Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Lenin before the Russian Revolution" video.

But Lenin wasn't a real Socialist. 😮 But Stalin wasn't a real Socialist. But Mao wasn't a real Socialist. But (Insert Name) wasn't a real Socialist.
545
@kwestionariusz1 Kameraden = Comrades Plural. Your point being? Alte Kameraden = Old Comrades.
12
@V0451 Factually untrue. Even Marx himself did. They don't use the words "But that's not Real Socialism" that is more of a modern phrase, normally they say it in a more complex manor. Lenin also did when he said no one understood Marx, which implies the Socialist before "Lenin" according to Lenin were not real socialist as they never understood the Prophet Marx. TIKhistory has shown so many examples of "But it's not real Socialism" by Socialist throughout the early 20th Century that it's undeniable really. I've seen comments saying the same thing. I've had people saying Lenin wasn't a Real Socialist, or Communist or whatever. I've had Socialist saying he wasn't a Socialist and Communist saying he wasn't a Communist.. amazing how their is such division there. Often accusing him of being the latter, ie if they're a Socialist trying to distance him from Socialism and Communist sometimes do the same. Then you have the ones who absolutely love him... and want him to be their ideology. Again so much division. Every Socialist click has their own opinions on Socialism. Even Animarchy I had a talking with him one day and he said that he Personally Disagrees that "State Socialism" is Socialism, ie "But it's not REAL SOCIALISM." He just didn't say it like that, as I said the message is the same, wording different. In the end Socialism ends up being whatever said Socialist wants it to mean. Anything outside of that isn't "True Socialism" or are confused, or misguided or whatever words they like to use to say Not True Socialism without directly saying it. Hitler also used the same claim when he said Marxism is anti property and real socialism is not. Basically saying Marx also wasn't a "Real" socialist just again not in the same words. Mind you Hitler was referring to pre-Marxist socialism which hasn't always been about property, but more about society banding together to help each other placing their community's interest over their own. ie Utopian or Conservative forms of Socialism which predate the Marxist movement entirely. ie pre Worker Class nonsense and property nonsense. I'd argue the whole nationalist movement of the 19th Century was at it's core a utopian socialist movement.
9
@Hunterchuck Lenin was not a liberal.. nor was Marx, Mao or Stalin. Collectivism is in direct opposition to Liberalism. TIK even states Lenin hated Liberalsin this video.
5
@nikolascepanovic539 because they're children in adult bodies who want to be taken care of and miss being taken care of. Also Yugoslavia destroyed itself not long after the USSR collasped so obviously it must not have been sunshine and rainbows as it had the most violent end of any former Communist State in Europe. This implies a lot of people were not happy. Also the TheUshankaShow explained this phenomenon as Nostalgia. You remember the good times but forget the bad. He used Mushroom hunting in Soviet Ukraine as an example he remembers how fun it was but doing it now days he's eaten alive by bugs. His memories selected the good parts while weeding out the bad.
3
@Hunterchuck Social Control over Society as a whole, where common will is more important than Individual will. Basically Group Power over the Individual. With each Socialist click defining different details on what the Group has power over or even what the Group itself is. This is just about the only reasonable why to define it that fits within the broader spectrum of Socialist ideolgues. Good example, the Feminist who want to place women at the top of Society. Businesses, Government etc. Their concept of Social Control is women in control. Their revolution is placing women at the top of our civilization. Basically specific Feminist who want this are Gender Socialist. Even if they never use the word Socialist.
2
@Hunterchuck Well that is why Marxism is Marxism it is it's own brand of Socialism. Which itself has splintered quite heavily. Conservative Socialism or Utopian Socialist didn't talk about Classes per se let alone the Working Class. Marx added that bit, in fact the Socialized Man bit was the creation of the Working Class as a concept. Marx came along around the tail end of Feudalism when you had the Nobility, Serfs and Merchant Class. Concept of the Working Class didn't really exist yet. Basically because of Marx people have been conditioned into believing there is such a thing as a Class of Workers. It's the main reason he said the Proletatiat needs to organize and create their class because functionally it wasn't self conscious at the time. It's also why I consider Marxism Nationalist. Because the Socialization and creation of the Workers as a Class then becoming Political organized and self Conscious is literally the same process Nationalist used to create National Identities. Marx essentially created a new Nationality in the process one that defines their identity as a Class not an Ethnicity.
2
@1HiddenSecret Conservatism is preserving the Status Quo. It's not a set belief system. What is Conservative in one part of the world in turn is radically different in another. American Conservatism for example is built on a foundation of Classic Liberalism and is inherently Liberal. It's also why Christians Conservatives are classified as Christian because they're not the same as other Conservatives. To be a Conservative in Imperial Russia was to be a Monarchist. To be a modern Russian Conservative = being Socialist. Many Russian Tubers who recently left Russian are Orthodox Christians who are classified in Russia as Liberal because they want Individual Rights still. So there is a lot of nuance.
2
@Hunterchuck I don't find it unfortunate. It's the only way to explain Anarchist, State Socialist, Nazism and everything else that called themselves Socialist. Social Control over Society as a whole explains Social Control of the Means of Production while also explaining why such movements also Socialize not just the means of production but also the education system, Social establishments, clubs, unions etc. They never stop with just the Means of Production.
1
@Hunterchuck but Wealth of the Nation wasn't built around classist views. Adams himself used a lot of different terms describing the poor, workmen, layman and labour. Not emphasizing people as a social class, as wage labour isn't a class. The book is an attempt to understand the early industrial revolution while being a critique of Mercantilism. Marx wouldn't demand the Workers to become self conscious as a Class if it was viewed as a legitimate social class at the time by the public at large. Just because an academic writes it doesn't mean the people include those who worked for wages agreed. They were not self conscious. The rise of the Working Class among the layman wouldn't happen until after Marx. Even the French Revolution was conducted by a broad portion of society and ironically some of the biggest resistance was serfs who didn't want the Serfdoms to dissolve out of fear. TIKhistory's first video on Mosley actually points out that Employees and Employers were still politically on the same side even into the late 19th century. So even decades after Marx the Worker Class was still not organized. I'd argue even in the 2020s that still hasn't happened as many including myself reject the idea that the Working Class exist.
1
@Hunterchuck Recommend me to read a Social Activist because you don't like me referring to someone you consider a Social Activist? Is there a difference? 🤔
1
@Hunterchuck 1. Username literally means Old Comrades plural. I used to be a Socialist and I've read much of Marx over the years. I jumped ship about 5-6 years ago to the Libertarian camp. Used to be just Kameraden but yt policy changes forced me to change it so adding old because of my age was fitting. 2. About Vets, I don't think you undertand their perspective. Not all of them are proud and those that are are because the American ideas they believe in are classic liberal. They're defending those ideals not the State. Many of which become opponents of the Federal Government because their service and injustices they faced while serving as well. Like many of the Iraq/Afghan vets not wanting the US to get involved in foreign conflicts anymore. Men who proudly served but the failures of those conflicts turned them into isolationist.
1
@Hunterchuck Adieu
1
@Hegemonicmarxism Joke is I've seen Socialist calling all those people as being Not Socialist. Matters what kind of Socialist said person is though.
1
@Hegemonicmarxism He is on most levels. Almost every argument against the idea only prove he isn't a Marxist Socialist.
1
@Hegemonicmarxism Or you have zero understanding of the Nazis. Lol
1
@tyrvinodinson9790 And millions died as they sat comfortably in former palaces.
1
@rotguts Well a lot of Anarchist use a false definition of State, so they can call themselves Anarchist. Basically saying a State requires a Monopoly on Violence to be classified as a State. So Anarchist can make a governing body and still claim they're Stateless despite being the Definition of a State. Ignoring the obvious that States do not hold a Monopoly on Violence, never have and never will. I mean you get reminded of this every time there is a riot. State may hold a Monopoly on prosecution of law, but they don't even hold a Monopoly on enforcement which is why citizen arrest happen. 🤔 It's a serious flaw in how Anarchist view the world at large.
1
@shannonm.townsend1232 "the organized working class is largely dissipated and notably absent, has been for decades" Yet they make up almost the entire work for in the United States. yet you dismiss their existence in the modern era? What author did you read who made that up? Likely to explain why Marxist don't get voter support in America as a coping method. You might as well be living in a fantasy land if you think the Working Class has been mostly dissipated in America.
1
The Capitalist just gets replaced by Party Privilege. But unlike Capitalism you no longer have real choices.
1