Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "‘But TIK, the reason WHY Hitler started WW2 makes no sense!’" video.

There is a reason I used to use the quote from Katsumoto from The Last Samurai "I want to know my enemy." As it fits perfectly into history study. It's the main reason I got into studying the German Empire, Nazi Germany, the USSR and the the Japanese Empire. It's also why already by the time I was in highschool I would say things "Regardless of Nazi Germany's crimes, we would of been at war with them anyways. The crimes they committed were fortunate for us after the war." As I knew very well already by then that Nazi crimes were not the reason we went to war with them but for other political and economic reasons. To be honest, I personally think the crimes they committed broke history, as you can argue today, socialist have been fighting tooth/nail to distance themselves from Nazi Germany, and Fascism as a whole, which when combined with the Cold War, poisoned much of the historical narrative for decades.
60
Actually ran into one of those "TIK is making stuff up, or is a moron, or doesn't know what he is talking about" people the other day on one of Mark Felton's videos on the Rhineland Meadow POW Camps. I commented thanking Mark for making that video, but eventually in the comment mentioned I was hoping TIK would get around to making a video on this subject but I'm glad someone touched up on it because of how this particular story has been used in a propaganda sense throughout the 90s and 2000s. Someone later commented they unsubscribed from TIK when he said the Anarchist sided with the Fascist in Spain. Someone else later replied saying TIK doesn't even know what the Socialism was, and I pointed out the Oxford and Webster Dictionary definition of the word, and stated it's exactly what TIK used in his videos even before the one he did on Spain and Franco. Replied to me in turn saying "Exactly, if TIK believed that to be the definition of Socialism then he is a moron or lying because the Nazis were Capitalist." Person then claimed they were a collage professor and taught international relations as if that makes a difference or something along that not, of course I paraphrased what happened. But I'm quite glad that TIK includes references in his videos anymore.
6
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
@abellseaman4114 Communazis. 😀
3
@wkruse84 It's denialism. It does not have to make sense. And yes they do often claim Stalin was Fascist but mostly because most Socialist on the left view militarism and oppression as exclusively Fascist. Ignoring that Fascism itself has nonthing to do with militarism and it's oppression is identical to other Socialist oppression. But the reason for this is as TIK described. Socialist often do not know what Socialism is. They live in a warped world.
2
Wind Rose But without economic freedom there is no social freedom. Also Taxation isn't normally necessary. Prior to the 1930s the USA did not even have sn income tax. For public works projects the state sold Bonds and asked for donations from private individuals, at a national level income tax was only introduced by FDR during his first term as President. Yet prior to FDR the US Navy was the 2nd largest in the world. So in spite no income tax the Federal government found ways to fund the US Navy quite handsomely. 🤔
1
Shoot I was wrong it was Wilson not FDR. Oh well still includes over 100 years of US history. Gives me one more of a long list of reasons for calling him America's worst US President. Literally he was even a lost cause revisionist which is equal to a Wehraboo. Shakes fist! Wilson!!!
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
Wind Rose I think you missed the point. The ones that manufacture the medicine and tools are not the medical system. They're outside of it. The State also has idiotic regulations on the sale of drugs as well which makes these monopolies impossible to combat. Good example being when the State of Illinois tried to allow locals to shop for drugs in Canada which were much cheaper. Despite being the Obama administration, the FDA put a stop to it. So instead of allowing Americans to purchase foreign goods at a cheaper price the State propped up the monopolies to ensure they didn't have to complete. It's a perfect example of when Capitalism isn't allowed to function, and how often Monopolies and Corporations need the support of the central state to ensure an unfair playing field. The state is supposed to protect from this but does not even when Liberal politicians are in power. Because it would require the to admit the State's bureaucracy is part of the problem. This carries over into more than just medicine as well. To meet FDA standards isn't always easy and the FDA as Also been known for corruption. You can not for example start a business that say makes so scalpels without spending a considerable amount to meet said standards making it again near impossible for competition to sprout to count these monopolies. You could be a very skilled smith and make them by hand and would not be allowed to sell them.
1
As funny as it is it's more of a coincidence. Now the Newtypes from Mobile Suit Gundam is a more direct reference to Aryanism in anime, under a different name. You have class warfare, Spacenoids vs Earthnoids. Then Aryanism in the mask of Newtypes. So both Marxism and Nazism incorporated into the Franchise, just under different names. Of course it never goes deeper than that, as the franchise is about empathy vs a lack of empathy. People willing to start wars, and murdering millions for selfish idealist reasons. Zeons basically being the Communazis of the series.
1
@wkruse84 Because communist deny Stalin's crimes even many of them say the Holodomor citing people including Einstein. Then those that don't will often resort to saying Stalin wasn't a Socialist but a Fascist.
1
@abellseaman4114 I honestly dunno why you're even @ing me in the first place. I'm not one to disagree with comparisons between the USSR and Nazi Germany, and myself an avid believer in the Nazis and Fascist were Socialist. Heck I used to be a gross supporter of Nationalist forms of Socialism when I was younger, read all about Mussolini's ideas on Fascism. Like all people I grew up, realized how utterly bad Socialism was, sadly not everyone realizes it even when they grow up. I checked my comments in this subthread and I don't see how you could of gotten that idea that I would disagree with you to begin with, my comment of "Communazi" was meant to be a joke, ie Communist and Nazis are very alike. I think you're commenting to the wrong person.
1
@abellseaman4114 So accusing Communist of being just as horrible as Nazis is watering down. Seriously? xD
1
@abellseaman4114 When did I ever insult western democracy? You're pulling on straws that don't even exist.
1
 @abellseaman4114 Actually, the phrase is "White noise." If you're going to insult someone, at least do it properly.
1