Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
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