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

  1. 8
  2. 8
  3. 7
  4.  @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
  5. 7
  6. 7
  7. 7
  8. 7
  9. 7
  10. 7
  11. 7
  12. 7
  13. 7
  14. 7
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 7
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 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
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. ​​​​​​​​​​ @VocalBear213  I have to agree with others on that. That video is actually one of the reasons I made my comment as the uploader relies heavily on a BAD ARGUMENT. My favorite was when he criticized TIK for not properly citing a source for a Comic that showed Marx being funded by Capitalist. Despite the comic was used in jest by TIK and worse the video of TIK he cited it from was a Critique video of a book that tried to make such a claim. Issue is he did a Gotcha when he tried to claim TIK didn't cite it so people couldn't find the source. An illustrator who was an Anarchist who later became a Leninist. Saying why would a Marxist make that comic? Of course TIK would hide that... bla bla. Ignoring 1. Who made the comic isn't that relevant. 2. Ignoring at this time in history a lot of Anarchist broke ranks or were opposed to Marxism. So bring up that the guy was an Anarchist and became a communist explains why the comic was made to begin with. The whole argument held no relevance really. Smoke and mirrors. What is worse #2 actually supports when TIK mentioned many people at the time believed it was true.. and guess what including anti State Anarchist who viewed Marx as a tool. So.. he actually helped TIK. Basically the whole comic thing was a waste of viewers time to paint TIK as dishonest and he does this a lot. It also shows he knows not nearly as much as he thinks if he didn't realize Anarchist had a beef with Marxist. The guy pulls at straws in short. The fact he built a whole argument over that and failed at the same time made it stick out so much. He ignores the most fundamental part of my original comment as well. Which is why I made it. That TIK doesn't have to AGREE with the authors. That is where most of TIK's supposed contradictions come from as well Ignoring conclusions the authors often make within the same paragraphs. Issue is the contradictions are already there and the AUTHORS made them not TIK.
    6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 6
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. You're fundamentally wrong. Marxism didn't really start taking roots in the Socialist movement until the mid 19th Century. Socialism has been around since the 18th Century. The first generation of Socialism, dubbed later by Socialist as "Utopian Socialist" didn't even mention Class, or the Working Class in their ideology. Being Utopian Socialist is considered the Foundation of all modern Socialism, it heavily implies Socialism isn't about the Working Class. However, Marxism is. Marxism is a branch of Socialism that rejects Utopian Socialism for a Class Theory of History, and a Socialist system built around Worker Control of the means of production. So your definition of Socialism is literally Marxism not Socialism. There are also other versions of Socialism that pre-dates Marxism as well, Conservative Socialism also came before Marxism, Marx himself called it Bourgeois Socialism. However this was also not built on Class or the Workers. So we have two forms of Socialism alone which pre-dates Marxism which isn't about Worker's Control. So you're literally as blatantly wrong as you could possibly be. Socialism didn't start with Marx, nor do Marxist hold a Monopoly on the term Socialist. So Socialism MUST BE more than just Worker's Control, being Worker's Control doesn't apply to earlier forms of Socialism. I think the reason why you think it's so similar to Feudalism is because Socialism technically is even in a "Worker's Paradise." I'd suggest watching videos on Ushanka Show about life in the Soviet Union from a person who grew up in the Soviet Union. Basically saying Socialism is Worker Control is literally a fallacy and proves ignorance to the evolution and history of Socialism itself.
    6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6