something along those lines post war. Any rumors or claims he conducted evil experiments post war are also fabrications. Surprisingly and likely supportive of claims about him being likely more legend than fact he lived for about 20-30 years under his own name, ie he wasn't really in hiding. Like many Nazis who went to South America, but like those who didn't think they did anything wrong he never bothered changing his name unlike others who knew people would be coming after them. Many scientist and soldiers didn't change their names, Mengele was among them. Not until I think the mid/late 1960s when he found out he had a bounty on his head anyways. His Diaries found after his death seem to never mention horrible experiments either, something you'd think he would of wrote down at least something about them in his own personal journals. Now if I recall, he son did claim he found a lot of documents of evil things his father did after his death, but also claimed he destroyed them out of shame. Though, likely he could of said that just to keep people from bugging him about it.
I do know the man was called the Angel of Death, because interviews with Camp Inmates well their attitudes toward Mengele vary quite a lot. Some people have relatively positive opinions of the man, while others described him as a monster. Some people could not even get the description of the man right, so you know up front many people were likely not honest. It's also plausible these people saw someone else and assigned that act to Mengele because Mengele becoming a big name by then so without knowing who they saw doing a deed they pinned it on a name they already heard horror stories about. I'm under the impression he was more of a doctor than a Mad scientist, though it is known and proven he did inject inmates with unknown compounds. Because no documentation of what seemed to have been found it's kind of in the air to 'what' those compounds exactly where. From what I've read it's also plausible he did decide if inmates were to be killed or not from time to time, but a lot of doctors did throughout all the camps, including many who were lethally injected in camps like Dachau. But he seems obsessive toward children, if you were a child at Birkenau under this protection as an experiment you actually had a high chance of surviving the camp. Which makes me wonder if he had different motives than "Bwuahaha" evil madman according to one girl who claimed to be one of his experiments... well women, she said he expected all the kids to be well fed, and well dressed, he seemed to take special interest in their health/well being, and that he would give them regular injections. I wish I could find the article written by her as well, it was quite interesting as she did interview a few people who worked at Birkenau. Openly forgave Mengele as well, wishing the man was still alive so she could ask him questions that have bugged her her whole life since then.
PS. Don't get me wrong, the man was a loyal Nazi, right up to the day he died. From letters and correspondence found from the post war years. His attitude toward Jews in general was still, "Jews are bad." One personal letter found he even mocked Holocaust survivors. But then again the mocking could of been personal, being from what I said earlier, ie if he wasn't a literal Doctor Frankenstein and the stores are mostly made up, you'd be pretty mocking yourself likely. But honestly, I think it's deeper rooted then that. Definitely I know his Journals did talk about Eugenics from time to time. His medical degree did revolve around Eugenics so it makes sense.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're getting Leftism mixed up with Liberalism, they're not the same thing. TIK points out in an another video that even Stalin considered Fascism to the LEFT to Communism. Which means at one point Leftism meant something different than what a lot of people today think Left means. Left was never liberal, will never be liberal, was never meant to be Liberal. The Left is has always been about equality, but not equality in a liberal sense, but equality in a fairness sense. Leftism is Collectivism, Leftism is Socialism, Leftism is Democracy, and Federal State Governments. Leftism in turn is also Marxism and Fascism. All of these are anti Liberal because they ALL Advocate the group over the Individual and Liberalism has always been about Individual Rights over the GROUP. This is why the Left are almost exclusively pushes for fairness, even at the expense of people's individual rights.
Were as the Right has always been around Individual Rights, and Responsibility separate from the group. Which ironically means, Rightism is actual Liberalism. Yes Conservatives Support the Right, and are often the stereotype of Right Wing Politics, but that is only because the RIGHT IS LIBERAL. The Right Supports Religious Freedom, and the Rights necessary for specific groups to survive in Society. Racist often Support the Right because the Right allows Freedom of Speech, and the Right to Assembly which they require to have any voice whatsoever. Religious groups support the Right because the Right allows Religious Freedom mean while the left is obsessed with Religious suppression, like changing Christmas to X-Mass or Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas just as an example, even publicly berating someone if they dare say merry Christmas in Public. That isn't liberal behavior. Left wants, and needs conformity.
It's why Capitalism is literally Liberalism at an economic level. Your own personal economy is in your hands, and no one elses. You choose were to work, or whether you want to work for yourself in a Capitalist economy, it's about responsibility, and freedom of choice. It's against the idea of the Greater good, or the GROUP. Leftism has always been about the Group, Collective Will of the people. Which is why the original Leftist in the USA were called Federalist, and why they call themselves Democrats today. They want that Collective Will, that Majority Rule, which goes against everything America stood for, the entire reason all those protections exist in the constitution, why checks/balances exist within the political structure was always meant to prevent Majority Rule. If you have Majority Rule you did not have a Free Society which Individuals separate from the group can survive, at least without serious risk to their individual rights.
It's often a question I ask Socialist who say Socialism can not be Socialism without everyone being included, if often ask "And when you try to create this society and people refuse to join it, what do you do to them?" They have no answer to that question. Because when I point to regimes like the USSR, or Nazi Germany who crushed people into dust who refused to conform to the GREATER good, or the Majority, they claim that isn't socialism, in spite that they function under the majority principle. They actually believe that minorities in a majority ruled system will have a voice. It's laughable.
4
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 "that is an internationally recognized political entity which borders coincide for the most part with a single nation. a nation is a group of individuals (...), a state is a political entity (...), a nation state is just a type of state"
At least you're able to finally get it right. If you read the wording clearly anyways. It's there.
"borders coincide for the most part with a single nation" "With" not, on, in or for the most part referring to something that can not be defined as territory. The Nation is the People, as it states later "a nation is a group of individuals." The "State" is what is the territory. Nation State is a State built around a "Nation."
Also about Dictionary. I post two definitions, you posted one. Mine contradicted themselves, both of them had contradictions within them. ie if you read them closely they say Nation = a People, and later = Territory/Land, but in two different contexts. ie Nationality = People but Nation = Territory. But in actuality Nation = People and Nationality is used to describe different peoples often within Nations. Ukraine having multiple Nationalities. Saying Nation = Territory is well not true.
Meanwhile the one you posted felt like a joke as it basically left nationality out of it entirely to avoid being a contradiction, as someone with a close eye would see it as one if it did.
Dictionaries are not perfect mind you. Definitely now days which they seem to be changed on a whim. You forget that often multiple people are involved when changing a definition or adding to one, those people have to come to a consensus, often they can not agree, so compromises are made. Like how Corporations have been getting added to the definition of Capitalism. Some places don't include it while others do include it.
So even among multiple different Dictionaries or colleges, they do not always have consensus, and god for bid if someone uses Google Definitions, which do change on a whim.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I would argue against the A6M Zero, even by the A6M5 variant from 1943 just wasn't as technologically advanced as even a BF109E1 from 1938.
The reason they had such great performance was because they were very light weight aircraft, but technologically there isn't much special about the A6M Zero outside of materials used in it's construction, of which was a double edged sword as early war variants of the A6M were renown for being death traps bursting into fireballs after just getting touched by gun fire. Which means the A6M would have to hit an enemy plane hard to down it, while an enemy barely had to touch it.
It didn't take until a few years into the war for the Japanese to fix these issues, at the cost of performance, as the Zero finally saw self sealing fuel tanks, and a tad of pilot protecting armor, but still used the same low powered engine but it was already mid war by the time the Zero saw those improvements. Which was too late, as vastly superior American aircraft that not only could out perform it in ways that mattered, also had superior firepower and superior protection, Zeros just didn't really stand a chance.
In most respects, the A6M is a grossly over rated aircraft. It shocked the world because of it's performance, and it's range allowed it to strike often with people's pants down, but once people learned how to get around it, they were blown out of the sky in an alarming rate.
To sum it up, a BF109E-1 in 1938 could carry 500kg of bombs. Climb to higher altitudes, could dive much faster. Compare firepower to the E-3 variant they were nearly identical. E-3 entered service a few years before the A6M. Technologically even when the A6M came out the E-3 was still better.
When it came to engine technology even the DB601 used in the BF109E which had existed in some form or another since the mid 30s was superior to most of the engines the Japanese were using in their aircraft into 1943. Which is why the Japanese licensed them from the Germans as the Ha40 which would be used on the Ki61 which was one of the better fighters the Japanese produced in WWII, yet tragically isn't as famously remembered.
In short. It didn't take until 1943 for a version of the A6M, the A6M5 to start seeing wide production that I say would be comparable to aircraft being used in Europe, over all technologically from the beginning of the war. The one major advantage that the Zero did have, that nothing the western powers could compete with was it's range. But again, that has more to do with the fact they chose long range, at the cost of being a flying death trap. A6M5 even saw it's wings reinforced and thickened just so it had a chance to keep up with enemy aircraft that chose to dive away. Basically by 1943 many of the advantages it had were thrown out for practicality, self sealing fuel tanks, reinforced wings, some armor protection for the pilot, all reduced it's performance and range. By 1943 the Zero was just any other fighter, but one that was now years behind everything else.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well to most extent it was better. Well, counting where you were used as a laborer within the Reich. How slaves were treated were literally as varied as say in the Rural South during it's height of slavery, and I'm not making a false equivalency. The Nazis used forced labor is just about every aspect of the economy. How individuals within the reich treated those laborers varied wildly. You could be very unlucky, and get stuck working on State Projects like forgot the name of it particular but an underground Me262 factory built with slave labor which lead to the deaths of a few thousand of these laborers. OR, you could be lucky and be sent daily to help a German Farmer who interestingly often enough treated these laborers like any helpers, even fed them. Even some SS Officers treated laborers humanely. As I said though, conditions, and treatment widely varied from location to location.
BUT, yes this would easily explain why many would say that being a Nazi Slave was better than being a Soviet Slave. I know pro soviets claim the Gulags were nothing like the Nazi's programs because they paid laborers, but I could easily go to the Jewish Virtual Library and point out the Nazis did the same, for reasons TIK mentioned in one of his earlier videos. Paying laborers even if it's monopoly money was done so by both to encourage them to work harder. Even if they couldn't really do much with the paper they were issued.
As I said. Conditions varied.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"In communism, the aim is to create a classless society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the community, and resources are distributed based on need"
Translation. Communism aims to create a Classist Society by Removing all elements of Society which are a threat to the Proletariat, by means which the Party deems necessary, including mass murder, enslavement, amongst other things. The means of Production are owned by the "Community" cuckles by Extension "THE STATE" and resources are Distributed Unfairly to Party Big Wigs, while the common man Starves.
Sorry but get over yourself. Marxism is scam and always has been, the greedy capitalist Marxist hate so much just end up being the Party Officials instead who exploit the workers for their own benefit but now have absolute authority/power over them, ie they successfully enslaved the Working Class by pretending to be the Heroes of the Working Class. If you're going to define Communism by the Fantasy Communist hopefuls believe it is then DEFINE FASCISM the way FASCIST fantasy dreamers believe Fascism to be as well. You only made yourself look like the biggest hypocrite on the planet by taking one heck of a bias position on the subject.
Btw you totally failed horrible on describing Fascism. But being you seemed to be one of those Communist hopefuls otherwise you wouldn't of painted an unrealistic view of Communism, it's not a surprise you have no idea what you're actually talking about.
I'd highly suggest ignoring the Fantasy and accepting the Fact that Marxism and Fascism are literal siblings born from the same mother. The only fundamental thing is Fascist are more honest than Marxist. Marxist pretend they're not Totalitarians, while Fascist Embrace Totalitarianisms.
The thing that bugs me the most about Marxist? They claim their movement is inclusive, but it's far from it. They will either murder, imprison and or forcefully enslave/reeducate ie condition/brainwash their enemies. That's not inclusiveness. Those enemies are not just political rivals, but entire families, religious groups, social classes, etc. Anything and anyone who doesn't fit the modal Socialist is a target. Marxist need to take a long look in a mirror next time they call Nazis and Fascist not true Socialist because they are providing socialism only to one "In Group."
4
-
@matro2 Pacific wasn't any better. China was a bloodbath easily comparable to the Eastern Front. It's often overlooked but 900,000 Chinese at least we know, served with the Japanese in Manchuria, and low China under the control of puppet states, like Manchukuo, which was technically ruled by the last Chinese Emperor who the Japanese installed into power there. You can imagine most of them were forcefully conscripted, but there were many who viewed the Japanese as the only means of rescuing China from the Decade's long period of civil conflict between the fractured warlords of China. Also China itself, the Republic of China often referred to as the Chinese Nationalist, not to be mixed up with the People's Republic of China, were not all Unicorns and Rainbows either. For example, the single most destructive act done in China that likely lead to more civilian deaths than any other act (other than the war itself) was conducted by the Chinese themselves. When they intentionally flooded the Yellow River, to flood farmland, villages and towns, directly killing something between 200,000-400,000 people, some say more, and indirectly killing millions from the famine, and refugee crisis it caused....
Ironically it did hurt the Japanese as it made it very difficult for the Japanese to feed their own forces in the area, let alone the Chinese they occupied. One of the primary reasons for Japan's invasion of China ironically, was the same as Hitler's wish to occupy Ukraine... food. But the Japanese occupied very little of it's actual agricultural centers The Republic of China denied them this with a 'water' earth policy, no pun intended, as they destroyed one of the few the Japanese did occupy. Japan occupied most of the much denser populated East Coast of China, and were unable to occupy much of their "Goal" which was the rural farmland. This also meant that Japan had to provide food for far more mouths than was available, and actually made their food shortage issue which lead to the invasion considerably worse. In turn, when it came to feeding Manchukuo, Korea, and Japan, well occupied China was pretty much last on the list, a sad similar scenario to what you see in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro
"policies that brought it back to a mixed economy..."
But Fascist proclaim they're the half way point between Communism and Capitalism. Wouldn't that bring them closer to the same ideology?
"Which is not socialist, because if the state is not representative of the people, either by being democratic/populist government structures, or by giving the workers at large democratic control over their respective industries/workplaces, it is not socialism." Yet every single Socialist State has either turned into a Totalitarian Regime, or a Autocratic regime. Which do not represent the people, even when they claim to. I can even point to modern day France, and Germany as great examples, in which France has turned into a Plutocracy, and Germany an Autocracy. Despite claiming to be very Socialist nations. USSR, China, North Korea, and Cube all become Totalitarian. If Fascism and National Socialism are also Socialist as TIK Claims, well, the cycle continues. Venezuela is sadly also ruled by a Military Dictator now as well. So all these self proclaimed Socialist movements are not Socialist?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@daviddoran3673 So witness testimony from Soviet Soldiers are wrong then? I remember one Russian saying they were ordered to remove parachutes from supplies that the Red Army were dropping into Warsaw. All so they could say they did something. He said it was useless as the supplies would disintegrate upon impact upon streets.
Other accounts from Polish conscripts who were ordered into the city are just as bad. They were sent without supplies, and most were recently conscripted from the Polish countryside, with no training. The Polish resistance called them utterly worthless, claiming many of them just went into hiding.
There was no German counter attack that stopped the Russian advance, as they captured the eastern party of the city while the murders were still going on and Resistance fighters were still fighting. The Red Army halted along the river, and then did nothing... Waited until the entire city west of the banks were leveled to the ground.
That being said going to use this quotes from Wiki which does provide a source. Being it sums it up quite well.
"The role of the Red Army during the Warsaw Uprising remains controversial and is still disputed by historians.[20] The Uprising started when the Red Army appeared on the city's doorstep, and the Poles in Warsaw were counting on Soviet front capturing or forwarding beyond the city in a matter of days. This basic scenario of an uprising against the Germans, launched a few days before the arrival of Allied forces, played out successfully in a number of European capitals, such as Paris[140] and Prague. However, despite easy capture of area south-east of Warsaw barely 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) from the city centre and holding these positions for about 40 days, the Soviets did not extend any effective aid to the resistance within Warsaw. At that time city outskirts were defended by the under-manned and under-equipped German 73rd Infantry Division which was destroyed many times on the Eastern Front and was yet-again being reconstituted.[141] The weak German defence forces did not experience any significant Soviet pressure during that period, which effectively allowed them to strengthen German forces fighting against uprising in the city itself."
"Declassified documents from Soviet archives reveal that Stalin gave instructions to cut off the Warsaw resistance from any outside help. The urgent orders issued to the Red Army troops in Poland on 23 August 1944 stipulated that the Home Army units in Soviet-controlled areas should be prevented from reaching Warsaw and helping the Uprising, their members apprehended and disarmed. Only from mid-September, under pressure from the Western Allies, the Soviets began to provide some limited assistance to the resistance."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To be Blunt, Nationalism has little to do with anything. Socialist have historically been nationalist in so many cases prior to Nazi Germany, including the Czechs you brought up in your video about the first National Socialist. Some people mistakenly believe because someone is "Nationalist" automatically = Far Right, which is ridiculous.
That being said, I wonder if you can dig up information on "Cafe Central" in Vienna. Supposedly Hitler visited it often while he was in Vienna, and it's known as a major socialist hot spot that many Marxist and Communist visited. Basically to sum it up, it was similar to the Beer Halls in Munich, it was where people went to get a meal/drink while listening to socialist spokesmen. This is why Hitler being a Communist in early 1919 is a very believable argument as why would he visit such a Coffee House?
Ripped this from Wikipedia the names of people who visited Cafe Central being "... Peter Altenberg, Theodor Herzl, Alfred Adler,[2] Egon Friedell, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Anton Kuh, Adolf Loos, Leo Perutz, Robert Musil, Stefan Zweig, Alfred Polgar, Adolf Hitler, and Leon Trotsky. In January 1913 alone, Josip Broz Tito, Sigmund Freud, and Stalin were patrons of the establishment."
3
-
1. You defined Marxist Socialism, not Socialism itself. Being you don't realize that, I highly doubt you know what Socialism is, and that it's a 200+ year ideology with so many fractures that defining it universally to please all socialist is impossible. Because there are so many different version so it. Class Socialism is Marxism. Utopian Socialist didn't care much about class, and Conservative Socialism both pre-date Marxism is also not Class focused either. There is no rule that socialism is about class, only people who do not understand the history of socialism think it's about class. This is why Prussian Socialism doesn't sound like Marxism, because Prussian Socialism is a Nationalist Utopian Style of Socialism, influenced by Utopian Socialism which pre-dates Marxism.
2. Totalitarian Regimes including those Admitted to be Socialist have a blatant history of mass murder, so your second point is invalid as well. Stalin conducted the largest ethnic cleansing in European history, even larger than Hitler if you include the deportations along side those sent to labor camps, or flat out murdered.
3. Socialist claim to be anti war, but they really love their revolutions which almost always resort in war. Ask Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Mongolia, Tibet, among so many others, how peaceful and anti war socialist regimes like the USSR, China, Cambodia have been in the past. All invaded and attacked by these "Anti War Revolutionaries" externally, not internally, and that is just in Europe and Asia and I'm sure I missed a few. South America and poor Africa have been ripped to shreds by Socialist. Heck they even attack eachother, like the USSR vs China, or China vs Vietnam and Vietnam vs Cambodia.
4. "socialists seek to promote both positive and negative freedoms while fascists want people to be a cog in the machine fighting for the state" You obviously never read the Communist Manifesto then. As many outside observers including Bakunin, in a Marxist State no man is free, and are slaves of the state. Doesn't sound too dissimilar to Fascism does it? But being Fascism was founded by former Marxist it isn't a surprise.
3
-
3
-
3
-
To be honest, that phrase is pretty accurate. All Collectivist ideologies are surrogates for religion, they replace Religion. Religion itself is collectivist. It's why ironically most collectivist ideologies are so far removed from Liberalism that ideologies like Marxist shouldn't ever be considered part of Liberalism. Because they behave like a collective, and go against the ideals of Individualism which dominates the concept of Liberalism, ie Liberty of the Individual from the collective group. Other collectivist ideologies include Nationalism, Fascism, Nazism, almost all monotheistic religions, and the list goes on, where the GROUP is more important than the individual. These are NOT Liberal movements, Marxism is literally in the same boat.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Marxism = Class Socialism
Nazism = Race Socialism
Socialism = Social Ownership of the Means of Production
Class = Social Group
Race = Social Group
Social Group Ownership of the Means of Production.
So... by extension. They're both Socialist movements, they're just fighting for a completely different "Social Group" as the Society that owners the Means of Production.
To go deeper into it. Marxist fight for their Social Group, the "Working Class" as a result, anyone who works for someone else is the Working Class. So in a Marxist Society there can be absolutely ZERO private ownership of any kind, as to own a factory or business would mean you're not a member of the Working Class because you hire people to work for you, by a Marxist Logic. So to avoid Class Exploitation as they view it everything must be cooperatively owned by the Working Class, no exceptions.
For a Nazi they don't really have to Socialize all means of Production as long as said Means of Production is owned/operated by someone who is considered a member of the Racial Group. This is why Hitler focused on Socializing the People, more than Socializing Land/Property. He took Land/Property off those who were Outside the Racial Group, but for those who were part of that Racial Group, he forced them all to join Social Organizations owned/operated by the Nazi Party itself. ie Socializing the People. All Education, Recreational, Womens/Mens Groups, Doctors Unions, everything everything that would be considered a Social Organization from Education to a Flying Club were Nationalized into the Party, or more accurately Socialized Into the Party.
By doing this the Nazis could convert everyone in Society into being Altruistic Nazis, who'd place their "Race/Community" above their own personal interest.
This is why looking at Nazism with a "Marxonian" perspective on what Socialism is will lead to people coming to false conclusions, because they have a terrible idea on what Socialism even is. The fact many think Socialism = Working Class anything is often proof they don't know what Socialism is. They understand what Marxism is and mix it up with Socialism rather than knowing Marxism is just a variation of Socialism.
3
-
3
-
Wind Rose Just checked Oxford Reference, list a lot of books, dictionaries and encyclopedias with oxford's name attached. A lot of them it will provide a rough definition of the primary definition of the books when you search them on the website.
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.): Political system in which the (major) means of production are not in private or institutional hands, but under social control.
A Dictionary of Geography (5 ed.): A social system based on equality and *social justice, once linked with common ownership of the *means of production
A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (4 ed.): A political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production
The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History: A political ideology that rejects the private ownership of land, factories, and other means of production
Dictionary of the Social Sciences: A form of social organization that prioritizes the common ownership of property and the collective control of economic production
Oxford World Encyclopedia: System of social and economic organization in which the means of production are owned not by private individuals
All above literally mean "Public Control of the Means of Production." Or as TIK would say the Public Sector is the state, so Public Control is State control. Those were also the first 6 that actually presented a definition, some of them sadly came up blank sadly, which means they're not all properly cataloged. But I find it funny that they all pretty much said the same thing... and it isn't the one you listed. =P
Websters Online Dictionary:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2A: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2B: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
#3 in Particular ONLY APPLIES TO MARXIST, and TIK already pointed out in an earlier video how that actually isn't correct either among Marxist themselves, as few believe it from what I've seen in debates myself. So I honestly dunno where they even get that from, because it's vague and undescriptive, so it's a meaningless definition.
Also Irregardless is an oxymoronic word. You're basically using a double negative. You should be saying "Regardless." Irregardless isn't even a proper word. So great way of starting an argument.
3
-
Wind Rose I didn't decide what Socialism means, consensus decided what Socialism means. The most common definition of Socialism is the Common Control of the Means of Production.
I listed plenty of sources that literally said that exact same thing. Common is the Community, and the Community is the Public sector, and the Public sector is the State. I didn't ignore your argument, I countered it. Language has nothing to do with it.
Also do you even know what Liberalism is? Liberalism is about individual liberty over the social group. You have a right to religion, a right to property, and right to be who you want to be without the community, the collective, the state deciding it for you. That is liberalism, and it's the core essence of Capitalism. So ironically Capitalism is true Liberalism.
Classic Liberalism comes from John Locke who promoted the concept of the right to property free from the grips of the Collective State which at his time was the King/Nobility. Instead of the King owning the land and in extension the Nobles, it was the private farmer who gets to own the land. This is from Classic Liberalism. A lot of Marxist Socialist are anti liberal and they don't even know it or not. They are definitely not Conservatives, but they're definitely not Liberals either. But when Marx refers to the "Liberal State" and he did a number of times in Das Kapital he is referring to a state which allows Liberal ideals like Capitalism to thrive, because Capitalism is built on individual freedom which is the basis of Liberalism. So Marx wasn't Liberal.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I don't think it's "Want" more so than they themselves don't know what Socialism is. A position TIK has taken often. Socialist often flounder at defining Socialism. Which is the Social Ownership of the Means of Production. Every other Socialist will give you a different interpretation on how "Social Ownership" is defined. When you go through the history of Socialism, you see it's a common problem, as when Socialism as an ideology was still being established, everyone was arguing over what Social Ownership even means, even today this hasn't been completely resolved, so you have lots of fractured Socialist opposed to each other who have different ideas of Social Ownership. Which is why you have a hard time finding two Socialist randomly on the internet who have an agreed opinion on what "Social" Ownership is because, there is a high chance they're from two different socialist camps.
When I was a Socialist it was ironically something I never noticed, until I started arguing with socialist. I've seen Socialist defining Communism as Socialism, ie using the common definition of Communist and calling it Socialism, while using the definition of Socialism for Communism, likely someone who thinks the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, so take the USSR as an example of "Not" Socialism. Next day I will run into someone who says State Ownership of the Means of Production is Socialism, and openly supports the idea, and says they're a Social Scientist, and will argue how the Nazis didn't have State Ownership of the Means of Production. etc etc etc etc
You know how it goes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
geheimschriver Many of them were in place in 1933. I mean, book burning, banning opposition political movements deemed dangerous to the movement, shutting down opposition newspapers, arresting political rivals for having different opinions not considered correct in their eyes. Not a big difference.
I mean when you have a number of holocaust historians saying these laws are unjust, even if they're used to arrest holocaust deniers, because it's the same kind of injustice that was used to persecute their own people, you know you're doing something wrong. When you deny people a right to have an opinion, that is injustice. False opinions should be combated with "truth" not a jail cell. Only if their actions intentionally deliberately harm someone should criminal action of any kind be considered. But you shouldn't arrest someone for being a conspiracy theory loony. You shouldn't arrest someone because their Red Flag as the wrong "Socialist" movement logo on it. That is injustice.
Let me rephrase that, you 'should' know you're doing something wrong. I forgot, Germany nationally it's afraid of it's own shadow, so it's willing to take extreme measures to avoid being 'associated' with it's past actions.. ironically causing it often to act exactly, like it did in that past.
We have a thing in the USA, well used to do. When Neo Nazis or the KKK go on parade, we ignore them. If you ignore them, they have no power, no voice. We don't arrest them, unless they conduct violence. We don't ban their right to publish books/magazines, we do not deny their right to speak, and march. Guess what? Not a single Neo Nazi, or KKK member has held major political power in the USA in any way for well over 50 years, and at this rate, indefinitely, I would say longer than that, because I can not think of a Pro KKK American president being in office since Woodrow Wilson. Despite what some say Trump isn't a Nazi. He is just a buffoon that feeds on liberal gripes and seems to enjoy making them mad on twitter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ComradeLuna69 But Social Democrats are Moderate Socialist. So they're Socialist.
In fact Utopian Socialism had a heavy influence on Social Democracy, along side Democratic Socialism.
Btw Utopian Socialist didn't believe in Class Division, and THEIR Socialism pre-dates Marxism.
In many respects a lot of groups branched off of Utopian Socialism, and don't even use the word Socialism within their movements today. Including Nationalist. Despite how much Socialist like to deny it.
Utopian Socialism is also the foundation of most Religious Socialist movements who do not see Classes, but followers of the faith. They're also still around as well. Though some Religious Socialist movements do support Marx's classist views, they view the Faith as a means of creating a classless Society, not the Workers.
So there are so many ways to prove you wrong in that statement quite easily.
Basically you're implying Marxist have a Monopoly on the word SOCIALISM which is a bankrupt position to hold, as it flat out ignores all the other socialist movements from the 18th, 19th and 20th century who didn't follow Marx's ideas, at least not completely, and there are PLENTY.
Before Marx the concept of Class within Socialist ideology really didn't exist or at the very least wasn't a pillar of Socialist ideology. Even today not all Socialist movements based their ideology on Class.
A great modern example of this are Black Nationalist in the USA. They replaced the Workers vs the Capitalist with skin colors. Similar to how the Nazis did. Basically becoming Racial Socialist rather than Class Socialist. There is even a wonderful quote from Harold Cruse when he basically said that they had no time to wait on the Marxist. Basically saying if they waited for Marxism to succeed their people would be dead. Despite most academics refuse to call them Socialist, they still wave the Marxist Fist, but painted black.
3
-
@ComradeLuna69 TIK addresses that in this very video you're commenting on. It's a Fallacy.
By that logic the Nazis are not Fascist because they went after the Austrian Fascist. They're not Capitalist because they arrested/imprisoned hundreds of business owners. They're not Christians because they imprisoned hundreds of clergy men.
By the same logic Lenin wouldn't be a Socialist for going after the Mensheviks.
Rosa Luxemburg wouldn't be a Socialist for going after the Democratic Socialist.
See the issue? It's a bad argument. You're mixing up political rivalries for power vs what they actually believed or wanted.
He also uses an example of the British Labour Party's definition of Socialism vs their actual political rhetoric, so even if Norwegian Socialist definition includes Worker Control like the British Labour Party, in the end they're still fighting for Public/State Control. I can not remember if that's in the Definition video of Labor Union video but.... it's an accurate assessment.
As often, it's political juggling. Say Society, Public, Workers, but in the end it circles back to State Control regardless. Which is the primary point TIK made in the definition's video on what Socialism means. Pretty much regardless what Socialist define it as, it will circle back to State Control.
This is why Bakunin referred to Marxism as a Cult of the State, regardless of Marxist rhetoric, as that is what it would come down to when it practice. And guess what, every Marxist country turned into a State top down bureaucratic nightmare. There has been few exceptions. Even in the Nordic States you have what can be best described as State Corporatism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@redaerf2b414 It's explained quite clearly in his Hitler's Socialism video, as well in this video timestamped 22:41
BTW that quote at that point sums up why Wilson and FDR were socialist presidents, even if the USA itself wasn't. Wilson established the Federal Reserve to ensure strict control of banking/finance within the United States. FDR later confiscated all the privately held gold during the great depression as Keynes would be quite proud of him. Basically eliminating hard Capital from the market, forcing all citizens to be bound to the Federal Reserve's banknotes. Even today, 80 years later, Americans still rely entire on the US Dollar, the concept of gold and silver coinage never truly returned, even the coins issued today hold no real value as they're mixed alloys intentionally done so it's impossible for a normal citizen to know what their value is in rare metals, and you can not melt them down either as they're a mix of multiple alloys and you'd have to be very talented to do so. This all was entirely done to control capital, make it impossible for citizens to have any control themselves for money. Basically the State Monopolized currency, and FDR and Wilson are the primary reasons for it.
3
-
3
-
Reich Labor Service or Reich Labor Front. All employers and employees had to be members of the Union. Wages were set by the Union, who worked where was set by the Union. Employers couldn't even call them employees. Basically the Party built a structure similar to the Army around Labor. Worker's went where they're assigned and employers had no choices on who they hired, how many employees they'd receive or how much they paid them.
So it isn't as "one sided" as Marxonians try to paint it. As TIK also points out, even if wages went down after the formation of the Reich's Labor Service, cost of living also went down, considerably. It's why many Germans remember the 1930's fondly if you were poor. Goods were cheap, cost of housing was cheap, wages were more than enough. So in spite of the pay reduction, living was actually better. Issue is, it was at a hidden cost. Rapid bankruptcy of the Reich's Finances. Basically they were subsidizing food, housing, luxury goods, while also trying to spend spend spend on the military. Within 4-5 years the Nazi party bankrupt Germany.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I remember when I used to be a socialist. The more I read about history, the more I would come to understand how flawed it was. So i supported a limited form of socialism for many years after since I graduated highschool. Which was back in 2003. Now it is 2019 and I'm totally against Socialism in it's entirety after I entered the workforce and just saw how lazy people are inherently. A nation that would adopt Socialism in it's entirety is doomed eventually just from that very fact alone. What scares me more is how nearly every socialist state, including Nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea and all turned into socialist backed plutocracy. No greater example of this than the USSR, and modern China, or North Korea which became an autocracy now that I think about it. Of which even the Russia hasn't completely moved away from, with some of the poorest people in the western world, yet it's leaders live in palaces. People often accuse Capitalism of creating Plutocracies but honestly Socialism is no better, hasn't proven itself to be better. While Socialism in turn feels like empty promises, were as Capitalism you at least have chances, and more freedom to choose.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@peterainsworth4841 Also BTW Soviet Aircraft designs were Rubbish. Pretty much from the 1960s and on they were more often than not around 10 years behind the western powers. Even by the late 1980s the MiG-29 just wasn't comparable to say the American F-16. Let alone the Su-27 which was meant to be the Soviet Union's counter to the American F-15 Eagle, just didn't compare. Then the Soviet Union collapsed. Why do you think no one wants Russian aircraft unless they're broke?
Russia is even farther behind now days because of the USSR collapse and how Broke Russia has been over the past 30 years. Just about the only thing they can do now is produce prototypes and at least try to keep their RND up to par as best as possible even if the Russian airforce itself doesn't get those aircraft. This is why Russia produces some interesting aircraft, but yet they never see service.
But that being said. If I had to chose between an F-5 and a MiG-21, I'd take the F-5. If I had to choose between a F-16 and a MiG-29, I'd definitely choose the F-16. Same goes for the F-15. Same goes for the A-10 vs say Su-25. Though honestly I have a soft spot for many Russian aircraft, I do like the Su-25, Su-30M, and the MiG-29 despite my criticism, is still a beautiful looking aircraft. Similar to say owning a Tiger Tank, I would love to own say an Su-30M just for how beautiful of aircraft they are, not because of say superiority. A Tiger II is a beautiful looking tank but it has serious issues.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When it became a World War, defeat was inevitable, for all the Axis powers. The resources, and man power involved were well beyond what any of them could handle with the limited resources, production and manpower available. They could win local conflicts against specific nations, but as another youtuber pointed out. Germany stood literally no chance of winning when she was facing the two largest economies in the world, on top of fighting a war on the scale as she was against the USSR in the east, which on her own Germany likely would struggle with, even if the UK/US did not get involved. Once the war escalated, there isn't really any way Germany or any of the axis powers were going to win, their respective conflicts. Politically, how most of the Allied Powers played their cards, well there wasn't any way to avoid having the conflict escalate either. Even if Germany didn't invade the USSR, I doubt the war would of ended there, and I don't see Germany winning a long drawn out war with the UK/US as well, and yes, the US was most certainly going to get involved eventually, Roosevelt made sure of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508 "Wrong. Not only is market socialism a form of anarchistic socialism, but at its core communism is an anarchistic ideology. TIK even accepts this in this very video." I love to see where TIK Accepts this in this video, outside of maybe a criticism/mocking it.
That being said, Market Socialism is a Synonym for State Capitalism, at least many Socialist academics can not decide. With them still arguing whether China is State Capitalism or Market Socialism. If they're having that argument then the similarities are so close that they can not decide. Capitalist on the other hand are united, they know State Capitalism isn't Capitalism. Market Socialism is literally a way of describing a "Not" Completely Socialist Economy in a Socialist regime because Socialism fails at economics so requires some capitalist elements to survive. In the past they explained it as State Capitalism, and hated it, shunned it. But since China in the 1990s changed their tune but can not call it State Capitalism, otherwise they'd be hypocrites, and it would be admitting the Nazis were Socialist as they branded them as State Capitalist for generations.
"Socialism has always been about individual rights." Not really, Socialism places the rights of the Group/Community above individuals. Which is why Libertarian Socialist are looking at it backwards. It's the same issue with Anarchist who claim to be Socialist. Socialism is the oppression of the Majority over the rights of the individuals in the long run.
"So you admit that these ideologies exist, but you reject them on the basis that you don't understand them." You understand the propaganda behind them but not the reality of them. The fact you called Socialism an ideology which upholds the rights of Individuals is proof of that.
"Right, but not the state. A workers union is not a state." A Worker's Union that Governs is the State. A Politically Organized Community which Governs a Territory, like a Collective Farm, or a Union of Worker's Councils would be a State.
This is why Anarcho Syndicalist are Oxymoronic. They advocate abolishing the State, but in turn themselves become the State. They are that Politically Organized Community. Even if they were not part of the State, if they raise up and abolish the existing State all they do is Replace the old State with their own State. It's the same contradiction between Nationalism/Internationalism actually. At first it may be "Anti-State" or in this context "Anti-National ie International" but the end road is "Power to the State" and "Nationalism" as if you have one world Nation you still have a Nation, so Internationalism ends with nationalism just like when the Unions overthrow the State, they become the State.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wulf Well technically the USSR and Nazi Germany were not against Unions. They both Nationalized Unions. The Nazis Nationalized Labor into the Reich's Labor Service, creating pretty much a State owned Monopoly on Labor. ie the RLS was a Worker's Union, but one that spread across the entire Nation for all Workers. Ironically being, by Monopolizing Labor, the Nazis fundamentally made Capitalism impossible, as Business Owners had no choice but to go to the State to hire new employees, and the State decided who'd they get much of the time. So Business no longer had any real control over their own internal hiring practices.
ie, they just didn't believe in Private Unions which is Oxymoronic because a Union can not be Private but... Unionist are not always logical. Better phrase would be Independent Trade Unions which are a Union for their particular trade or even a specific factory/facility itself. ie not part of a larger say nation wide trade union.
So in this context they were not against Trade Unions. So anyone who brings up the Trade Union argument either doesn't know what they're talking aboutin the slightest or just do not understand how Trade Unions work in a Socialist society. I mean the Soviet Union was literally called the Soviet Union, ie Union of Worker's Consuls. Those Consuls were Trade Unions. Soviet Union was ironically a State down bureaucratic system built around Worker's Unions. Doesn't sound too different from Italian Fascism does it?
Also when you're referring to slave labor. Most countries in WWII utilized Concentration Camp and POWs as laborers during the war. Even FORCED Labor post war. I mean most German POWs in post war reconstruction were not given a choice, POWs were traded back/forth between Western Powers to work on Work Projects, they were not volunteers but forced labor. So even in this context even the Allies were guilty of it.
2
-
2
-
Well not technically, not all of them. Also he is using multiple sources, and showing them contradicting each other. So this implies someone interpreted those archives poorly? There have also been examples of historians intentionally misrepresenting the material they dug out of the archives hoping no other historian would have the brass to dig for those materials as they did. David Irving being a great example, when Richard Evans eventually went back only in response to a court case, to find out how much Irving had been manipulating the evidence he often cited in his books. This implies that for decades no one went back to see if he was well interpreting those documents accurately. Which implies a lot of historians DO NOT DIG into those ARCHIVES. lol
So no... using archives do not exactly make you a "REAL" historians, definitely when many real historians have been caught manipulating what they've found. TIK has caught a few in previous videos actually without even needing to look into official archives, by using some of the available online archives. His Hyper Inflation video Part 2 for example, he catches one intentionally cutting out part of a quotation he did of Rosa Luxemburg without showing proper citation that he did so, you know the "Bod walked... ...inside." "Bod walked outside to get the mail, then proceeded to walk inside." Using the ... followed by ... is how you indicate you cut part of a quote out. If you don't do that, you're committing a form of intellectual fraud because you're basically lying about what someone said by not showing the reader you removed part of the quote so they have a reason to go back and see the real quote. TIK caught someone doing that. It's one thing misquoting someone and interpreting said quote wrong, but.. it's another thing changing a quote without showing you changed it. As that is INTENTIONAL. TIK could ruin that guys career I bet if he wanted to as it's just as big of a dastardly move that David Irving would do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@myopeius5765 TIK hasn't talked about Liberal or Progressives, at least not in a dedicated fashion.
But I can put it bluntly, when Stalin considered Fascism to be to the LEFT of Communism. You know the concept of the Leftism is likely not Liberal.
When Gentile one of the founders of Fascism considered the Capitalist Free Market State a Liberal State. It makes it quite clear that Socialist States are not Liberal States.
So TIK didn't have to talk about it, but it's quite clear based on rhetoric that many Leftist in the past were definitely not Liberal, at least not in the proper sense.
TIK's position on Leftism is that Leftist are Statist. Being Statist are not Liberal, rarely if ever being they want to take power away from individuals which is by nature anti liberal, then all Leftist and Socialist by association can not be Liberal, even if they think they are, they're pushing for anti liberal policies and reverting society back to Pre-Classic Liberal economies, ie pre-capitalist economies.
Were the economy is in the hands of the social hierarchy that rules society.
Hence why I used Feudalism as an example. Land was owned by the King, leased to Nobles in turn Nobles managed that land on behalf of the King in turn everyone below the nobility were by default working for the nobility, and by extension the King. You didn't own land, didn't own property, you had no real economic freedom, you were a slave to the "State."
Socialism has the same end goal, just remove the king/nobility, replace it with the State, and Trade Unions run by Commissions. The workers do not own their own property, nor their own land, because of this are entirely depended on the Commissions that decide their fate. The Trade Unions, and Commissioners pretty much replaced the nobility, and you're once again just a Serf.
Now not saying TIK would agree with what I just said. But it's a realization that I came to which caused me to stop being a Socialist years ago. Socialism is just Feudalism and Serfdoms with a new name. ie "Work for the state and the state will take care of you." That is pretty much Socialism in it's most ideal form..
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508 lol Well in a way yes, Monarchy would be Socialism if the State owned everything. I mean.. where do you think the idea of Socialism came from? Ever heard of Conservative Socialism or Bourgeois Socialism? The ORIGINAL Socialist. Monarchist, Nobles and Aristocrats who despised the new rising Middle Class who were becoming wealthy because of industry, and owning business, luring farmers to the cities to work for them instead of the Noble's Farm/Plantation. Where do you think Bourgeois comes from? It's French for Middle Class. The Original Socialist targeted the Middle Class because they were a threat to their "POWER" and they wanted to convince the lower class that Society needs their Wisdom to Rule, and these Middle Classers were only their to exploit them. ie it was a Scam thought up by the extremely powerful ruling class back in the 18th Century/early19th Century.
Marx came along and kind of changed the ball game. But that doesn't change what Socialism is, it just a rebranding of Socialism, ie Marxism.
You can believe in your "fake" ideology / "Religion" all you want but it's built on a Scam. You are only empowering the wealthy ruling class, and it happens again and again.
Capitalist don't even disappear in Socialism, they just become Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini and all those who serve under them, becoming a new exploiting ruling class, ie Capitalist under the banner of Socialism. Despite how much wishful thinking you throw into it, Socialism will always be that way. Without some central power you can not twist people's arms to be good LOYAL socialist without Authority. With that Authority you have exploitation, and oppression.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because they're not criticisms, they're morons who don't actually watch his videos, then criticize the videos in turn, most often using arguments ALREADY addressed in the very video they're criticizing. If you watch this video in particular you will see why he makes these responses, every single point they made has already been addressed in the very video they were responding to, and he did this response to point that out, it's the biggest problem with people who are critical of his videos, is that they do not actually watch the videos to even know the arguments he is making. It is why at 2:00 he directly points to post telling by people in the comments toward critics to watch the video because those critics in the comments try to use arguments addressed in the video. Why? Because they don't watch the video, they see the title and rush to the comment section.
The very fact someone made a Video response to his Hitler's Socialism video, bringing up points that TIK already addressed, is the problem, they never watched the video. They didn't even bother to do any prep work prior to making the video, their first time watching it was when they were doing the vlog, and they didn't really go farther than 10-15 minutes.
I can put it bluntly. If you never watched a movie, or a TV show, why should you have a right to criticize that film saying it's bad? Same goes for a youtube video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Die-Sophie "If the NSDAP had been "left-wing" or even "socialist," it would certainly have sought a coalition with one of the first two parties. On the one hand, there would have been close proximity in terms of content (after all, the SPD and KPD are undoubtedly left-wing), and on the other hand, the majority would have been particularly large, at around 60 %. But the NSDAP ultimately formed a coalition with the right-wing "battle front. This clearly speaks against a "left-wing" orientation."
Yet they terrorized/harrassed those Coalition Allies. Forcing them all to close their doors within a few months after the Enabling Act. So the NS were not exactly Friendly to the Right Wing. Also one of the Parties that was part of the Coalition was a Liberal Party if I recall. So it wasn't entirely what you'd call Right Wing.
The reason they couldn't side with the SPD or KPD is quite obvious. They spent most of the 20s/30s damning the Weimar Republic which was literally run by the SPD for much of it's history, and the KPD were their primary rivals. It had nothing really to do with socialism.
Good examples being. Stalin murdered thousands of Socialist, doesn't mean he wasn't a Socialist. Lenin even removed the Moderate Socialist from any positions of power during his Revolution, so Lenin must not be a Socialist?
The KPD originally tried to over throw the SPD during the 1918/19 Revolution, conducting a Coup ie a Revolution against the Revolution. Yet I guess that means the KPD were not Socialist?
Being Rivals doesn't make someone anti Socialist.
Also when it comes to left/right wing, it's irrelevant. Being the National Socialist considered themselves somewhere between officially of course they'd refer to the Left when referring to the Communist and Social Democrats. So you're entire attempt to bring left/right into this discussion holds no real water in my opinion as the NS themselves didn't really consider themselves one or the other, which is ironically why it circles back to what I said about how they crushed every Coalition Party post Enabling Act. They all ceased to exist, most of them against their will post. So I guess by your own logic that means the NS were not Right Wing? Of course they were not Right Wing, they claimed to be neither. ie their "Glorious" 3rd Way as they would try to say.
TIK also presents evidence in this video and another one that shows many Communist Considered the Fascist to be to the Left of themselves which included Josef Stalin. Which heavily implies that maybe Leftism today wasn't what leftism was back then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Die-Sophie That isn't a fair assessment even from someone like myself who used to be a leftist. Heck my username is still a leftover from that time. Red Army Choir was my math homework tune.
Woodrow Wilson is a good example. Democrat, pro Democracy Advocate, yet Nationalist, Racist, authoritarian. Despite implementing many offices and foundations like the FTC, Federal Reserve ie State control of importation and regulation of commerce and Federal Centralized banking, he was also a tyrannt. He even arrested a political rival for not wanting to pledge Allegiance to the USA something he put into practice. Despite being a leftist he was nonthing about equality. It why when he is talked about in American schools his domestic policies are often omitted and only his international ones like World Nation Equal rights for all and other hog wash is highlighted.
Even beyond that equality is a pipe dream. You will never have a system were everyone in society are equal trying to create it often requires oppression. Stalin didn't starve, nor did Lenin, Mao, Goering (joke), Po, omg the Kims.... even today, leftist politicians live like kings.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight A lot of people have been pointing that out over the past few months, and I'm glad more people are noticing it. It's been a problem in the USA in particular since the Occupy Wall Street movement. In which black clad violent agitators first started appearing on American streets pretty much every time a major protest movement starts up, they always show up and hijack the protest, and often resort to violence. They're often self proclaimed Marxist, Anarchist, and since morphed into Antifia which I think they just adopted the name because it was the name of an anti fascist organization dating back to the 1920s.
Then again you can go father back to the Malcolm X period of the Civil Rights Movement. If you look up the ideological beliefs for example of the Black Panthers, it includes Anti-Zionism (Almost all groups that are Anti-Zionist are also Antisemitic as it's often a core part that leads to Anti Zionism), Black Nationalism, Marxism, and they would go around yelling "Black Power." Mean while Malcolm X who gave birth to that radical branch of the Civil Rights movement even went so far to make peace with the KKK and Neo Nazis because he also supported Segregation, and found common grounds with Racist groups because his movement was also Racist. These movements gave birth to what is known today as Critical Race Theory which is pretty much an African lead version of Nazism. Which is why I believe understanding Nazism in general and what it actually is is so important as we see a similar ideology growing in strength today coming right out of left field and few really notice it because they don't know history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Peter-vf3dl Honestly I never seen such a long post that says just one thing "They had no economic plans."
Though what I love is this contradiction.
"The biggest concern however in this mind set was the dependence and shortage of ressources. The private (!) sector feared being "starved" because of the political climate, so they went along with the idea of autarky which meant simply self preservation in this case. Actually, a very capitalistic thought process ;) "
Which ignores the elephant in the room. Building an Autarky requires some economic planning.
Also comes off as a joke because you try to weasel in some durr capitalist nonsense. Also ignoring that they were Forced because of the Autarky wishes of the Nazi Party. So there is hardly anything capitalist about it.
Also if you think the Far Right have no Economic Plans, look up Neo Liberalism, or modern Classic Liberalism. The primary Economic ideas of the Far Right. Unless you mean Neo Nazis, which I wouldn't call Far Right. Neo Nazis have about as much economic planning as Antifa, and I doubt they even read Nazi literature.
PS Neo Liberalism is a Left Wing Term to kind of demonize Classic Liberalism or Right Wing Economic theories, ie like the Chicago School of Economics.
That being said I don't consider the Nazis to even be Right Wing. So, much of your rants come off as weird. As TIK has tried to point out, groups like the Nazis, and Fascist are more in the line of 3rd Positionist which is how they still view themselves. But they're more closely related to the Left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He didn't say conservatives are fascist/nazis. He was expressing the Leftist point of view of the Right and Conservatives.
I mean I literally recently not even 40 minutes ago just got bombarded by someone on one of TIK's videos posted repeatedly copy/pasted quotes from Richard Evans, and Kellner trying to prove the Christian Church was in league with the Nazis, in spite of the fact you can literally go to the Holo** Museum's website, and it literally tells you why, and how much the Church resisted and eventually resorted to collaborating and keeping their heads down because doing otherwise was well dangerous, and the Church decided to protect it's people, ie members of the clergy vs resisting. Which means the Church didn't willingly side with the NS, unwillingly collaborated. Despite being an atheist I'm willing trying to defend the Church's actions and why being conservative didn't have anything to do with it.
Yet trying to convince people of such things, when they're already imbedded deep in their minds that the NS Persecuted just about everyone regardless whether left/right conservative or liberal is hard for some to grasp because they've been conditioned one way or the other.
He even posted a list of Political Parties he called Right Wing, even though one of them wasn't, that supported Hitler's Enabling Act. I literally had to show him how every single one of those parties was forcefully dissolved within months after the Enabling Act. Literally being bullied/harassed/pressured into closing their doors by the NS who promised they'd be a Collations. Of course he dismissed it and spammed more copy/paste comments. One of the parties leadership even became parts of the anti Nazi resistance, but of course..... that doesn't matter to someone that nuts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To be honest, 2 to one is pretty significant when you're referring to millions. As you often have to take account onto where those men are concentrated. I mean this is how the Germans pushed toward Stalingrad despite that USSR had a 2:1 advantage over all. Most of the Russian defences were focused near Moscow in anticipation that the Germans would try to take it during the Spring/Summer of 1942. ie a large percent of that numerical advantage the Red Army had in early 1942 were not where the Germans attacked. Instead the Germans pushed south, which took the Red Army by surprise. In turn, many of the Soviet Offensives were very strong for similar reasons. Wars are not fought fair. Also, if we were talking about a battle Napoleonic style battle, than 2-3x the men was normally recommended/required when going on the offensive regardless. But in modern war, numerical advantages are not as important as tactical/strategic and material advantages. What really matters more than men is the amount of artillery, tanks, trucks and aircraft available to the Red Army. It is interesting to note I remember reading somewhere that at any given time on all fronts combined the Germans had normally around 400 armored combat vehicles available, save for a few periods, because of loses, and long term repair. Then when you compare that to Operation Bagration, well what was that around 3000 Red Army Tanks? Your Courland videos also presented this problem quite well, with much of the armor in Courland in long term repair (ie no parts likely), and the Tank Divisions involved being well, inept much of the time. I don't think any practical person would ever believe the Red Army had 10x the men, and suffered 14x the loses. In fact I think 14x came from a German estimate from during the war itself, but it was primarily from 1941, and included captured. That 12:1 figure comes pretty close to that claim I often see of 14x the loses, which is as much a myth as 5 Shermans to Kill a Tiger.
2
-
@hobbso8508 "Literally the first thing the Nazis did was imprison then kill Marxists" So what?
"All you're proving is that you have never actually read Marx and Engels." Many have including myself. I disagree with the original Comment that they're Marxist. But the Nazis were MOST DEFINITELY influenced by Marxism. Nazis literally believed in Marxist views on economics for example. The only real fundamental difference between Nazism and Marxism is one is built around "Class" and the other is built around "Race" as a result it has quite a few differences, but they have more similarities than differences.
Both are Totalitarian. Though Marxism pre-dates the idea of Totalitarianisms, Marx's program advocated state control/regulation of nearly every single aspect of the economy. Which is... ding ding Totalitarianism Total State Control. The Fascist embraced the idea, and coined the term. The Marxist came up with the idea but deny their movement is "State' Centric. But when you have Libertarian Socialist like Mikhail Bakunin calling Marxism a cult of the state because "The State" is at the very core of it's program. Only reason a lot of Marxist don't know this is because they have a dumb dumb idea on what a "State" is.
Now that fundamental differences between Class vs Race, well this has an impact on what "Social Ownership of the Means of Production" means. For Marxism the entire movement is built around the Proletariat, ie Working Class, to be a Worker means you can not own the means of Production, the 'group' as a whole must own it, otherwise other's would be working for you and you'd no longer be considered "Working Class." So Private Ownership of the Means of Production CAN NOT exist in any capacity in a Marxist Socialist society. However if you're say a "Racial" Socialist like the Nazis, technically Private Ownership in the Marxist sense can exist, as it's replaced by Racial Ownership. If you're considered part of the same "Race" that is technically all that classifies it as "Social Ownership" as society is built around the "Race." Same applies to National Ownership, where Nationalization of Business isn't exactly "State" but making sure Business are owned by Nationals, people who are part of the Nation, no Foreign or International Business. The Nation is Society, not the Class, the Race is Society, not the Class. This is why Marxism is absolutely bonkers about State Ownership because no other form of ownership can work in a "Marxist Society" because there is no private ownership of business/industry it CAN NOT exist without being a HUGE contradiction in their ideology, where as in other "Social Ownerships" it can to an extent of course because it isn't built around a Class that can not own business because they're "Workers." this is why Socialism before Marxism had little to do with Social Classes, and Private Ownership wasn't even excluded 'prior' to Marxism.
Over all Socialism has transformed into State Ownership by default because Marxist influenced variations of Socialism is just about the only Socialist movements that remain in the world today. Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, are all Marxist influenced for example. Using the State or Democracy to make lives for the "Working Class" better.
That being said in spite of this, because the Nazis still believed in Marxist economic they still despised the idea of "The Capitalist." So the Nazis cared a lot about organizing society itself into a single 'Body' to ensure the concept of a Capitalist can not exploit the people as a whole. Hitler himself stated why do they need all that socialism when we are socializing the people? Because if you socialize the people, appropriation of land/property no longer becomes necessary as people in society are already doing what the State/Party demand. At least that is how they viewed it. They even take from Marx's own playbook about the Jews, but being the Nazis are Racist it becomes far more sinister. If the Jews are the origin of Capitalism and the "Money Changers" in a Marxist class society they could renounce their 'faith' of 'money' as Marx put it. For a Nazi it's in their blood can never change, so their solution to the problem was well sinister.
So to sum it up. Nazis are not Marxist, they're literally Race Marxist. They took what they liked from Marxism and merged it with other ideas including their own.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Implying you didn't watch the video. His premise is a premise, but the details on why he made that premise is deeper in the video. So trying to counter his "Premise" without knowing why he made that premise isn't a good way of counter arguing his video. Also your example of "Oh they said they would never invade the USSR but invaded the USSR anyways." Implying you can not take their word for it is nuts. There are a lot of reasons why they made that None Aggression Pact, and never had any plans of honoring it, and that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with whether Nazi Germany was Socialist or not anyways, in turn, your example is irrelevant to the debate.
From your link. TIK address and completely debunks this in Section 6 of his video, with a sludge hammer at that, it's hard to find your source even remotely convincing, definitely when your source was published from a Academic back in the USA in 1944, who had no direct access to information and it was all 3rd hand information. v this below is from your source and it's just laughable... it's an economics who does not seem to understand how Nazi Germany's economy operates hence why he describes it in a "Puzzling" manner ie he is having a hard time trying to find a way of how to define it.
" It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous
market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two
centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the
government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production,
and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or
communism: private property and private profit still existed. The
Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics
of capitalism and a highly planned economy"
PS this part from above "the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them" He is literally taking the Nazis Word for "Privatization" seriously. So even you're own attempt to say you can not take the Nazi's word for it, well this man is taking their word for it. So your source is by an economist from outside Germany, taking Nazi Propaganda, seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yewhannes "hell, even in your very first reply to my initial comment you stated how "most socialists today have a Marxonian understanding of socialism," so idk why you're backpedalling on that point so hard all of a sudden."
Marxonian in the context of common/social control of the means of production, trade unions, Syndicalism, corporations, etc. None of which is restricted to Classism. Many Socialist movements have tried to remove the concept of Class from their programs, though keep much of the social/economic principles passed down by Marx. Including Social Democracy and Keynesianism. Heck even Hitler believed in much of Marx's economic theorems. Would you call Keynes a Marxist? He definitely didn't want Communism, but he didn't want unrestricted Capitalism either. Basically most Socialist are anti-Capitalist but not exactly fighting for the Worker's Revolution either. Dumbing society down into classes just doesn't work, and has historically caused more harm than good. Which is why many socialist have either discarded it, or sidelined it. USA in particular and comically so the left has literally abandoned the working class entirely, and pretty much has so since roughly the 1970s with each consecutive generation less interested in the concept of Working Class, and more interested in Racial, or Gender based Social Groups. It's so bad for traditional Marxist that Bernie Sanders literally said the left has all but abandoned the working class when criticizing the Democratic party. I'd think he would of realized because they're looking at different sheep now.
"Saying Marx was one of the founders of social democracy is pretty naive and honestly a non-sequiter in regards to the conversation, so again, idk what you're trying to prove with that.
are you talking about the revolution that resulted in the Weimar Republic and the absolution of the German monarchy? or the extremely shortscale one in 1919? if you're on about the latter, the downfall of the Spartacists was moreso a product of the SPD allying with the established powers, i.e. landowners, military leaders, etc., not that they were ousted by popular demand."
1. The SPD was founded by the leaders of the two largest Marxist parties in Germany when they merged together as one party in 1875. So the Social Democrats were the Marxist.
2. They were not ousted from power. The Revolutionary Socialist left the party because they were the minority within the party, basically they had no direct influence over the party anymore. So they left the party shortly after the SPD took power in Germany and formed their own parties. Basically the SPD Splintered into multiple factions.
3. You're getting your dates wrong. The revolution of 1918/1919 lasted for months, this whole period was known as the German Revolution, basically a small civil war. Between late 1918 to the beginning of summer the following year. First it was the Independent Socialist and Communist in Berlin who tried to launch a counter revolution in the capital., They failed Meanwhile the formation of the People's State of Bavaria also happened in late 1918. In fact the Bavarian Communist had ties with Moscow and it was one of the fundamental reasons for the Red Army's invasion of Poland February of 1919 basically trying to merge with Bavaria and Hungary which was also run by a fledgling Communist government. This counter revolution didn't really end until the summer of 1919.
"if you speak to the layperson about the socio-economic state of things, you'll find the majority of the time their beliefs are scarily aligned with Marxist belief in all but name (public education, public ownership of the means of production and graduated income tax "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"), especially so in the UK that has historically had strong ties to Marxist beliefs."
And none of that has to do with "Classism.
You don't need Classism for Public Schools, Public Ownership of the means of Production or Graduated Income Taxes.
Don't need it for collectively owned business either. The concept of Working Class really just doesn't exist where I live. It's been phased out of our vocabulary. We have two collectively owned business, and even they went so far to say F*** the term, and use the words Employee Owned instead. Mainly because saying someone is a specific class is about as dehumanizing as claiming someone is a specific race. It's dumb, and a left over from a bygone era in human history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@walkerh.7851
Video 1. I'm a Subscriber to all the Time Ghost Channels, and I have been since 2014. I saw that video before this was ever uploaded, their conclusions were pretty inconclusive. As they defined the Nazis as thieves, using the State to Empower themselves, steal from the people, etc. But, that isn't really that much different than the Gold Gilded palaces of Soviet Republics like Ukraine, and Belarus in which the leaders of those countries of which are part of the Soviet Block stole from the people on behalf of the USSR and were rewarded quite handsomely for doing so. But the programs/methods used by the Nazis to gain all that power and control, including collectivization of major business and corporations into the hands of party officials, and what were not, were watched like a hawk for the sake of exploitation if not drowned by state regulation and price controls/fixes. Again, does not help the Time Ghost crew's decision not to call the Nazis Socialist. But even they openly admit that they're definitely not Capitalist either. I remember the definition of Socialism under Marxism as being somewhere between Capitalism and Communism. If they're not Capitalist, nor Communist (Marxist) they like the Fascist themselves claim to be somewhere between which wouldn't that by Marxist theory be Socialism? If the Nazis are neither, and themselves like the Fascist Claim they're an in between?
For that, I will post the Webster Point 3 definition of Socialism, ie the Official Definition of Socialism under Marxism.
Socialism : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
The 3rd video I would like to dismiss entirely, I watched it along ago, around the same time I actually found TIK's channel, and sorry to say taking it seriously by a self proclaimed communist, as it would be like taking a video uploaded by a self proclaimed fascist seriously.
The 2nd video the first 15 minutes of it are well comical. Because Communist didn't murder other communist? (Stalin vs Trotsky comes into mind) Let alone anyone who disagreed with Lenin when they first took control of Russia were purged in the same fashion. Referring to Hitler's distaste and disagreement with other Socialist who had different ideas than himself means he is automatically not a Socialist? But his primary argument on the Industrial aspect of the German economy under pre WWII is dismiss able when you take into consideration how much the Party had control over the major corporations of Germany at the time. He falls into the trap of thinking that there was a Free Market in Germany. I've often compared Nazi Germany's "FREE" market to what is currently seen in China today. Nearly all major Corporations in China, though having relatively free hand away from the control of the state ie the state doesn't govern them directly, are however, under the ownership and control of individuals who are either members of the Communist Party, or family members of Communist Party Officials. This means that despite, you can argue that in China, there is Capitalism, free market, in turn there technically isn't. TIK talks about this completely separate in a few of his videos on how the party controls business in Germany, and likely oblivious to the fact that there is a regime out there right now that operates in a similar fashion that he could use as an example but is likely ignorant of it so does not, sadly.
PS this also doesn't take into consideration that TIK does point out that the Nazis didn't want to Implement full Socialism until they had all the land/resources they wanted, and he cites sources for that as well.
2
-
2
-
@walkerh.7851
Judaism, Christianity, Islam. All the fractured splinters of those Religions. All have one thing in common. They believe in the same God. Replace god with Socialism, and it sums up what TIK is trying to get across.
Fascism isn't Marxism. National Socialism, isn't Fascism. None of these are Traditional Socialism either he states Marx wasn't a Socialist quite bluntly in his Shrinking Markets video, yet Socialism lies at the heart of all of them. They're splinters of Socialism, and in some respects Fascism and National Socialism are Splinters of Marxism. TIK himself is pretty direct on that point. They're not the same, they were never the same. Yet they're born from the same mother. I use the Religious example because there are few other ideological examples in the world that can be used to compare.
It's why Fascist and Marxist can support a lot of the same Social programs and yet be hostile with each other. It's why it's wrong to call the Nazis Fascist, when some of there beliefs are not shared by other Fascist, like Austrian, Hungarian, Spanish or Italian Fascist. TIK points out that even Orwell noticed that their are distinct differences even between Mussolini's Fascism, and Francos Fascism, let alone the Nazis in his video George Orwell's "What is Fascism?" It is why phrases like Stalinism and Leninism also exist as like other ideologues they had different ideas. It's why Hitler Murdered Socialist he didn't agree with on the same context why Stalin and Lenin murdered communist they didn't agree with. Even Trotsky's followers splintered into different ideological groups, including Posadist. It is how an Anarchist like Mussolini some how becomes the Father of Fascism. =P
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Interesting, I'm pretty sure I said the Fascist claim they're half way between capitalism and communism, not that they are. I didn't say they were, I said that they said they were.
"Some monarchies over the course of history have been non-heredity, as well. In any case" I'm pretty sure we call those Dictatorships by today's standards. Definitely when they were self imposed.
That being said, Monarchism is a form of Government, not an economic system. Great Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary system and with one of the most Capitalist Economies they world had ever seen for many years. But the United States around the same time which was a Representative Democracy, which also had a Capitalist Economy, but was completely devoid of having anything to do with Monarchism. The German Empire was also Capitalist despite being an Absolute Monarchy, though I think it was more of an Aristocracy than a Monarchy but you can argue with Kaiserboos on that one.
That being said, you still didn't provide any proof they were Monarchist, what you described sounds more like Aristocracy. Even then I know in Germany's case in particular it was tolerated not encouraged. The Aristocrats were very opposed to Hitler's regime, as they're superior position in life was compromised. Many of which even plotted against him and were supporters of the 1944 Wolf's Lair Assassination, and wanted to then put in place an Aristocracy in the 3rd Reich's place, with the nobility/upper class civilian and Army as the leaders of the country.
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro So answer this. "they created a type of psuedo-religion that prominently featured their leaders and ideology, they called for state control of industry, they were highly nationalistic to the point of fanaticism, the leaders of the movement, much like Nobles, were often rich people and leaders of industry," -- How is this statement of your description of these Monarcho Capitalist (Fascist) any different than Stalinist Era Russia, or Modern Day North Korea?
"First off, governments and economies cannot ever remain truly separate, although the degree of inclusion within each other varies. In america, for example, we claim that our economy (mixed, tending towards capitalism) is separate from our government. (constitutional republic, form of democracy) However, the two work together on many issues, the government outsources and provides contracts to the private market, the government often rules in favor of capitalism and attempts to make laws that benefit the market, it's easiest to run for public office in this country or influence laws through lobbying if you're a rich person, ect. In many issues, they are intertwined." -- Honestly that is irrelevant. As the primary difference is direct control vs indirect. As I already said earlier, Apple does not have direct representation in the US Government. As a company she does not have a Congressmen that directly represents Apple. This is far different from the Trade Unions in the USSR, or how in the PRC CCP members directly own the Major Corporations in China, or how the Nazi Party took direct control by selling companies/business to it's own party members or forced companies to directly Join the Nazi Party if they wanted to do any business with the Government. That isn't Capitalism. But regardless, all governments work within the confines of their economic system. It's all about how much control they have over it. Capitalism is about minimal control, where is Socialism is about maximum control. A nation can fall inbetween either of these to some extent. I already admitted yes in a Capitalist society corruption does exist, Apple can lobby and buy politicians, but as a company she still does not have direct representation, but indirect. If such a company gets caught doing this it can lead to the end of said politician's career.
Good example in the USA Today is Private vs Non-Private. In the USA our Electrical Grid is Private. Our Rail and Air services are Private. But most of our Road and Water is owned by Municipalities. But that primarily comes because who paid to build the infrastructure for these services. The local Government owns the Water, but not the Electricity. If the Government owned the Water, Electrical, and other necessities it would be very Much Socialism. But even TIK openly admitted no Government is Truly Capitalist, but in my Opinion, similar to how Socialist claim no government ever truly reached Socialism. To me both were right because it's mostly about the degree of control. There has never been a true Capitalist state, nor one that was absolutely Socialist. Every state that tried to go all Socialist failed horrifically, so some private control has always been necessary. This is why you see the PRC doing what it is today in China, it's not Pure Socialism, nor is it Pure Capitalism. You can call the fascist Capitalist or Monarchist, but it's just flat out wrong. Because they didn't eliminate Capitalist elements within their society doesn't make them pro Capitalist. Hitler himself was openly Hostile to Capitalism, but that doesn't mean his regime didn't exploit it for their own ends.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Cult of Personality seriously? That is a defense? For a Hereditary Regime that literally lives over North Korea like a Monarchy?
Lobbyist are not a defense for "Company" control as it's still not direct representation it's indirect. It's why it's been customary that Politicians in the USA not own/operate any companies while they're in office even if they were prior business men. Because there is a demand for the separation of the private vs non-private sectors. It's indirect, and as I already stated it's corruption, and one that can land a Politician out of a job, or in Jail. I don't really care if you think that is direct control/representation because it isn't. Even through political donations, what your describing is just flat out Corruption, and it's one that people have been very well aware of, and attempts have been made to resolve but again because of corruption likely never will be. But that is what a nation gets for having elected officials. You will never see a nation that has elected officials that will not see some form of corruption. That however does not mean still that a major Corporation has direct representation in congress. There is no Tech Union, or E-Store Coalition (Made up names for fake unions that don't exist) that have direct representation in the US Government.
"We've already addressed the trade unions and how they are not actually prepresentative of the populace, as well as how leaders of industry are appointed to the CCP" -- Point being? The point isn't that these Trade Unions represent the people, but that the Trade Unions Represent the Factories while having direct Representation in the Council (Soviet Union). ie which equals the state has control of the means of production. Which was my entire argument. I never once stated nor would ever believe these Unions gave even a shred of care for the people, as I don't believe the USSR ever cared about the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This Machine Kills Fascists It isn't an argument. Just a strawman so you don't have to watch the video. A political party is not a private enterprise as it would imply someone in particular owns the political party. Political party is a collective group, which in itself is none private. As I made the jab in a comment earlier "Who owns the Democratic Party?" You didn't even spell Deutschmark right. Heck even his Friedrich Kellner A Social Democrat Living in the Third Reich is filled with examples of Socialism, if you'd watched any of them you wouldn't make such a claim that there are no examples.
Likely don't even understand what Socialism actually is, which is why I literally had to throw the textbook definition of it in your face earlier. From the Webster Dictionary, As I quote from you earlier.
You: "except Nazi "socialism" utterly rejects class consciousness and the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. In which case it's not socialism as commonly" <<<< That is Marxism, which is a version of Socialism. Socialism itself does not include any class descriptions.
Actual Definition: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" <<< Keywords. VARIOUS ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL THEORIES. Which includes many different ideological systems. Which all have one key thing in common, being. "Collective or Governmental ownership of the Means of Production."
So when Mussolini Nationalizes the Railroads in Italy, that is Socialism. When Hitler Nationalizes the Transportation system within Germany, that is Socialism. Oh Golly..... how revolutionary is that.
That being said, even though the Nazis do reject some of the principles you mentioned it's literally because the Nazis choose race over social class. Racism is their Socialist belief. They replace Land vs Workers with Germans vs Others. To them the Proletariat is replaced with the Aryan, and outside of that their collectivization is to make sure that everything is under the control of the German race within the nation. Though despite that they still go farther than that and even conduct Socialist state control, and bureaucracy. Failure to understand this fundamental difference is why people fail to see that National Socialism is Socialism, but not Marxism and Marxism itself isn't even Socialism, just a different version. As I already posted Socialism is the Collective or State control of the Economy, Proletariat has utterly absolutely nothing to do with it. It's as simple as Private vs none Private. State is the Public Sector, ie none Private. Also any program that is Social is a Socialist program. Social Welfare, State funded Education, State Wage Fixes/Minimum Wages. So to say the Nazis conducted no Socialist programs is down right retarded. FDR modeled many of his Socialist programs after the Fascist and Nazi's Socialist programs because pro Fascist Propaganda painted these programs as hugely successful within Germany and Italy. During a time in which everyone was terrified of Communism some how the Fascist and Nazis convinced even the USA to adopt some Socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodrigodepierola He isn't the only one. A lot of the sources he uses in many of his videos are people who believe relatively the same as TIK. I can think of a few channels including at least one other History Channel which the Host has similar beliefs as well, but doesn't make political videos, just history ones. TIK does both, history, political and economic videos.
If you want an accurate representation of the USSR during the Cold War, and during it's dying days you should look up USHANKA SHOW's channel. He has made many videos addressing many Socialist lies about how Great the USSR was, including false statistics and fake GDP, GNP. Let alone a video on how the USSR masked it's real Birth Deaths Rates, which was in reality 14-15x higher than the USA and Western Europe at the time, but the USSR masked it by not recording a birth as "Officially born" until two weeks after they were actually born, as most children die within the first few weeks of life, this helped the USSR hide it's real death rates of new borns. Among many other Pro Soviet lies. This channel is run by a former Soviet Citizen as well.
History Hustle is another great channel, and has referred to TIK's channel a few times in his own videos. He has openly discussed topics like Socialist fighting with the Nazis in some of his German/Nazi foreign Legion videos as well, something a lot of Socialist deny, as why would any Socialist fight for the Nazis?
Economic Explained is also a good channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
46:50 Despite using it as a Joke a few times myself, I often have to correct my friends who still think that is true. I think the line goes "The one with the rifle shoots, the one without follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, you pick up the rifle and shoot!" Though I think there was a scenario somewhat like that, it wasn't a strategy, nor did it involve fresh conscripts either. I think one of the encirclements in Belarus or Ukraine. Though I remember the story from a German soldier who was interviewed. The Soviet soldiers were ordered to break out, and launched a number of assaults against German positions. The German soldier described it like the stories of the old battlefields, like WWI and Pre-WWI in which men died in dence packs as the field was littered with bodies. He said the last attempt to break their line involved unarmed soldiers who were likely rear line personnel riding trucks/cars whatever they could. He said they were trying to reach the dead, who had all the weapons, and he didn't feel very proud after the fighting was done, because he knew many of them were unarmed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism and Conservativism are not forbidden from being a part of each other. I think the greatest mistake people make is mistaking Liberalism/Leftism as being exclusive, and Conservatism/Rightism to being exclusive. In turn they think Socialist cannot have conservative values, and that capitalism is restricted to Conservatism itself, in spite that the entire Capitalist system of Private Ownership is built on a foundation of Liberal Values of Individual Rights, and John Locke's list of said values including Private Property rights outside of the collective community. He didn't just state it should be a right, but it was absolutely necessary for a Free Society. As with private property that was separate from the state in which a state couldn't encroach was the only way a person could be free.
Yet.... some how Capitalism is associated with Conservatism. It's a serious contradiction really with the socialist narrative. Capitalism is Liberalism literally practiced at an economic level, Capitalism can not exist, without liberalism.
This is why I have no real issue with calling Fascist or Nazis conservative. Just because they are, doesn't mean they're right wing. As it seems Liberalism, at least real Liberalism must be on the Right, or is on neither. If it's on the Right, or Neither, no matter what that means Socialism can include conservatism just by the process of elimination. Though it wouldn't stop me from defending conservatives because many conservative movements resisted Fascism/Nazism. It wasn't entirely liberals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I doubt he is an anarchist, as anarchism is a technical impossibility. Eventually someone will build enough power to create a state/kingdom or government within the chaos of an anarcho society, and in fact being anarchism = no society, so. Which is why TIK called anarcho socialist an oxymoron. Issue with Anarcho Capitalist, honestly, I don't think they really exist, as even the most right ring people I've seen seem to not want the state to be entirely gone, just there to act as a guardian against tyranny, not being the tyranny itself, ie a state that protects the people from itself, and acts as a protector of law. I think Capitalist just want the state to stay out of economics, which isn't anarchism, it's just advocating a free economy. Those who are Anarcho Capitalist are not capitalist, they're just plain anarchist. I think the term exist primarily for Anarcho Socialist who are morons themselves can demonize anarchist who do not want socialism, which to be frank, only REAL anarchist would not want socialism, as socialism can never be in any way anarcho in nature, if it was anarchism it would never be socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wannabchomsky Took you an entire day to basically repeat the same strawman argument again? You keep bring up Burden of Proof, yet fail to bring up any examples of that 'proof.' I only did exactly what you asked, and "MOCKED" the results that came out for doing what you asked, out of some hope that perhaps there was something special about "Googling" Burden of Proof. But there wasn't, it was just another Strawman argument which is all you've done. You've never presented any proof. Which is all I've asked. If you fail to do so, then you have no argument, outside of faceless accusations. So again, I will ask. PLEASE present some proof that TIK's claims are wrong, I want to see that proof, it would make me happy, as I would have something to read that would counter his views. Yet you've not done that, you've claimed to have done that, and if you did it is not in this string of comments. So I have no proof You've ever done that. So please, PLEASE present some proof. If you do not, stop commenting. Stop insulting people, stop calling others idiots. Because you're only making yourself look like the idiot. Because everyone in these comment sections or more so a vast majority of, are supports of TIK and only laugh at your comments because you do not present proof.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 You fail to understand what a Representative Democracy means then. Technically everyone is the state. If the State does not represent the people, then the people failed to elect people who properly represent them in such a system. At least ideally that is how it's meant to work. By that logic though all people in a democratic society are the State to extent but the power is so widely dispersed that as individuals they hold little power, but collectively they hold immense power above even those who are elected into office. If you're referring to an absolute democracy then the people are truly the state by the standards of Athens in which the people were the governing body.
That being said, counting on the Society what defines as the State can very. That is why it's definition can swing quite wildly. For example, in the case of an Absolute Monarchy the state works it's way down, not up, and the center of power is utterly in control of the people at the top so the people, the average citizen in no fashion what so ever can be considered part of the state. However, in a Representative Democracy it goes from the bottom up, the people are the highest authority within the State, and any harm the state forces upon it's citizens is done so unintentionally at the consent of it's citizens who chose the officials who are in positions of power.
That is why Webster defines state as, these are the most relevant ones.
"the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body"
"a person of high rank"
" a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory
especially : one that is sovereign"
"the political organization of such a body of people"
"a government or politically organized society having a particular character"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wealth is irrelevant, when you are the State. Best example, HItler's Will did not include the massive amount of wealth Socialist accuse him of accumulating, ie they claim he was a billionaire. But his Will which was made shortly before he shot himself did not include giving any large sums of cash to anyone in his family or friends. Why? Because all that wealth they often claim he accumilated ie He is a Capitalist, wasn't his wealth, but the wealth of the Party, and in extension, the State. Even his mountain top retreat was paid for by Party money, without him knowing, which was ironic because he hated heights, so if he chose to build himself a mansion he likely wouldn't of chosen a mountain top.
Issue is when you're the State, all the State wealth is by defacto yours, even if you do not view it as yours. Hitler didn't view all that wealth has his, hence why he didn't include it in his Will, as it was the Party's. He literally specified it in his Will as well, outside of a few personal things, material items, everything else he had went back to the Party literally stating that in his Will. He never viewed it as his.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikechelsa3256
1. Like I said, socialist don't know what socialism is, or even the history of socialism.
Utopian Socialism which is one of the oldest forms of socialism and considered the first modern socialism.
"One key difference between utopian socialists and other socialists such as most anarchists and Marxists is that utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or social revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. Utopian socialists believe that people of all classes can voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it is presented convincingly.[3] They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society and that their small communities can demonstrate the feasibility of their plan for society.[3] Because of this tendency, utopian socialism was also related to radicalism, a left-wing liberal ideology." PS Marx is the man who created the term Utopian, it was used to describe the late 18th Century and early 19th (edit, I was off on my centuries)Century socialist, who of course didn't consider class struggle to be a tenant of Socialism. So...
2. You're missing the elephant in the room, as the State will never fade away once a Socialist State is established, that whole part is lie, I mean you guys say you can not take Nazi writings at face value but you take Marxist ones at face value? What do you think happens when you give all power to a state? It isn't going away, which means the Stateless Aspect of Socialism is not going to happen never will, as people who institute it set themselves up for enslavement without realizing it. And I find it funny that since roughly the 1980s so many socialist want to consider the USSR Fascist. When it was hailed as the poster child for roughly two-three generations for Socialism. I mean I understand the similarities, but that's because I view fascism as a form of Socialism as well. Orwell seemed to realize this in the late 40s as well that Socialism, becomes Fascism.
3. There are two school!? hehe it's considerably bigger than that.
4. What Bakunin is, is irrelevant. Libertarian Socialism is Oxymoronic as Libertarianism (ie Liberal Activism) is Liberty for Individuals and the earliest Socialist called Socialism the Opposite of Individualism which we consider now as Collectivism, people banding together as a group or one body, which is to be frank, in opposition to Liberalism which champions the individual above groups... so ya... Libertarian Socialist don't even know what it means to be Liberal. Bakunin is in the camp of socialist who believed you can combine Liberalism with Socialism in spite of the contradiction that it implies. However, because of this, he is a good source to use when it comes to Liberal Criticism of Marxism, and other 19th Century Socialisms the reason he didn't become a Marxist was because he held many liberal values which were in direct opposition to Marxism. You're pulling at straws if you think using another self proclaimed socialist to criticize another self proclaimed socialist is a bad thing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waketfup8864 I guess I can simplify it.
Fuhrer Principle = the Party Elects a King, the King serves until the King is unable to Serve. But since the Nazis hated Monarchies, they dared not use the word Kaiser. So used "Leader" instead. This King didn't own the State, they ruled on behalf of the Party, and Party's interest. It was also not Hereditary. So it's basically like electing a President but the President holds more power than say a US President would have, and would stay in office until confidence in their leadership is lost, or they die, step down or whatever reason.
Goring was marked for treason by actually trying to exercise this actually. When berlin was surrounded Hitler was basically trapped, and incapacitated and unable to lead the country. Of course many loyalist in the Party didn't see it this way, including Hitler himself.
Only when Hitler realized all was lost, and Berlin couldn't be saved, did he decided to give his powers over to another Citizen. One that was quite unexpected at that, because he wasn't a Party Man. I personally believe he did it out of spite for all the yes men he realized were lying to him by the 11th hour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Point of replacing gold with paper, is so the "State" holds the Capital, not the Private Individuals in the Economy. Basically it was State theft on a massive scale. FDR did this, when he even had the State confiscate Jewelry in exchange for Paper Dollars, the State needed Capital, so it stole it from the people in exchange for paper with funny faces. This is why coinage in the USA = mixed alloys. Silver, Zink, Copper, and Gold counting on the coins, and mixed together in a fashion that makes it impossible to know the true value of the coin, essentially fiating Metal coins. We're not allowed to have 'real' capital in the form of money when it comes to exchange/purchases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We can see now why TIK referred to it as a Socialist Civil War. Opposition in said Civil War always accusing the other side of not being "REAL" Socialist. We know where the meme came from. Issue is, because of their obsession and attempts to disassociate the masses don't even know what Right/Left even are anymore, and associate it entirely with Liberalism/Conservatism, then don't even know what Liberalism and Conservatism are as I've seen conservatives far more liberal than people who claim to be Liberal. These people, have turned the political spectrum into a utter mess, and I honestly think it's on purpose. I can think of no reason why Communist can be conservative according to Orwell when he referred to more conservative communist considered Fascism to the left of them, and why Gentile would refer to a Capitalist State as a Liberal State.... yet Capitalism is Right Wing? So wouldn't that imply Liberalism is actually to the right not left? Honestly think there has been a lot of misinformation by Marxist/Socialist academics for the greater part of the last century to lead to these major contradictions.
And to be Honest, they're all Socialist, just all have different ideas on what Socialism is... in turn this also means Socialist in General have NEVER come to a consensus on what Socialism really is, Marxist socialist may have among the circles of Marxist socialist, but not socialist themselves.... though I would argue that not even Marxist Socialist have come to a consensus for how many I've argued with whom have wildly different opinions on Socialism and what it is vs the next Marxist Socialist. Just yesterday I ran into one of the violent revolutionary types which advocated the murder/extermination of all capitalist. I linked him the Mr H's Shrinking Market video TIK made a long time ago because he got in a toddler style fit when I said he sounded almost exactly like a National Socialist.
Of course he replied with that the NS were Capitalist so linked TIK's review of Vampire Economy, made sure he knew that it was written by a Communist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly channels like this exist for just about every subject under the sun. Tragically, a lot of them get away with it for quite a long time as well. They also explode in popularity because they're able to pump so many videos out so quickly, while the content creators they copy/steal from do all the work. You name the subject, from History, Minecraft, Speed Runners, etc and there are these kind of people. It's a sad truth that exist on Youtube. Some are so shameless that they steal footage directly, and claim it as their own, like Lets Plays, Speed Running, pretending they 'played' or collected and edited the videos. Sometimes they're so lazy they just swap out the audio and change the banners, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@blank9574 "Just to be clear, cuz this guy is a lunatic and I’m getting nowhere with him, this guy is claiming that every Jew in Kyiv was a partisan."
It's an issue I've had which is why even when I used to be a Fascist I never went "Nazi." The idea of Nationalism I believed in was Civic Nationalism and had nothing to do with ethnicity, races etc.
I just can not understand or fathom how anyone could sanely judge an entire people as ONE BODY. Even if their denialist claims are say "True" it still doesn't wipe away the fact that they believe an entire body of people are guilty, and deserve the punishment as the Nazis gave, regardless whether it's their watered down version of events or not. The Nazis still rounded up millions of people, took away their freedoms, stole property from them, and threw them into camps/ghettos. Whether they planned to murder them or not at that point its irrelevant. But these people seem to believe if they can prove the Nazis didn't have intent to murder the Jews, it's OKAY, which it isn't. Even in the most watered down form that denialist believe in, the Holocaust is still a crime against humanity.
1
-
@@blank9574 It's hard to convince a Classist to stop being a Classist, it's hard to convince a Racist to stop being a Racist. It's hard to convince someone who hates "The Jews" to stop hating them.
Their view of the world are often built around the idea, so it would almost require completely dismantling their world view. It's a hard thing for someone to over come. I still believed in Individualism, it's required to be a Civic Nationalist. It's that concept which kept me from falling down the same kind of rabbit hole.
I always found the greatest tragedy when reading about the Nazis, was a story told by a Jewish man, who was a boy during the 3rd Reich and Hitler. He told a story on how much he wanted to go outside and march with them. He was referring to the SA, during one of their night torch marches. For him, not being allowed to be a Nazi himself, because of something so utterly stupid. The entire movement was doomed to fail. Rejecting future Allies within their own community because of something as arbitrary as Ethnicity? Religion? It's madness. Imagine how many loyal Nazis they threw in the garbage because of their hate filled beliefs? How many enemies they created as a result...
I'm no longer a Nationalist, let alone a Fascist. I'd say I'm still Civic to an extent, but I see no reason to have any allegiance to any particular flag. I got tired to of dealing with people who can not see people as 'individuals.' I want nothing to do with ideologies that paint people as groups, including Nationality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 Centre Party
The passing of the Enabling Act did not, as Kaas had suggested, prevent the Centre Party's demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas was supposed to inform about further legislative measures. However, it met only three times (31 March 2 and 7 April) without any major impact. At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.[20][21]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wind Rose If you're arguing why medical care is so expensive in the USA vs elsewhere it has nothing to do with Private vs Public Healthcare. It's why The Affordable Care Act didn't fix the issues, and not a single politician has to balls to address the problem, so they throw bandaids that mask the problem.
Issue with American healthcare is because of a massive explosion in uncontrolled pricing because of how our Insurance system and medical care in general are handled, in conjunction with medical care equipment, and medicine being in control of a handful of very powerful large conglomerates which are basically Medical Trade Syndicates. This was laid bare as bones during the whole EpiPen scandal when it was found out the prices of that medical product was intentionally inflated by 400-600% and because it was a necessary life saving device hospitals and citizens were forced to pay for it at that exaggerated price, and being there was ZERO competition as the producers were working together to inflate the price artificially it was impossible for a natural market to function, no competition means no price war, no price war, they could charge literally whatever they wanted for it. This is a serious issue in American medicine as much of the medical supplies and drug manufacturing is in the hands of a few, and they work together. In short it's a form of monopoly something that is technically illegal in America, but yet since it's a multi billion dollar industry almost no politicians in America are willing to touch it.
So say even if the USA went for a Public Medical care option it wouldn't fix the problem, but only mask it, the State would have to constantly increase taxes to keep masking it as cost will still continue to swore as these companies to keep their investors happy must ALWAYS keep making more profits higher than what they earned the year before. You would literally have to go after the medical supply/drug manufacturers before you could ever tackle the very question of a public healthcare system in America, and until that does happen I will be 100% against such a system as it would only hide that problem. It's why despite supporting Obama through two elections I still think his greatest failure was the Affordable Care Act. It was a bandaid, and nothing more.
I could get into how bad our Hospitals and Clinics operate, how bad our Insurance system is but when compared to what I just mentioned they're pennies when it comes to the main problem.
You can argue that it's the fault of Capitalism, but the US Government's job is to allow Capitalism to function when conglomerates create monopolies the Government has failed as one of their jobs since the Victorian era was to keep Monopolies from forming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because the Ukraine government doesn't support Neo Nazis either. They sidelined almost all of these extremist. In all respects Communist and Nazis are the same thing in the long run... and calling one far left and the other far right is utterly stupid.
Also when refering to the Russian Separatist. I guess Ukraine is fighting against the very kind of people you claim they support. Last line is actually quite comical. Remember these are the people Russia is backing. =P
"Far-right nationalism and neo-nazism
Russian ethnic and imperialist nationalism has shaped the official ideology of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.[173] Far-right nationalist groups have played a greater role on the pro-Russian side of the conflict than on the Ukrainian side, especially at the beginning.[124][173] Leaders of the Donetsk People's Militia are closely linked to the neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters.[173][174][175] A former member of RNU, Pavel Gubarev, was founder of the Donbas People's Militia and first "governor" of the Donetsk People's Republic.[173][176] RNU is particularly linked to the Russian Orthodox Army, a religious ultranationalist unit which is part of the Donetsk People's Militia.[175][177] Other neo-Nazi units include the 'Rusich', 'Svarozhich' and 'Ratibor' battalions, which have Slavic swastikas on their badges.[173]
According to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, members of European far-right groups receive all-expenses-paid visits to Donetsk.[178]
Some of the most influential far-right activists among the Russian separatists are neo-imperialists, who seek to revive the Russian Empire. These included Igor 'Strelkov' Girkin, first "minister of defence" of the Donetsk People's Republic.[173] The Russian Imperial Movement has recruited thousands of volunteers to join the separatists.[177] Some separatists have flown the black-yellow-white Russian imperial flag,[173] such as the Sparta Battalion. In 2014, volunteers from the National Liberation Movement joined the Donetsk People's Militia bearing portraits of Tsar Nicholas II.[179]
Other Russian far-right groups whose members have joined the separatist militias include the Eurasian Youth Union and the banned Slavic Union and Movement Against Illegal Immigration.[175]
Another Russian separatist paramilitary unit, the Interbrigades, is made up of activists from the National Bolshevik (Nazbol) group Other Russia.[173] An article in Dissent noted that "despite their neo-Stalinist paraphernalia, many of the Russian-speaking nationalists Russia supports in the Donbass are just as right-wing as their counterparts from the Azov Battalion".[180]
In July 2015, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, said he respected Ukraine's far-right party Right Sector "when they beat up the gays in Kyiv and when they tried to depose Poroshenko".[181]
In April 2022, several news outlets noted that the leader of the Donetsk People's Republic, Denis Pushilin, awarded Senior Lieutenant Roman Vorobyov a medal, while Vorobyov was wearing patches affiliated with neo-Nazism: the Totenkopf used by the 3rd SS Panzer Division, and the valknut."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you missed the part where TIKhistory said "Because perhaps he changed his mind?" When making a similar argument toward one of the author's almost confused attempt to explain these events.
When I used to be a Fascist it only took a single moment for me to change my mind, and become an anti-Fascist, even though for years I was a die hard supporter of it.
Took me only a moment to switch from being a Socialist, to a Libertarian as well post those prior events.
Doesn't matter what he believed in April of 1919, because as TIK said "Because perhaps he changed his mind?" Just about the most beautiful quote when referring to his reaction to an author over thinking something.
Regardless of TIK's personal beliefs he presented a very well drawn out scenario, and the early socialist history of many of the Nazis and SS's founders. One that isn't trying to pretend they were always on this "Reactionary" side which sadly many try to play it off as, and ignoring that many of them were once supporters of the movements they eventually opposed.
Issue is we don't know what Hitler believed in early 1919. However, there is something that makes me believe he was a Communist in 1919 willingly. Hitler was a common patron to a popular communist hot spot Coffee house when he was in Vienna. One that famous Marxist including Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and not surprisingly Eisner visited. It was a pilgrimage location for Socialist across Europe to hear Socialist speak, and give speeches while enjoying a cup of coffee similar to the beer halls in Munich. This very fact alone makes TIK's position on this subject VERY plausible.
You can easily argue away that by the end of the People's Republic of Bavaria and Bavarian Soviet Republic, that Hitler's inaction could can easily be chocked up to being by this point disillusioned with the movement and it's failures. For the same reasons on why the People's State of Bavaria collapsed to begin with and saw a short lived regime change. What better spy, post Bavarian Soviet Republic than someone who was already an active member in the movement prior, whom no one would suspect as well?
Honestly it makes a lot of sense when you break it down.
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
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS Most arguments against Hitler being a socialist often fall into what I call "history meme" territory. ie Urban Legends, Myths, often propped up by lazy historians who either do not do their homework, or worse, intentionally use it knowing their readers already know it and would rather resonate with them by presenting false information they already believe rather than trying to counter it. For example Richard Evans uses much of Mein Kampfy Chair for his pre National Socialist history. Even though Mr H used to book to warp his early life and hide his past. But the version of his early life in his 1st Book helps support he wasn't a socialist, but of course it does, because he wanted to distance himself from the Marxist. So historians like Evans who have a Marxonian idea on Socialism are more than happy to help Hitler whitewash his past ie doing exactly what Hitler wanted.
I mean you see this with Wehrabooism. 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger. P-51 Mustang best fighter ever! etc etc etc, where many historians even back this nonsense.
Which is interestingly and rightfully so why TIK Challenges many authors, and even displays when they're blatantly wrong, or contradict themselves, or when he catches them committing plagiary.
Like in his Weirmar Inflation video #2 where he catches an author intentionally falsifying a quote by Rosa Luxemburg, which is Plagiary btw, by removing aspects of a quote without citing that you left something out you are committing plagiary. The man did it because the part he left out of the quote makes Rosa Luxemburg look bad. TIK of course calls him out on it. Reason why it's plagiary is because by quoting it with quotation marks, and changing said quote.. you're lying or claiming said person said or wrote that in those exact words, if you change the quote you're basically falsifying what they said, which is well considered plagiary, not in that you copied someone but you falsified their words. If he paraphrased and didn't do a direct quote he could of gotten away with it, if he cited but he did a direct quote. Basically the man did exactly what someone like David Irving would do, and he is a historian who has lost almost all creditability since the 1990s.
My favorite part is when they try to claim them as Far Right, and even created something like the Horseshoe Theory which was created specifically to explain the similarities between Fascism and Marxism. The Term Far Right honestly today is starting to fall in deaf ears as it's so heavily over used, but it's a century old tactic, call something far right, and ignorant people will be more likely to believe it's TOTALLY different than the other ideology similar to it which you're trying to distant it from. Just about every socialist regime has been called Far Right from one time to another. Including the Soviet Union. So even by their own logic that would mean socialist is neither left or right if the USSR can be right wing. Either that or their concept of Left and Right is so fundamentally bankrupt that when they use the phrases left or right it holds on actual meaning, which is honestly an accurate assessment in my opinion.
I'm under the belief most people including Conservatives don't have any idea what Left and Right wing even mean. Which is why you have so many people on both sides of the Ilse who have similar beliefs, supporting radicals who have opposing beliefs. Basically because of bad sociological studies, a total misrepresentation in the past 100 years on what Left/Right Wing even is politically we have entire generations of people who don't know what it means to be on the Left or Right of the political spectrum. Which is why you have Libertarians on the same side as Neo Nazis two groups who are in absolute opposition to each other why? Because Individualism is considered a Right Wing belief, and Nationalism is Considered a Right Wing Belief.... so you have two polar opposite belief systems one being Pro Anti State, and Pro Individualism, and the other being Pro State and Pro Collectivism. Basically the political camps today are a fractured mess of whom don't even really know what they are and I think many in positions of power in society including academics prefer it that way because a fractured society is much easier to manipulate and control.
The Horseshoe Theory btw argues pretty much that opposites attract. So go far enough left or far enough right and you end up with the same thing, it's where that comes from. It's a Fallacy, as it relies on sociology to be magnetic or sphere, and I didn't know Physics and Geometry were part of sociology study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Starving billionaires. Exactly why Lenin heavily inflated the currency, to destoy capital, force people to stop using money, it ended up just putting people into absolute poverty, and starvation. TIK explained it well, money holds/last longer than eggs, and potatoes. Barter requires something to trade, farmers have it the worst as what they create, doesn't last forever, sometimes not even a week. So what do farmers barter, spoiled milk, rotten eggs, moldy vegetables? Money/Capital was the greatest invention that humanity created.
1
-
Technically yes. State owned Utilities. (Power/Water). State Owned Roads. State Owned Medicine. etc etc. Example that was used when I was in highschool was how France, the Government owns the Electrical Utilities, same story for the State of California as well, Water and Power utilities are owned by the State of California.
State Education
State Hospitals
State Roads
State Water
State Power
State Regulations
State Police
State Fire Departments (1840-70s most fire departments went from private and were converted to public by their local cities)
etc etc etc
Taking control away from the private citizen, and into the hands of the State. Why? Socialist believe the private sector isn't responsible enough or too self, and specific aspects of society should be government/owned by the state on our behalf. So despite what some Socialist say, they're pro State.
That is the most mild example of Socialism. Totalitarianism is when Socialism hits the most extremes, when the State pretty much owns everything. Hence the name, Totalitarian, Total Control. You have no home, you live in an apartment or home with the State's regards, ie the state built it, and allows you to live there. Totalitarianism is impossible without Socialism. So if someone calls a country Totalitarian they're defacto calling it a Socialist state whether they realize it or not.
Good example, you can look up the history of the development of modern Fire Departments. They started out often originally as private or volunteer brigades. They were later collectivized into the hands of the local cities and became State owned Public Services. Which became pretty much a standard world wide. Some of the earliest examples even date back to the days of the Roman Empire. In London in particular people paid a subscription so to speak which was part of their property insurance plans, which the insurance companies would pay private fire brigades for their services during times of fires. This was before the City ever took control of Fire Fighting.
This is why Socialist praise State works programs by Mussolini and Hitler, and other Social programs, in spite denying they're Socialist. They call them State Capitalist, because they're not socialist yet state control? Yet they praise their social programs..... heck even the original Star Trek had an whole episode which praised the Nazi Germany's economy from the 1930s, and Gene Robbenberry was an avid Socialist, which is why he made Next Generation's Earth literally a utopian socialist paradise. Just one of those funny things, even Bernie Sanders mentioned Hitler's social programs during one of his campaign speeches, it's kinda a socialist meme. "Lets praise Nazi Social programs" then "Deny they're socialist." Was always a funny thing when I was growing up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang Because that would require critical thinking to realize that conundrum. They don't want you to think, just react. So when the Politician says, you do. So when they say Ultra Far Right Wing, you're expected to believe them, meanwhile it's drilled into your brain that Right Wing = Bad. So every time they say Far Right it isn't really whether it's Right Wing or Not, they just want to scare you away from whatever they're pointing the finger at. What they're pointing the finger at may genuinely be right wing, but a lot of the times isn't. It's just what they want to scare people over.
I've honestly gotten tired of Far Right being used in the news, or by politicians anymore. It's become the "New" Fascist. What is worse, they create phrases like Neo Liberalism, or Alt Right to explain when the Right Wing doesn't act or look like the "Stereotype" they teach their Sheep that it is. So when REAL Liberals who are on the right well spout liberalism, they call it Neo Liberalism for example, it isn't "REAL" Liberalism they would then decree.
1
-
1
-
I think a lot of these late casualties can easily be contributed to the total collapse of the German Army Group Center during Operation Bagration. The Soviets nearly surrounded but mostly destroyed German Army Group Center in 1944 leaving a huge gap in the German lines, and they did this so fast that no one could of stopped them. The Soviets used overwhelming rocket and artillery followed up by a massive armored assault and nearly destroyed Army Group Center. It's often been described as Germany's Greatest Military Defeat. Unlike say Kursk which is propagandized as an amazing Defeat, this one literally broke the spine of the German Army in the East. Causing a massive frontal wide retreat, desperate retreat to new lines before the Soviets had a chance to exploit the breach. It was a very costly retreat, as the Soviets launched local offensives in just about every single sector.
1945 can easily be explained because of the massive disparity in numbers by this time, on top of that the German Army was also heavily reliant on Conscripts and Volksturm. For example out of the official troops defending Berlin over 80,000, half were Volksturm.
You also have to remember by 1943 the German Army had used up all it's well trained Infantry meant to support it's armored offensives. By Kursk for example they were pulling men out of field hospitals, and yet still some armored divisions went into combat without infantry support by Panzer Grenadiers.
It makes complete sense that the German Military wouldn't be so successful late war. I think anyone that would view this in the context of a "myth" have a warped sense of reality. At this time the Germans were a Defeated Army, they were of course going to struggle greatly. Numbers do not lie. Battle for Berlin, 140 some armored vehicles vs around 6000 soviet vehicles. less than 200,000 men manning Germany's last major defense line vs 2-3 million. The Germans were going to get walked over, definitely when you take account most of the troops available were poorly trained, and even in civilian clothing.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Answer the question, for the same reason Putin believed the west wouldn't get involved in Ukraine. The Ukraine War is as much a failure of the west as it is Putin's bad decisions. It's a similar situation with Taiwan. Instead of openly claiming that if China invades Taiwan, it will mean WAR with other major powers, those other major powers tip toe around the issue of Taiwan's independence, out of fear of War, and pretend she is a country without openly claiming she is... I don't consider that dealing with a delicate situation but pandering to an aggressive power.
This is the same reason Chamberlin made so many mistakes, he wanted to avoid war, but doing so made himself look weak. This is why Hitler believed he could get away with invading Poland.
How we cowardly response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, among other border conflicts since 2008 with other neighbors like Georgia, gave Putin the idea that if he invaded Ukraine, he'd likely only face a lot of political sword rattling, and sanctions. Because just like leading up to WWII, the west were too afraid of war that they made themselves out to be weak.
This goes back to the quote by America's first president George Washington. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brien144 And if your peers hold a collective bias? American history had that issue for years, I mean Lost Cause Revisionism used to be considered fact among many American Collages, with even Woodrow Wilson who was a collage Dean before becoming president endorsing it. just because popular consensus is one thing, that doesn't mean that one thing is actually right. I mean until there was absolutely irrefutable proof a majority of paleontologists considered the meteor strike to be fantasy. As a dino nut we still have many of them intentionally lying/bending the truth just because they like the idea of a fuzzy T-Rex.
TIK has found many examples within the books he's used where authors have misquoted, omitted and in the case of one flat out fabricated or worse not even understanding what they were actually putting into print.
Good example being The Vampire Economy, the communist who wrote it had no idea what he was talking about, but the book is a great source only because it shows how the German economy was actually working in real time ie a great first hand account, but... despite all the nationalization, he still considered it capitalism, despite capitalist crying/suffering under the NS bureaucracy he still called it capitalism. Which is just fundamentally wrong.
TIK brings this subject up in his Section 8 of his Hitler's Socialism video, despite mountains of evidence that says otherwise, authors will still call the NS Economy Capitalist. Showing multiple quotes from Richard Evans that within a single paragraph he contradicts himself, while also getting Socialism and Marxism mixed up. Meaning Richard Evans doesn't understand what he is actually talking about or, he is intentionally coming to the wrong conclusion so his readers do.
I mean how else does Gleichschaltung (Synchronization) get turned into Privatization? Which is the word that got translated into Privatization. Someone somewhere falsely translated it, and since spread throughout the English literary world falsely, and who knows what other language's translated theirs from English literature. Now somehow the NS are considered the inventors of the word? Seriously? That shouldn't happen. But it has....
I've come across it as well. Socialist calling Communism Totalitarianism and Communist calling Socialism Totalitarianism. Two socialist clicks accusing the other of being totalitarian while theirs is anti state.
TIK's primary argument that Socialist do not know what Socialism is, because they've never come to a consensus on what Socialism is, seems to be very real. Which is why I run into so many people with wildly different views on socialism, including people who seems so confident in it.
I've seen former Soviet Citizens getting banned from Socialist/Communist Reddit because their Soviet definition of Socialism doesn't match what modern socialist view socialism. Even modern Socialist views are mixed and not united. He posting tons of evidence that modern socialist collage kids have no idea what they're talking about and spends much of his time giving as accurate of a picture of the soviet union as possible. Ushanka Show, great channel by the way, he is now a Libertarian Socialist yet despite being a Socialist he gets attacked/banned by Socialist on Reddit, amazing, all because he tried to dispel their fantasy.
In TIK's Weimar Hyperinflation Part 2, he literally finds the marxist author of the book he was citing much of the time omitting without citing part of one of Rosa Luxemburg's quotes. ie he removed part of her quote without citing he did so, so his readers wouldn't know he removed it. Be surprised how often that happens. Of course it's a dastardly part of her quote that makes her sound like a Loony as well. Because she literally said "Dictatorships of the Proletariat is a democracy in the socialist sense." He omitted that part. Which is ironic because it sounds a lot like the same rationale used by the NS and Fascist when calling their regimes Democracies.
What I'm getting at. I don't think the Academic community actually knows what they're talking about. If they don't know what they're talking about how can peer review even work? Worse some most definitely falsify what they're writing, yet their peers mostly agree with them so don't care. They live in a fantasy land that isn't reality when it comes to the practical application of Socialism. Because of this, they see socialism in practical application that doesn't turn out the way they dreamed so utterly REJECT IT. Because their idea of Socialism just doesn't work and a practical application will never turn out the way they want it to. So their "Dream" of what it is isn't reality, because of this when they see socialism in practice they don't even know how to identify it.
Which circles back to TIK's claim "Socialist do not know what real Socialism is, if they knew, and understand basic economics, they wouldn't be socialist." < Which I think he got from Thomas Sowell. Which is why I stopped being a Socialist myself, I grew up, saw it's falsehoods, and lost faith in the adult children who champion it who clearly do not live in the real world. Based on his "Leftist are not stupid" video He jumped ship about a year after I did. btw it's nice of him to actually defend Leftist, I know many and I do agree with him they're not stupid, just misinformed.
I have an uncle/aunt who are collage professors, worked for one as an assistant in my collage years, and even helped one get elected in local office post retirement. Well you get to know these Academics personally, you know they're not really anything special. Most of them come right out of an academic setting and straight back into it, they never get real world experience prior to becoming members of the academic community. This leads to a feed back loop and if you have people getting misinformed, only to go right back into that loop, it creates generations of professors who do not know what they're talking about. hehe
1
-
1
-
@BJ-lq6js Honestly, I don't see your point, as the term Capitalist is a relatively modern term in a historic sense. It dates back only a few hundred years ago well after J**s were associated with being the money changers which dates back almost to the foundation of Christianity itself. It's actually the main reason the Church banned gambling, and loaning money as it was considered a J**ish trait.
If you're literally trying to describe the concept of "money" that's irrelevant, as all forms of capital is money. Even a bag of rice is capital. Also in Feudal times Surfs actually didn't have to be that productive. Lords were by law not allowed to kick surfs off their land. So again you're example doesn't work that well. They were part of the land, as important as the farms they worked on. So were protected from their own masters by higher law, say the King. So a random lord couldn't just murder his Surfs, or throw them into the street as without them, there would be no wheat or potatoes so the whole kingdom's interest was keeping their surfs safe/alive. Which is actually why during wars often attacking armies would murder the surfs and burn down those farms as it hurt the nobles the most.
It was the Town Folk, which the word Bourgeoisie originates from whom are often associated with the accumulation of capital/wealth because they lived outside the feudal system and were technically Free Men. They could own shops, earn money, while having to pay taxes to those who ruled the towns that they worked. Surfs/Farmers were not normally part of that system, they were separate. In fact many Free Men chose to become surfs as life was often easier, the nobles would give you land to farm, provide you seed/protection, and you didn't have to worry too much about actually surviving. Meanwhile Free Men had to struggle/flight for every scrap they could get, as they were outside that feudal system. It's these free men who became the middle class because they could accumulate wealth. People who chose the Town Life, and became a Free Man paid for it, with money, tears and blood. They did it because they were free, they ddin't have to get a lord's permission to travel, could own land for themselves, produce for themselves, and earn wealth for themselves. All the hallmarks Marxist hate.
It's actually an interesting history the word Bourqeoisie came from the old French word Borgeis which literally means town folk. The word has since evolved to mean Middle Class. Marx used it to describe the middle class/landowners but he was technically talking about shop owners, book stories, smiths, factory owners, people who owned land/property inside of towns, which now the relatively newly freed surfs were moving into cities to work for as a result of the industrial revolution and the more liberalization of much of European society as Feudalism started going out the door. So ironically when Marx is talking about the Bourqeoisie he is basically verbally attacking the middle class. So the corner shop is the biggest threat to man kind apparently.
Btw I self Censor because youtube has a nasty habit of deleting comments. I'd rather not have to retype something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodrigorafael.9645 He isn't tricking anyone. Only people who burry their head in the sand think they're "NOT" Socialist in turn the sheep that follow their writings.
I'm honestly tired of hearing arguments which use "Marxist" Socialist ideas and counter pose those ideas to prove the Nazis are not Socialist because the Nazis were opposed to some of those ideas. Which ONLY PROVES THEY'RE NOT MARXIST which is a big DUH.
This is why he resorts to COLORs. The word "Color" is used as a alternative to "Socialism." While the other Colors are "Colors" (Socialist) they're not the same color (same kind of socialist).
Marxist influences socialist do not have a monopoly on the term socialism. Definitely being the term had existed before Marx. Even when Marx was around not all Socialist movement's followed his beliefs. Conservative Socialism or Bourgeois Socialism didn't just vanish from the world. When I mean Marxist influenced, ie I'm referring to class Conscious Socialist. Which can include Social Democrats, Marxist, Communist, Syndicalist, Democratic Socialist, etc etc.
I mean the very fact that many denialist are now resorting to calling the Nazis a Cartel and compares them to a Mafia makes me fall over laughing. As the word Cartels and Syndicates are Synonyms of each other. Unions, Cartels, Syndicates, Soviets, Leagues, Cooperatives, Corporations, and many other terms often used to define a "Union" of sorts.
So ironically when they use the word Cartel, I go "DUH!?" But that doesn't change a thing really. Just makes me laugh at this bad argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martigrey5872 I honestly wish that could be changed, but after seeing Battlefield V..... well it's a huge step backwards for WWII based video games. Wolfenstein doesn't count as it was never meant to be taken seriously. But even back in the days of Medal of Honor, they still attempted to portray the war as best the could as authentically as they could with the resources they were limited with, while still making an enjoyable experience. By the time Red Orchestra came out, I was really hopeful WWII games would just get better, and better. Which hasn't be the case, as they've degraded, with only a few multiplayer focused games like Post Scriptum caring, but there is no story, no characters in that kind of game, which i is a major downer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesmackenzie1536 To sum it up from that link. Women work force in Germany during the war years, and remember 1939 didn't see any real big change from 1938 and from prior pre-war years. This includes agriculture, industry, and commercial, and state positions.
Total
May 1939: 14,626,000
May 1940: 14,386,000
May 1941: 14,167,000
May 1942: 14,437,000
May 1943: 14,806,000
May 1944: 14,808,000
To sum that up. About a 5th of all women in Germany were in the labor force. Who knows how many more unofficially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've gotten to a point that I now consider Nationalism to be a variation of Socialism built off of old Utopian and Conservative Socialism which pre-dates Marxism. Reasoning why, is Nationalist care about the National Community, everything is fine as long as it's part about of the National Community. Land/Property must be owned by people within the National Community, and Nationalist are completely fine with Land Appropriation as long as it's for the sake of the National Community. Good example in the past few years is how Donald Trump threatened to Nationalize TikTok, with the promise of re-privatizing it instantly after into the hands of an American company. All that mattered to a "Nationalist" is that a company that was part of the "National Community" controlled TikTok. Reason why say Marxism is about all Land/Property must be Nationalized, or Socialized as Marxist assume that the Working Class do not own Property, or at least Property that is Productive, and to own said property would Forfeit you being a "Worker." So all Property must be Socialized. This actually makes that Mine Kampfy chair quote of Hitler make total sense "Marxism is anti-property, true socialism is not." I think Hitler was referring to Pre-Marxist Socialist, and seeing how Nationalist behavior towards property rights, ie it's conditional, as long as you're not hurting the National Community, Nationalist can sound very socialist went they want to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Class of 03, I came out of highschool a Fascist, a proper one, one of my best friends ironically was a Marxist, we influenced each other's views quite heavily. If it wasn't for our arguments/debates I'd likely never came out as a Fascist.
I knew what Italian Fascism was, and knew Nazism had little if anything really to do with it. I disliked the idea of any version of Socialism which divided people based on some social construct like social classes, ethnic groups, religion. etc I was also against the idea of democracy, I think the last two American elections shows exactly why I'm not exactly pro democratic.
So... Fascism was just about the only Socialist Option that worked for me. It's ideal of using Nationalism to Unite people under a Socialist system was to me just about the only way it could work at all. I'm dumbstruck that people think Fascism is a form of Capitalism. Fascist never at any time in their history considered themselves Capitalist.
I've since stepped away from such Collectivist "Idealism." You get older you wise up, and I came to realize just about the only way for people to truly be free is allowing people the freedom to be an individual, outside of the collective group, outside of the system. Such freedom would be impossible, no matter how idealistic you are, in any form of collectivist society, including Fascism.
What I find the most comical, Fascist always claimed they were somewhere between Capitalism and Communism. Communist definition of Socialism = "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved." Being Fascist considered themselves between Capitalism and Communism, wouldn't that mean by the Communist/Marxist definition of the post Leninist period, that Fascism is Socialism?
Though I would say today I'm more of a Libertarian. I went from a Fascist to a Civic Nationalist, and eventually became a Libertarian. Talk about a dramatic shift in opinion since 2003.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlietheron8947 TIK doesn't misinterpret Socialism. Socialist Misinterpret socialism.
You forget, that Socialism in the 19th Century was not a unified ideology, nor did socialist themselves really come to a conclusion on what Socialism actually was. It's why you have so many contradicting sometimes even hostile movements all calling themselves Socialist. This was even before the National Socialist ever exist.
TIK's interpretation of what Socialism is comes primarily from Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism,. which are STATE CENTRIC Socialist movements. Which if that is what Socialism is, then Fascism and Nazism fall perfectly inside that kind of Socialism.
Even today Socialists as a group have not come to a conclusion on what Socialism even is. I run into so many self proclaimed socialist who have contradictory ideas on what Socialism is. Some of which actually support TIK's idea of what Socialism is, just they deny his evidence, I've seen the arguments. I mean you even just tried to do the same thing "Dismiss the Nazis they can not be trusted!" Even though TIK has presented so much evidence of Nazi Socialism that it's kind of a joke to say the Nazis lied about being Socialist. Heck in some of his later videos it's seemingly more likely that Nazis lied to big business, not the workers. Shock
Even the Finnish Bolshevik which TIK has posted a few times and himself made a video response to a few of TIK's videos idea of Socialism, is very similar if not identical to TIK's. Just he dismisses TIK's findings.
UshankaShow a former Soviet Citizen now a Libertarian Socialist uses the EXACT definition of Socialism that TIK uses, and is openly against that kind of Socialism, wanting a more libertarian society with a capitalist economy but just with social welfare.
Then you have Animarchy another Youtube channel run by a Socialist who literally spits in the face of all State centric Socialism and considers them not real Socialist. Which I'm using him as an example for that whole contradiction thing, and literally thinks Anarchy is some how Socialism... Showing 3 different Socialist channels all which are different kinds of socialist and are openly critical toward the other.
1
-
@charlietheron8947 TIK literally quotes one of TheFinnishbolahivik comments on his videos with the screenshot to prove it, and he straight up said Socialism is State ownership. Ushanskashow who was a former communist not by choice but... also said Socialism is State Ownership. In fact he says it a lot. Ushankashow despite growing up in the Soviet Union was banned from the Communist Reddit group because he would answer questions about the USSR that well the moderators of that group didn't like.
Reason why is Fundamentally all Common/Social/Group control is State Control. It's quite dishonest of any Socialist to say otherwise. Society is too complex for there not to be some form of centralized authority. Unless you want to de-evolve society itself to a far more primitive state which will lead to the deaths of billions. When you advocate for Social Control, that Centralized Authority will be the primary body that dictates over it no matter what.
I mean, how does the Group take control of the means of Production? It would require some form of authority, and then enforcement, it would require a State. Enforcement would be needed as well as you will have to police to people to prevent capital gains, which is why groups like the Soviets dictated how many cows you could have, too many cows would equal you're too wealthy and a hoarder, or capitalist pig... Socialism in practice requires a State and is State Socialism. Ideologically it may not, but ideologically vs practicality are two different things. Ideologically every Christian must be pure, but in practice all Christians are sinners. I mean why do you think every large socialist regime goes through massive teething issues, sometimes mass murder and starvation, or total economic collapse? Because the Ideology doesn't blend well with Practical reality. So must adapt/change itself to work. So in Practice, no Socialist State will be the Ideal Socialist State it means Ideologically Socialism WILL NEVER BE what Socialist want it to be. So when you see something you don't like it's not real socialism. But in reality it IS SOCIALISM. Because Socialism in Practice vs Socialism in Faith are two different things.
In reply to your bullets.
1. So the Soviet Union were not Socialist for murdering/arresting countless people? Removing entire groups of people from society? Mass forced migration, mass arrest, mass killings, forced starvation. Ethnic cleansings on a scale that would make the National Socialist blush. I mean you do know the largest ethnic cleansing in European history happened under Stalin's watch right? Estimated between 10-20 million people were uprooted from their homes by the glorious soviet union. Large numbers of which were forced to migrate to Labor Colonies in the Middle South and Far Eastern provinces of the USSR so they were out of the way of the "Heart Land" so the Glorious soviet people could have their Worker's paradise with some homogeny ethnically/religiously to boot. PS, this started with Lenin, just Stalin was the biggest implementer of it, and it didn't end after Stalin's death either.
2. Actually Hitler did, TIK provided proof of the Nazis Collective Farm Program, and the Nationalization and Socialization of Business and for everything not directly controlled by the state was forced to follow the will of the state, as Hitler called it Synchronization ie putting in line. I mean some of this stuff is basic shit... yet socialist are blind to it. I used to be a Fascist because I KNEW Fascism was a form of socialism, not because it was in opposition to socialism... and that was back in 2001. Since I've abandoned nationalism and socialism neither are appealing to me anymore. I would highly suggest looking up National Syndicalism, or Fascist Syndicalism, Fascist Corporatism, or just Corporatism in general. So you understand why when Fascist talk about Corporations they're not talking about Private Ownership.
I mean the fact you people don't understand Corporations, and why it's called "Going Public" when a company Corporatizes is beyond belief, and actually blame it on Capitalism which is more comical. You explain Corporations with terms like Crony Capitalism ie a State under the control of Corporations/big business, when actually Corporations require the cooperation of the State to even exist to begin with and that is BY LAW they can not form without the blessing of the State. It isn't the Corporations that Control the State, it's the Corporations controlling entire sectors of the economy on behalf of the State, and the state can prosper off it. It's easier to regulate/tax large corporations than smaller private business. About private ownership, Corporations are also collectively owned by millions of people, so I guess by Collectivist Dogma all Corporations are Socialist entities. In fact I think one form of Common Control called Equity falls in that category.
1
-
@charlietheron8947 sighs Corporatism: "Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American legal and pop cultural parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. However, the Cambridge dictionary says that a corporate state is a country in which a large part of the economy is controlled by the government.
Corporatism developed during the 1850s in response to the rise of classical liberalism and Marxism, as it advocated cooperation between the classes instead of class conflict. Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism, and Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy advocated the collective management of the economy by state officials by integrating large interest groups under the state; however, the more democratic neo-corporatism often embraced Tripartism."
Honestly like how Wikipedia removed the Syndicalist section of their article on Corporatism, yet forgot to remove it from it's related ideologies list. Corporatism branched off Syndicalism... but they sadly since removed that bit. I guess more people are catching onto it so they decided to scrub that association.
Also wasn't privatization. As he actually says in this video, you people claim you can not take the Nazis at their word when they say they're Socialist yet you openly say it's okay to take them at their word when they use the word Privatization.
Similar to when the Nazis dismantled the Weimar Republic, they didn't dismantle the State, they put it under new management. Privatization was a term used, but it was actually a reorganization, and Nationalization, but under a NEW NATION. When the Nazis took power in 1933 they didn't control everything, even after Hitler was given absolute power, they chose to in turn weed out all elements of the old government by literally dismantling it. This Privatization everyone screams about was literally the Nazis taking organizations, and putting them in the direct control of the Nazi Party. As Richard Evans quotes they were sold or handed over to organizations within the party itself. TIK Literally list a large percent of those organizations.
They didn't shut down unions, they nationalized them directly into the party. They didn't shut down welfare or charity, they nationalized them directly into the party. List really goes on and on, and he list a large chunk of it.
The Nazis use of Privatization wasn't Privatization. Being the Nazis were the new State, it was really Nationalization. As TIK described so well "It was a slight of hand." It's ironically why Nationalization and Synchronization are the proper terms to use to describe their "Privatization."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlietheron8947 That is a catch though. Corporations couldn't refuse to cooperate. The Nazis abolished private property rights in 1933. Meaning the State had all the legal means it needed to nationalize any business it wished which did not cooperate with the wishes of the central state, and it did when it wanted to. There is no better example of this when Hugo Junkers refused to hand over all of his patented aircraft designs to the newly established Nazi Regime. If it is like you said, he could of just "NOT" cooperated... issue is he didn't cooperate and the government took his business from him and handed it over to a party loyalist.
Even I.G. Farben being another good example, they supported many political parties leading up to the 1933 election, including being the largest contributor to the Nazi Party. But this was entirely tactical, a common practice many companies still do today, which they will often donate to opposing political movements hoping regardless which wins, they will have enough favor to have some sway over them. Despite I.G. Farben being a POST child of anti Nazi Socialist and their evil corporate greed, they often ignore the fact that the company was forced to let go of a large percent of it's board members because they were Jewish. Even though the Nazis promised when getting their support that they wouldn't well purge the company... so ya they lied to I.G. Farben. I mean if I.G. Farben had successfully BOUGHT the NS Party, you'd think... that it's leadership wouldn't of been purged by that said same party which they supposedly had bought with evil capitalist money.
Issue is, people don't realize that Fascist Corporatism is a TOP DOWN system, the STATE has absolute authority. So NO Corporations don't own/buy out the state and NO, they couldn't just refuse the cooperate.... in a Fascist Corporatist system. Even in Italy this was the case, it was a heavy top down state run system.
1
-
@charlietheron8947 I like how you bring up points that TIK has absolutely crushed into fine powder in later videos.
I'd highly suggest watching TIK's videos, as every point you made are addressed and crushed multiple times throughout them.
HItler's Socialism Counting the Denialist Arguments (Every point you made is in this actually)
Hitler was a Communist in 1919 (you he got rid of the socialist is laughably destroyed in this one as well, as he said, there are a million counter arguments to it)
The Revolution guaranteed inflation - BankWars: Weimar Hyperinflation Episode 2 (same story, seems socialist don't even know what factions in Germany were even socialist to call socialist or willingly lie about it)
1. "btw all socialist elements of the nazi party where purged during the night of long knives" TIK successfully destroys this argument in half a dozen videos so fine that it might as well be baby powder. Most recently the "Hitler was a Communist in 1919" video. But he does so also in the Weirmar Inflation Part 2 video, and "Hitler's Socialism Countering the Denialist Arguments." It's an anti Nazi's were a Socialist lie that has perpetuated for 3/4ths of a century. It was LITERALLY MADE UP! The fact people still believe it is irritating.
I never believed it as Rohm in particular was killed for a lot of reasons, including pleasing the German Army. They literally wanted the SA removed, and it's how Hitler gained their support. They were afraid the Nazis were use the SA to replace the army because in 1933 there were MORE members of the SA than there were Active members of the German Army and the SA was militarized. He wasn't killed because he was a Socialist, he was killed because doing so would ensure that LAST resistance in Germany, the German Army would swear loyalty to him if he does, it was entirely a strategic political move.
2. I can call him a Socialist because apparently, you don't know shit about the German economy in the 1930s, even before the war even started. Corporations are not Capitalism, and I don't care what some Socialist say. Corporations are owned by a multitude of people, which places them in collectivized category vs privatized category. They're publicly traded companies they're outside the realm of the private sector. There is a reason the phrase "Going Public" exist. Either they're Privately owned Companies or they're not, and in the case of Corporations, no they're not privately owned companies. Also you contradict yourself in this regard. If the State is telling Business what to do, then the Business are not able to seek profits at their own free will, which means there is no actual free market, without that free market you do not have the economic liberalism required for Capitalism to function. So even if Corporations are an example of Capitalism, it's still not capitalism. Doesn't matter if they make profits or not at this point, as they only make as much as allowed, or 'gifted' to them by the state as the state controls all the natural resources that the business need to operate, and yes, the Nazis controlled the flow of Iron, Coal, and all other resources, all business were literally reliant on the Nazi Party, and had no choice but to do what the Party said.
Best part, which I just remembered. Some Socialist seem to understand that Corporations are not Capitalist and flounder trying to describe the differences of Capitalist and non Capitalist Corporations because Capitalist ones don't actually exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+White343 "... and you're telling me...." Definition of a Failed Argument when you start your comment with a phrase that "Implies" I said something that i never said. Oh I really hope your composition professor backhanded you while in class. But i guess I can make this more colorful.
"Harassing and Oppressing Foreign Minorities (Roma, Jews, etc.) and Intellectuals (Free thinking and well educated people)." Counts on the minorities both regimes targeting different groups. It's no Secret that Stalin as well treated minorities quite badly. His treatment of the Cossack, Tatars, and none White Orthodox Christians was pretty bad. He forcefully migrated most east of the Euro Mountains, if not had them murdered and put into labor camps. On top of that, didn't the USA do the same? With specific Laws literally in place limiting freedoms, and rights to millions of minorities who were not White Christians? She didn't have to be a Communist or Socialist Regime to do so. Marriage and property Laws in states like Alabama and Missouri comes in mind, ironically being in place decades before the Nazis instituted similar Marriage Laws.
"Censorship against Free Media." Neither the USSR or the German Reich was Media Free, so how can one Censor Free Media if it didn't even exist? Prior to the National Socialist taking control of Germany sure, there was free Media but that completely disappeared shortly after. USSR it didn't really exist prior to the Soviet Regime coming to power. That being said Censorship of the Media is something that exist even in the USA. Through Finance, Advertising, and Special Interest ownership of Media Companies. If you've been on youtube over the past Decade You'd see it quite loudly how Media on just Youtube Alone is Censored. Videos get Demonetized, Adverts are Pulled, Videos marked as Offensive no longer show up on recommendation list, and what is censored can often derive from a single word or sentence in said video. Ironically and not surprisingly it's the same form of Censorship that existed in the 1930s/40s when Charles Lindbergh gave his speech to the America First Movement, when he stated and I paraphrase, "news papers that carry anti war articles began to lose advertisement."
"Making Concentration Camps for a Specific Minority (Roma, Jews, etc)." I doubt there is a major power on "Earth" that hasn't made concentration camps. Be it some worse than others. I can think of the USA in particular had Interment Camps most known the Japanese, but lesser known we also threw German nationals into prisons in a smaller scale, and the Filipino Insurrection's Concentration Camps, and at a larger scale Indian Reservations which were basically Interment Camps without Fences but they were guarded by the US Army and forbidden to leave said territories. That being said in both world wars interment camps and concentration camps were a very popular thing. Even the film 7 Years in Tibet the entire story revolves around a German National captured by the British (ie a Civilian) who was thrown into an Internment Camp. The camps in France the Germans used were already built by the French to house political prisoners before the war even started.
"Seizing private companies for Government use." Ironically this primarily happened in the USSR, not Nazi Germany, well unless you're talking about occupied territories. If you were a German Citizen odds are you wouldn't of had your business stolen, property ceased, money taken. Unless you're taking about the later years of WWII but desperation during war time calls often for drastic measures. But you can do a simple google search and you can find plenty of examples of this happening in the USA, a free capitalist society. US Government just has to do a stroke of the pen and it can still forcefully take land if it's considered necessary for national security, and it has in the past.
"Never exists in both of these factions." There he goes again putting words into someone's mouth actually thinking he has an argument. It's adorable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 Jesus christ. Yes we are humans, we have legs, we don't live in the sea so we walk on dirt. Dirt is land, but land doesn't define a Nation we just live on it. Also you're using examples of Ethnic Nations exclusively. Ethnic Nations are not the only Nations.
19th Century Nationalist would love you so much. Just as the Plutonians on Rick & Morty loved Jerry. Because how you described the American Nation. Those who believe in manifest destiny would be holding you up in a chair right now.
"nothing of what you said addresses my point" Because you actually don't have a point and are too stupid to realize it. Land isn't a requirement, never has been. A People's can be uprooted and moved and they'd still be a people. The land they live on holds no real relevance. Just the Identity holds all relevance. You can take all their land away, and they wouldn't just stop existing as a people.
Again you picked specific examples. How about Judaism? One of the biggest examples of the 20th Century. Prior to Israel would you call them a Nation? Even though internationally they organized, had their own congress, and would hold political discussions about the direction of their people. Even though they had no real land/territory to call their own?
They are a Nation. They ended up getting land, but even then a vast majority of their people still live around the world, but view themselves as a community. They're also not really an ethnicity in a classical sense as well, as they're Arab, European and even African, with decadents of many different ethnicities. Best way of describing them is they're a Religious Nation, a close knitted one that cares about the well being of their own.
1
-
Because they're built on Ignorance and Contradictions, that they wouldn't even know to look this up. Even many of their defensive arguments saying "No he wasn't an antisemite" heavily rely on speculation. Because they have no real proof he wasn't. For example, they often claim he was using "Js" as a code word for Capitalist, or I've ran into a few as a Critique of Capitalism. Though based on what TIK is pointing out, it seems to be the opposite of what they often claim. However, when you think about it logically those kind of arguments do not work well because they're ironically admitting Marx considered Capitalism a product of the "J*" because he is literally comparing Capitalism to a Culture, and trying to make Capitalist as Marxist claim feel guilty for being like J**ish people. Then they're also ignoring people who took Marx's criticism of J* literally, like Mr H.
So in short, he was being antisemitic, and there isn't any way to get around it. Even in the best case scenario they are often trying to paint. To me it seems to blatantly obvious, and being his influence on Mr H's view of J**ish Capital, to be frank, Marx is the Catalyst to the Big H.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konstantinkelekhsaev302 I'm glad someone clarified. If TIK just said Anti Tank Grenade, it would of made it not sound so implausible.
There was another far out story I heard about a M8 Grayhound knocking out a Tiger B in three shots with it's 37mm gun. Which is theoretically implausible even when I looked up charts with the best possible armor piercing ammunition available, theoretically, it's possible, but implausible, as it would require absolute ideal conditions which based on the scenario that was not the case, as no 90 degree angles were exposed, even if they hit it dead on it would of been a hit or miss chance to penetrate even the weakest armor on a Tiger B. Though that scenario I believe happened, just it was more likely a Panther, than a Tiger, misidentifying vehicles was common among the US Army during after army reports. Even calling Panzer IVs Panther IVs, and Tiger phobia often caused US GIs to grossly exaggerate the number of Tigers that were in the field. As they would often refer to all German tanks as Tigers. Reason why I think that it was, is knocking out a Panther from the rear in 3 shots with a 37mm gun is very plausible and the tanks look similar enough that a misidentified makes more sense than a Grayhound successfully knocking out a Tiger B.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944
Temba A Nolutshungu
"The term “capitalism” was almost unknown in the English world until first popularised by English translations of Das Kapital in 1867.
This was the work of the father of communism, Karl Marx. The title was translated into English variously as The Capital or simply, Capital. Both these translations are wholly inadequate.
They do not convey the pejorative manner in which Marx used the term.
Like Clinton’s “that woman” or commonly “that scoundrel”, That Capital, or better still, That Accursed Thing called Capital, might more accurately have translated the true intention of Marx’s demeaning and stigmatising language.
Not even Adam Smith had ever heard of or used that term when attempting to describe the free enterprise system in his “Wealth of Nations” a century earlier in 1776.
For him later to be “known” as the “father of capitalism”, is a 20th-century accolade of which he knew nothing, nor deserved.
This is nothing more than a glaring example of how modern notions get mischievously projected onto the past."
The very concept of a Capitalist in the eyes of society didn't exist until Marx. Even if the word itself might have existed it only existed in small intellectual circles. But the Concept of it, at least MARX's Concept of it, didn't exist until the mid 19th Century, and he built this entire concept of the Capitalist on antisemitism.
Even today Capitalism itself just doesn't exist. It's more accurately described as Economic Liberalism, or as many people who defend the idea Free Enterprise which was the phrase used before Marx created Capitalism at least his notion of it. Even by the early 20th Century the concept of a Capitalist just didn't exist in western society, yet some how that society was Capitalist? As Marxionian theory wasn't very popular yet.
Interesting enough Nolutshungu got pretty close when referring to Das Captial being titled in an antagonistic fashion, hateful rhetoric. "Like Clinton’s “that woman” or commonly “that scoundrel”, That Capital, or better still, That Accursed Thing called Capital, might more accurately have translated the true intention of Marx’s demeaning and stigmatising language."
TIK has better translated it as "The J word" singular. Because once you replace Marx's use of Capitalism with small hat people, it becomes terrifying. As the same exact rhetoric is there that is used by antisemites but because he masked it with the word Capitalist people do not see it. Similar to when people use phrases like "money changers" to hide their antisemitism.
Basically to sum it up. Das Capital is literally a work of Fiction, built entirely off Marx's own prejudicious. By extension, the entire Socialist idea of a Capitalist is as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
IT's quite true. Amazon doesn't even provide good services anymore. Sellers have far more rights than Amazon's customers. And Customer Support almost doesn't exist anymore. Amazon helps a semi Monopoly, they have no competition that has any chance of competing, and even has the power to ruin people because they're the largest and sadly pretty much the only relevant online trade market. Try to get in contact with customer service on Amazon's website anymore. You're forced to communicate with them by phone anymore, all other methods are utterly terrible if not grabs your hand and takes you down a pathetic path that gives you no support.
For example, recently I bought some air filters being none of our local stores sell this particular size/make of air filter. I bought it off one Seller, said it shipped on the 12th. Tracking showed it never shipped until the 19th, the VERY DAY it was supposed to arrive, on top of that I noticed the Seller shipping it was a different Seller than the one I purchased from. However, when I tried to get into contact with Amazon there was literally no option whatsoever for me to actually ask them about this confusing mess, and why the Seller I bought it from a 99% approval rating Seller ended up getting replaced by a 66^ approval rated Seller? Why it said it shipped on the 12th but UPS never picked up the package until the 19th.
There is a serious lack of transparency. When I tried, they told me to get in contact with the Seller, a Seller that some how wasn't the one shipping the product, so I had to get in contact with the Seller Shipping the product a full week after they claimed they shipped it? Why was the Seller different? No option whatsoever to ask Amazon these questions even exist anymore. They give you a fake text chat with a robot that isn't even a robot but a pre-program button clicking game.
What happened to Amazon's good customer service? It's literally gone, there is no customer service at least online anyways. I literally had to call them directly, and fought through pre-recordings just to get an answer which was more frustrating than having to deal with our Local Cable/Internet Provider.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freedomordeath89 As I've been saying for years, and is primarily why I stopped calling myself a National Socialist, and no longer even a Socialist is primarily because irregardless what someone wants to Call National Socialism, one can not deny that National Socialism and Marxism were born from the same mother, or sown from the same cloth but into two different dresses. Either way, the core that created them are the same. I stepped away from either, as Socialism itself is doomed to fail, and National Socialism will if you remove it's Racist elements, isn't much different than Fascism, or Communism. I always believed if you could remove the Racism from National Socialism, it would be amazing, but well when you talk to a lot of "Self" proclaimed Nazis, well I don't think it's possible to separate at the very least, the Antisemitism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Peter-vf3dl Now that I have access to a keyboard.
The Nazi economic success was a 'fluke,' a success to at all? I'm sorry when I saw that it ruffles my feathers. By 1938 the Nazi's bankrupted the State. By taking wealth from the private sector and spending it on Social Welfare to appease the poor, and massive state military spending. It wasn't an ECONOMIC BOOM it was a State induced economic bubble, which creates an illusion of a economic boom. It wasn't a fluke, it was by design as well. The Nazis were gearing up for war, but at the same time needed to keep the people happy, make on their promises to your average mom/pop.
I mean what do you think the MEFO Bills were? They were State issued IOUs originally sold to investors voluntarily but as the party became lets say desperate for money, became involuntary. Similar to American War Bonds, and the Nazis issued these in the 1930s. Basically the State Stole Wealth from Private Citizens who had wealth to spare. They even went farther than this, in Gunter's Vampire Economy there are a number of references by Business owners who literally came out and stated direct Party Theft from their business, ie the Party came in and basically took what they wanted. When they wanted, they didn't know how much wealth they could keep. Worse for MEFO bills in particular no one by the late 30s had any belief the party would pay them back, yet were still being forced to buy them very well knowing that they were just giving their money to the Party.
The Nazi Party planned for war for years. Their primary military build up plan was slated to end by the mid 1940s. Issue is they bankrupt the country before getting there, so had to prematurely invade bordering countries years in advance of their original schedule. This is why the Panzer divisions were filled with Panzer I's which were originally designed as training vehicles, why the Panzer II which wasn't meant to be the breakthrough tank for the Army did all the heavy lifting for the first 3 years of the war. The German Army wasn't ready for war at least not in the sense that they planned originally, though they were far more ready than most of their neighbors. The Party had no choice but to shoot the arrow and hope it landed, or face absolute economic ruin.
I don't call that an Economic Miracle (Boom), or a Fluke. A Fluke would imply it was an accident. It was neither a strong economy, nor a accidental one. The only accident is that they ran out of money which is the opposite of a boom.
This Economy Boom you speak of is left over Post War Nazi Propaganda. The fact that people still believe that nonsense is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Garfield's Minion Interesting enough, how often the USSR stole technology or lazily copied western designs as well. Remember the T-144? The Soviet Concord, which literally was so badly built it had to be completely overhauled after every flight.
The MiG-27 which they copied the F-4 Phantom's variable intake, without knowing exactly why specific features on it even existed to begin with. So they added features to the MiG-27's intake for carrier landings for a ground based aircraft. They even went right down to the exact number of holes used to let airflow that gets stuck behind the intake to pass through, same size/number.
Lets not forget the MiG-31 when they tried to copy the American F-15. Monkey see monkey do scenario. Americans have that, we gotta have that!!! Just like the T-144, it wasn't as good as the F-15, not by a landslide but gotta show the Russian people we can build something that looks just as impressive.
Then you have the Buran space shuttle, enough said, just google a picture of it. It's literally visually identical to the US Space Shuttles. As if they copied it from whatever pictures they could find. Again, Monkey See Monkey Do. It flew once, and never flew again. They say it cost too much to operate, but it was likely just too dangerous to operate.
USSR was an absolute joke when you start looking into it. I mean at least we paid for the rights from the Russian company that designed the VTOL used in the F-35, the Soviets would just flat out try to copy it if not steal it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@halo3odst To be honest, it's a complicated thing to answer.
I would say Fascism is between the middle and far left. Far left being more extreme forms of Marxism. So to me Fascism is to the right of National Socialism, and National Socialism is to the Right of say Communism, or Marxist Socialism. Yet all of them are to the left of Economic Liberalism, Classic Liberalism and well Capitalism, which is basically Economic Liberalism, ie Classic Liberalism practiced at an economic level, ie practical application of Classic Liberalism.
Social Democracy being roughly in the middle. I would argue Fascism/National Socialism and Marxism are all to the left of Social Democracy because at least in a Social Democracy individuals still get a choice, but in Fascism National Socialism, and Marxism it's the Dictatorships of the ruling Party, and individualism doesn't really matter in spite of what Gentile or Hitler say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@12from121 All definitions are simplistic unless people have intentionally made them none simplistic for a reason, or themselves have no idea what it is so a wide range of different interpretations of it were created.
Issue being people who are against Socialism have a common definition, but it seems socialist themselves are the ones who can not come to a conclusion to what Socialism is, and trust me I've argued with plenty and so gosh darn many have such wide different views on what Socialism actually is.
I was taught in the late 90s that Socialism, and that was part of the education system is when the State owns/runs the economy. State owned medicine, state owned utilities. etc That hasn't changed. TIK explains quite well how the Nazis did this as well. State Ownership of the Means of Production. He goes into depth in the Public vs Private video that Common, Social, and Community Ownership relatively all mean the same thing, State ownership. He isn't wrong by saying that either.
Even the Ushanka Show another youtuber who was born and raised in the USSR who is a Libertarian Socialist himself said Socialism it is State ownership, so TIK's definition of Socialism is correct. He grew up in THE Socialist State of the 20th Century as well, so he was raised under Marxist Socialist principles.
The fact he goes off course in the video is to explain why his critics views on Socialism are incorrect. He addressed it in his Public vs Private video but people seemed to ignore that, so much of those earlier parts of the video are to help people understand what Socialism actually is, because people don't know what Socialism actually is.
You're counter point about Krupp and IG Farben are irrelevant, he addresses them in the video. He also addressed why he went to war with the Soviet Union, and how you're claim it's a War against Socialism is incorrect. You should perhaps watch the entire video.
He wouldn't have to go off course in the video if people actually watched his earlier videos, he addresses this in a later video. Because if people actually watched his earlier videos, and didn't keep bringing up the same arguments he has already addressed, he wouldn't of had to include them in this video. But he did, because people don't watch the gosh darn videos. =P
1
-
@12from121 Socialism can not exist without a State, as Society can not exist without a State.
Even the most ideal example, Viking Era Iceland which was literal Anarcho Capitalism, still had some form of governance, which was through a Absolute Democratic vote for all serious issues were leaders of all families would get together to vote on issues for the greater good of the entire Island. However, it didn't last forever. Because of the arnarcho aspects of their community, feuds, and fighting between the families of the Island left them so weak that Denmark had no problem conquering them.
Issue is, society is so complex today, that a State is necessary, it will never not exist. Even if you create an absolute democracy like Athens Greece, there will still be political officials who rise to positions of power, TIK described that quite well in his Public vs Private video actually.
Many Trotskyist realized this and this is why we ended up with a branch of Trotskyist called Posadist who wanted nuclear war to reset the world, they knew society was too complex that Anarcho Socialism would be impossible. So best destroy the entire world and start over.
Issue being. Socialism has everything to do with the state, because to gain the social control Socialist want would require the State, when compared to the complexity of the world that exist today. There would be no way to dismantling that Complexity without killing millions through failure/neglect/murder. The world without the state system would see a massive human die off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я My primary argument is that numerical superiority in man power isn't as important in modern war and is worthless without the equipment to back it up. The Red Army suffered greatly in 1941 because much of it's armor and airforce were wiped out during the opening of Operation Barbarossa much of it with it's pants down. A vast majority of those numerical numbers are also "filler" on both sides, poorly trained often conscripted infantry that just exist to 'deny' enemy access to land along the front, or to secure land that may still have some enemies hidden behind the lines. Like on the western front with the Allies, a bulk of the fighting was done by a minority of the armed forces when on the offensive.
By 1943 the German Army ran out of these... well ran very low on these experienced crack divisions they needed. Which evened the playing field greatly. Meanwhile the Red Army was no longer losing experiences divisions, no longer suffering mass loses in amss encirclements. Which also evened the playing field more. It's rarely ever about who has the most men, but who has the most equipment, and most crack troops, and best officers all in conjunction with each other. TIK isn't wrong that the quality of the German officer corp crumbled as the war progressed. The quality of everything German fell. I often tell people, it isn't about how good the Red Army was, but how bad the German Army deteriorated. You have to remember, both Russia and Germany struggled greatly during this conflict. By the end of the war, it wasn't like either side had 3-5 years of training crack divisions available to them ie Army units that spent years training. Often weeks, months if that even was the norm by the end of the war. When it came to say Latvian Conscripts serving as Red Army Riflemen, or the Volkssturm, you can argue 'days' of training.
I also believe the Germans believed the Red Army was much larger than it actually was. It explains why German small scale counter offensives were often routed by 'inferior' forces. If you imagine a German officer, or even soldiers believing such. Then you also take into consideration by this time Russian troops likely had far more reason to fight harder than their Axis counter parts, they knew they were winning, and like the Hard almost to the death fighting some German units conducted outside of Moscow for example when the Red Army counter attacked there. Even a small band of Riflemen resisting hard can cause a larger German counter attacking force to question the strength of the force they're facing.
Issue is, do these "false" reports by the Germans of Russian strength, were they intentionally false or did they actually believe that is what they were facing at the time? It isn't like they had "Soviet" personnel list. It is why I don't really disdain against people like Manstein when they're clearly stating figures that were likely false. I wouldn't be surprised if Manstein truly believed those were the odds he faced, and anyone post war trying to tell him otherwise, well... "Liar!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gilmaris You're just digging it deeper aren't you? You didn't have to mention those other killings. You mentioned killings which was Night of the Long Knives, ie political killings. You contradicted yourself when you said you never mentioned killings, yet you did. You didn't have to mention the killings " I " mentioned, because I used them as a comparison to the ones you mentioned. Hence why "THOSE" Killings were something " I " mentioned, not you.
Like I said, are you really that Blunt? I'm actually dumbfounded you'd rant so much about something that simple.
You should watch TIKs video, he does present quite a lot of policies Hitler's regime implemented that were Socialist in Creed, and presented many future plans they had which was Socialist in Creed, including their failed attempt to collectivize German Farms. Puts left hand to mouth Golly.
Again, this is coming off as yet another person trying to refute the video by not actually watching the video.
Maybe you should watch it, and timestamp things you can prove that are wrong. =P
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliantheapostate8295 Socialism isn't Liberal, no matter what way you try to spin it. Definitely if you're talking about economics.
For example Economic Liberalism, the most Liberal form of Economics is literally Capitalism under a different name. So if Capitalism is Liberalism and Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism, then Socialism can not be Liberalism.
People forget, Liberalism = Individual Liberties (Liberties, Liberty, Liberal etc). Being the original Utopian Socialist considered Socialism to be the opposite of Individualism, just about in every way or form, socialism is not Liberal.
For how authoritarian and even often totalitarian Socialist Countries become, it's so blatantly obvious Socialism isn't Liberal that anyone who still thinks that today are f***ing stupid.
Lastly, West Germany had a lot of help rebuilding it's economy post war. So they had a lot of help from the outside as well.
Unless you're saying "Liberal" as in Capitalism saved Germany. =D
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marxism, Nazism and Fascism are ideologies for morons who fall for slogans of "Fairness." They're written in ways to convince morons that they're smart by using simple logic they can understand which in turn then often broken by Contradictions intentionally inserted so they can get away with 'lying' to their readers. However, because of this the books are very hard to stomach by anyone that actually thinks logically. I barely survived the first two chapters of Mine Campfychair (intentionally spelled wrong for fun and to avoid censorship) for example before I literally gave up on it's nonsense. I honestly dunno how TIK can take reading these books, they're horrible.
It's like when I watched Hitler The Greatest Story Never Told, 6 hours of fake history and half truths. Something he also said he would review eventually, and I feel sorry for him. I had to do a lot of digging to find where that pseudo documentary got some of it's sources, including audio quotations and such. It wasn't fun. For example it used an interview with a women who was rescued by the German Army saying the German Army was great, roughly. Found out the audio used came from the Wife of Hans Zundel a well known Hol**** Denier, and back at the time when I watched it, it wasn't sourced so you didn't know where that audio came from, I happened upon it because I was into reading/watching that subject matter at the time and literally stumbled upon it. As it was one of my favorite subjects to debate/argue with people who posted such content on youtube at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
False:
Socialism pre-dates the Marx's Class Theory of history. If you go back to the Utopian Socialist, and Conservative Socialist of whom Marx hated who were the original Socialist, it has nothing to do with the Working Class. In fact many of those original Socialist literally considered Socialism to be the Polar Opposite of Individualism. Which means Socialism is by it's very core Anti-Liberal, and can not be libertarian either in spite of what some socialist claim including Bakunin. As to have a Collective the Individual must pay the price of their liberty. So all Collectivism is against the very core of Liberalism which is Individualism.
TiK's definition of Socialism is spot on. Common Control, Social Control, Public Control, State Control, National Control, Worker Controlled they all mean the same thing, the hierarchy that rules society has control of the means of production. In the case of Marxism, a Worker's State.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Corporations technically can never be privately owned. Even if it's a group of owners, it's still collectively owned, and can never be considered private. Even if the original owner holds majority share, it's still not privately owned. There are reasons these companies have CEOs, and boards, who basically act like a pseudo government, making democratic decisions within the company. TIK isn't wrong when he said Corporations are mini states within the Greater State. They operate/function exactly the same way. Some even go so far to share collective ownership with employee's by offering them shares in the company, in turn making them part owners, something Amazon has done in the past, which is why I find it ironic that leftist hate Amazon so much. Which means for those employees, they are part of the company well beyond just working there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 "It is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party." Bel Germa
Contradiction in Bel's Statement wonder if you can catch it which is Ironically a crux that ruins the entire Privatization argument causing it to lean in favor of Socialism. Also you're ignoring Gleichschaltung. 🙂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 Actually you're wrong about All being Right wing Conservatives.
Civic Nationalism is Liberalism
National liberalism is Liberalism
Economic Liberalism is well not surprisingly Liberalism.
All three fall under the Liberal side of social spheres. Civic Nationalism is in fact one of the corner stones of Liberal Democracy.
You can argue National Liberalism but honestly it's still Liberalism. Though I do like you brought them up as an example. As it's a good example on how the concept of Conservatism and Liberalism are not bound to left or right wing. Something many people don't get. So when Orwell claimed that "Conservatives and Socialist need to make admissions." ie he was hinting he considered Fascism to be a conservative form of Socialism in his "What is Fascism?" Article, he wasn't lying. It's quite obvious the Nazis were not Liberals, but liberalism isn't bound to the left or the right of the political spectrum.
You're also ignoring the Elephant in the room. They voted for the Enabling Act with the promise of a Coalition. Something the National Socialist ignored after the fact. Most of the parties were forced to disband, many of them forcefully, ie the SS and SA used terror to convince their leaders to disband their party. Not exactly how you handle allies right?
Again circles back to the Privatization program being nothing more than Consolidation. It's a slight of hand, a magic trick, a lie used to gain more power within the Party itself, a road to Totalitarianism. There was no room for other political parties within the Reich. The National Socialism are renown for breaking promises, to everyone. Including their supposed Capitalist allies socialism claim they were so friendly with.
Best part being many members of some of these parties joined the resistance, including a number of the assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. Again, great allies right?
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 I honestly don't know how any of that helps your argument outside of hurting it. Definitely the writer you quoted about Prussian Socialism. Though thanks for bringing that up, I'm pretty sure many will be delighted to see the concept of Right Wing socialism being brought up for a change, not many know of it, as it's often ignored in general political. Which circles back to what Orwell seemed to believe about Fascism. Most people are unaware of the concept.
Also if you've looked into the Self Help program by the Nazis, it was again a slight of hand. They didn't abolish welfare. They nationalized charity. ie instead of taxing citizens to pay for welfare they wanted people to donate their services. The NSV was the 2nd largest organization within Nazi Germany, 2nd only to their Labor Services. It had millions of members, hundreds of thousands of volunteers annually. Welfare didn't disappear, people were encouraged to offer their services to help people instead... but it was still organized by the central State.
Issue was in the long haul the Nazis resorted to property confiscation to make up for the lack of charity, definitely as times got harder during specific periods of the year.
So to say welfare didn't exist in Nazi Germany and that they were against the idea of it, was only on the surface, a veneer. Similar to other methods they used to make themselves sound apart from the Marxist, or Social Democrats, it was something they used to make themselves SOUND different but in the end, they still resorted to it. Kind of like when they used the term Privatization to make Consolidation and Nationalization sound less scary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte8671 They are wrong, credentials do not matter.
You can look up the definition of Socialism just about anywhere, and it doesn't include the idea of Labor. It might include worker control but, that isn't the core of it.
Common or Social Control of the Means of Production is the general definition of socialism used just about anywhere you look. This doesn't include labor exclusively, it isn't a requirement.
When you dig into what (Social Control) of the Production means, ie Social Control independently, then yes, it CAN involve labor but not exclusively. I mean Social Control even includes which is State Control one of the possible means of Social Control. This means a USSR like Totalitarian System and a single party dominating the economy like that in Nazi Germany would still fit into the classification of Socialism, regardless of whether labor was involved or not, regardless whether social programs that benefited the people existed or not. Welfare isn't socialism, labor isn't socialism. It's only Socialism when the State has Control over the economy.
In that respect, all Totalitarianism is the Ultimate form of Socialism. Bukharin predicted it, and Orwell also predicted it. Both socialist btw. Bukharin if I recall literally said Marxism would lead to a single Party Dictatorship, an open critic of Marx's ideas on Socialism. Orwell predicted the same after witnessing what happened in the 20/30/40s.
1
-
@nicknolte8671 I don't need to publish. It's widely available just about everywhere, that the definition of Socialism is the Social Control of the Means of Production, and Social Control is widely available for ease of reference. Social Control control can mean anything, it isn't exclusive to a Worker's State, or Worker's Society. Social Control = almost any Society. This is why TIK is actually correct when he says State Control, Public Control. Racial Control, Worker Control, National Control. Just about the only one that you don't find on Social Control is Racial Control which is something TIK made up to best fit the National Socialist as likely no one else thought of it yet, but when you look at it critically, it's no different than National or Worker Control. All Social Control means is Societal Control, what kind of Society it may be, may be different.
So it's a fallacy claiming something isn't socialism because it isn't built around labor. Socialism isn't about labor, nor the workers, that is Marxism. Marxism is a Class version of Socialism and is built around the concept of the Working Class. Which is why they're both wrong. Yes. MARXISM is Socialism, but Marxism isn't the Definition of Socialism, nor is it the only kind of Socialism, nor is it the ROOT of Socialism. So it's a fallacy calling something "NOT" socialism because it isn't Marxist Socialisms.
It doesn't matter how good of a historian Richard Evans is if his final conclusions are still wrong. Landa seems to have the same issue. If you recall I specifically said when you first posted quotes from Landa that it doesn't help your argument. Why? Because it doesn't take but a few seconds of reading to see his idea of Socialism is Marxist Socialism. Which means his entire view critical or not is flawed. He has legitimate criticisms, but only if said person he is criticizing is claiming to be a Marxist Socialist, or Socialist built off Marxism, like a Social Democrat. Issue is Spengler never claimed to be any of that. So... his entire premise is wrong. I mean if you can find where Spengler tries to claim he is a Social Democrat or a Marxist Socialist, or a Bolshevik. Please, present it, because he was always a rival of that. I mean Bukharin was highly critical of German Socialism, Marxist Socialism, yet claimed to also be a Socialist. He was a different kind of socialism.
You gotta remember that the 19th Century was a melting pot of Socialist ideas, socialism even today still isn't a concrete ideology, its a fractured one. Which is why the Definition of Social Control is so WIDE, and VARIED, because it isn't a unified movement. There is no single Definition of Social Control, which means there is no concrete definition of Socialism itself if the core of it Social Control of the Means of Production can mean so many different things. This is why TIK willingly splits these socialist ideologies up, into different grouping as it's literally the only way to make socialism make sense.
Though I've started reading Slaves of the Ring: Tolkien's Political Unconscious, though I'm going to assume its going to be a critique on materialism. Because people with Marxist views will likely say that about a story revolving around people obsessed with a ring. I will not be surprised if that is where that article leads. I was unware of Landa before, so at least I have someone else to commit to memory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christophertheriault3308 Honestly don't find the sob stories relevant. Failing of the employees for staying with a bad employer is a good example of how a bad business stays afloat longer than it should.
Employers are only as bad as their employees, and vice versa. Good employers who do not remove bad employees because they're too kind and good employees who stick with a bad employer out of a misguided since of loyalty are prime examples of a business that deserves to go under. Either way the business was being poorly run, regardless whether the owner was a good person or bad. If the situation was reversed and say your father was the shit employee and the employer was too kind to remove bad employees the business would of still suffered. Not saying your father was a shit employee, sounds to be the opposite. But you may get the point.
ie being exploited has nothing to do with who is at the top in short. A Business can be exploited by employees as much as the employers. I mean my employer is one of the kind hearted ones, he literally waited one day the whole day watching a coworker's station, the person snuck out without clocking out, wasn't the first time. I chitchatted with him and he told me "If he doesn't show up by 1:30PM, he is regrettably fired." Be it this wasn't the first time the guy snuck out without clocking out. He doesn't like laying people off, and even has a self supervised view on his employees, ie he has a hands off attitude if you get the job done that is all he cares about. As he said "I learned long ago, stay out of people's way, they know what they're doing more than I do."
Issue is does he deserve to get his business taken from him because by the socialist view all business owners are capitalist, regardless... so...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yewhannes But that implies that Marxist had already redefined Socialism for themselves, as they're the origin of Class Socialism. Prior to Marxism socialist didn't even consider Class an important factor in the ideology. All that Socialism was then was Collectivism vs Individualism as they stated it was the Polar Opposite of Individualism. All socialist primarily wanted was for people to collectivize and put the community above themselves. Class Socialist do not have the right, nor ever will have the right to hold a monopoly on the term. There are too many variations of Socialism and ones that many still follow for that to be possible. This is why the definition is often so vague, ie common/social ownership, and the Community/Society can vary wildly.
You already admitted Marxist changed the meaning of Socialism. Which is funny because Hitler accused them of doing such. The reason he wanted to steal the word Socialism was to steal it back, and wanted to create his own socialism based on what he believed REAL Socialism should be. Which is exactly what Marx already did. He created his Socialism and accused all prior Socialist as not being Real Socialist going so far of accusing them of being Bourgeois Socialist. So basically you're being a hypocrite by accepting that reality, because you're mocking Hitler despite Marx did the same thing.
However, this also means the rise of Nationalism in the 19th Century also had a lot to do with the rise of Socialist thought in the 18th/19th Centuries. As Society stepped away from the feudal system gave way to mercantilism, and the rise of Industrialization changed the social landscape dramatically that collectivist movements everywhere struggled for control of what this new world would turn into as a result. In the end by the dawn of the 20th Century, the Nationalist had won, with the concept of the Nation State which would dominate the 20th Century in particular. In most respect have still won in spite of all the Marxist Socialist rhetoric. The Nationalist adopted the Collectivist thinking of Pre-Marxist Socialism, and many even adopted many economic principles championed by Marxist. Including the State intervention in the Free Market for the benefit of the Community, their Community their National Community.
You see this actually with how Nationalist view the Community. They don't care about Marx's Public Ownership of the means of production as much, and only really care about the National Ownership, ie National as in Nationality of the means of Production. Which is why nationalist are completely happy with steal business from resident aliens, and international corporations etc. Actually we saw this with Trumps threats to Nationalize then Re-privatize TikToK into the hands of an American Company, or two years ago when China nationalized then Corporatized a lot foreign owned factories owned by 3M during the C19 pandemic so the the State could prioritize distribution of medical supplies to China vs international markets driving where that supplies goes. The Nation is the Collectivized Community.
1
-
@Arno2022 Sounds a lot like the DAP's principles before Hitler joined the party.
A lot of people don't realize how much Socialist thought had on Nationalist, and Nationalism itself. Critics often saying they're Nationalist so they can not be Socialist despite National Socialist (Not the Nazis) had existed almost as long as Socialist thought itself has existed.
So much so that in my opinion Nationalism itself is a branch of Socialism. One built around the "Nation" and I mean Nation not State. If people understand what Nation is, it means Common people, or people of the same blood/culture. So it's the collectivization of a Community that shares a culture in short. It's why the phrase Nation State exist, it describes a specific kind of State built around a Ethnicity/Culture. As the term Nation and State are technically different.
Instead of being about something as arbitrary as Social Class, Nationalist won out in the end because Nationality had more appeal to the masses. Mussolini adopted Nationalism for that reason as well, it was a far stronger glue than Classism adopted by the Marxist. Today we live in a world absolutely dominated by Nation States as a result, which is living proof that Marxist class theory nonsense just doesn't work. It's also why regimes like the USSR resorted to Nationalism in the end. Why China despite trying to destroy it's National Identity is now trying to rebuild it. Why North Korea even has Race based Marriage laws. Even the Communist couldn't ignore how useful nationality is to collectivization. I'd even argue the legacy of the USSR is now an Ultra Nationalist Russia who dreams of it's Communist Past, their National Identity is the USSR, it's that culture they dream of.
Even if the Class Socialist dream of a one world International Community, they're just creating a new National Community that just encompasses the world so the end result is still Nationalism. They will resort to common relatable aspects we all share, like we are all human, or there is no race but the human race and create their culture of their own to identify as, that is how culture is created it wasn't just "THEIR" it evolves into existence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 Simple logic. If they were true, you'd have no reason to delete them. If you want to be left alone you still have no reason to delete them. If you do not want your time wasted, you still have no reason to delete them.
Ignoring a little red 1 in the corner is an option, not replying to a little red 1 in the corner is also an option.
The only reason you would delete them would be you were ashamed you lost. I would never delete a comment, regardless what I wrote, even if I regretted what I wrote. You sir, have no integrity.
The only people I see who delete comments are people who absolutely fail to win any argument and make themselves look like a fool. It's a knee jerk reaction people learned from social media platforms, and one I'm glad I didn't learn.
So by deleting those comments, you're admitting you were wrong, maybe not in words, but by your own actions/behavior.
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 Maybe because someone isn't logic minded? It's quite obvious from my end.
It's not about what you intended, it's about how people perceive. Someone sees that you deleted those comments, they will look at you negatively on every other comment they see you make. I remembered you, others will as well, so when they see that you deleted those comments, they will think you're hiding something, or realized you were wrong, maybe even embarrassed yourself so badly that you twitter style started hitting the delete button, but being the comments are not there, you have NO WAY to prove your case, or to defend yourself on why you deleted those comments.
In conclusion, anyone that sees that you deleted those comments, will have little faith in anything you post ever again. So I guess it's fortunate that that comment was Pinned. Because I'm smiling, I'm pretty sure TIK and the General fellow are as well.
You don't get it, well that is why you have already failed.
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 You deleted those comments, so there is no proof that they lied about you. That is a problem, you created.
"I don't care." Obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't be in this video's comments for nearly a year. Stop trying to deflect. Your actions contradict what you're saying.
Also no, you didn't address it to a satisfactory way. Outside of making a whiny excuse that isn't an excuse. As my argument has always been there is no excuse to delete your own comments. Your answers have not been satisfactory, and come off entirely as nothing but petty excuses. Because you contradict many of those excuses, including "I don't want to waste my time." yet here you are doing the same on me, so obviously, you do not care whether you're wasting your time or not, similar to myself. GOLLY what a strong, powerful, and glorious excuse, which you contradict every time you reply. lol
1
-
1
-
@personaa422 It has nothing to do with projection. It's perception. Seriously, how insane are you? Yet you keep throwing projection around.
Perception, is how a person perceives your behavior. One person shoots another person, one person saw the action and believed it to be self defense, a second person saw their action and believed it to be murder. In individuals interpretation, and general perception of what they saw can literally change the outcome of a story, it's actually why witness testimony's are not normally reliable.
Projection, is when a person inserts their own personal feelings upon another's behavior. I'm AAANNGRRRY so I treat other people as if they're being AAANNNNGRRRY back at me. Stop yelling at me!!!! (Other person was talking quietly and not even yelling). I actually see this behavior between friends/couples a lot after they have a bad day. One will yell at the other even if the other didn't do anything wrong, accusing the other of being hostile to them, while it's entirely the person who is accusing the other who is the one being hostile. Projection in a nutshell.
There is a clear difference between the two.
I would have hated to have gone to whatever school you went to if you can not tell the difference between Perception, and Projection. It's literally in the names. I'm not projecting my own feelings upon your behavior, but discussing the perception people will have on your actions There is a clear difference. It is YOU'RE fault for not seeing that difference. Which sadly doesn't help you in the slightest. I mean if you can not tell the difference between Perception and Projection, my god, what other words do you not know but throw around like candy? Socialism? Fascism? hehe
1
-
@personaa422 You clearly do not know what Projecting is.
Projecting is when you attribute something you're going through with someone else, and I already explained that. Someone who is angry, accuses someone else of being angry. Someone who has a failed marriage, making jokes about people having failed marriages to make themselves feel better. Someone who is Gay who bullies other people who are Gay, or accuses other people of being gay because it gives them some boost in personal morale. Literally the definition of Projecting. You do not project your world views onto other things, that isn't what projecting is.
Because if you're projecting, you would be say in theory, a communist who bullies other communist for being communist while denying you're a communist. That is projecting, you're ashamed of being a communist so you bully other communist for being communist. That is Projecting. It's a very simple concept.
It's a hypocritical action by someone who suffers from major insecurities and projects that insecurity onto others. It's a defense mechanism, and has nothing to do with perception. You proved quite clearly that you seem not to understand this, or perhaps, you're projecting, and accusing me of projecting because you're already insecure with your arguments, proven again by the fact you deleted your comments.
Perception is completely based on how someone views things, and events. It has nothing to do with Projecting. Projecting is a behavior, not a belief, or view of things. It's a negative attribute attributed to mentally unstable people.
1
-
@personaa422
"I had my reasons to delete comments. I've told you those reasons. None of them have anything to do with me not feeling the points are valid given i've said the same things I put in those comments elsewhere, and even to you. "
Irrelevant though. As I said, it has nothing to do with why you did it, but how people will perceive why you did it. Your reasons are irrelevant. Honestly, they were piss poor reasons to boot. As proven by your actions post deletion.
As I already said. You said you didn't want to waste time on commenting/replying to people that would never listen. Yet here you are doing the same, in defense for deleting comments against someone who isn't going to listen to your excuses, because they're bad excuses. You proved one of them wrong already just through your actions. All this time, spent defending that action, and trying to steer the conversation away from those actions using projecting as a defense mechanism, accusing me of projecting myself?
As I already said, it isn't about you. It's about how everyone else sees you for deleting those comments. They do not know the reasons, and never will, maybe unless they magically find their way into this subthread. Which I highly doubt it. Those who may, may not even believe your excuses, similar to how I do not.
Either way. Those who do know, get to smile over it. I know I have. I'm pretty sure TIK and General have. And someone already made a fun joke about the situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1