General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Kameraden
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "So, Hitler was a Communist in early 1919" video.

I think the best argument that I've seen toward against Worker's Rising up actually came from the Channel "Foundation for Economic Education" in their video called, Hollywood's Favorite Trope: "It's Just Business" they summed it up quite well when saying the Workers at Starbucks don't actually make the coffee, they don't farm the beans, they don't truck in the resources in nor are they involved at all in the over all process getting the coffee from a forest in South Africa to the kitchen, all the workers does at Starbucks is follow instructions taught to them by the owner or shift manager. Basically every single person ahead of the Worker at Starbucks has more rights to the claim "they make the coffee" than someone wearing a green apron who works there. People who say business owners do not work is a blatant lie, definitely those who built their business themselves. I know where I work I've seen the plant owner go up in utter rage, not at his workers but trying to deal with customers. People often forget that Business Owners have a job as well normally. In this case he is constantly on the phone with customers answering questions, when he isn't he is patrolling the factory floor waving good morning, good afternoon and trying to get a cheerful mood by hanging out with his employees, because well dealing with customers is a nightmare.
29
@walterbailey2950 It goes both ways. Napoleon in particular system of law is the foundation of common law in western Europe, yet despite being heavily influenced by Rousseau he still stripped Jews of their civil rights and excluded them in particular. Regardless individuals will ensure no common belief system will ever be followed to the letter. Even those who create the ideologies are bound by their own individual beliefs and personal bias. Say 200+ years later that flaw will always be a factor.
11
@CantusTropus Oh it does, it's why every socialist revolution leads to starving billionaires. You literally have to uproot the entire economy and start anew which will have horrific consequences, even then the Socialist system itself is broken and is grossly inefficient and will likely never achieve even a fraction of what Economic Liberalism or a Market Economy can achieve.
9
@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
@walterbailey2950 Classim and Racism are relatively the same thing. Nationalism is in itself the end stage of all People's and Worker's State. Regardless of their starting rhetoric. In short, neither point really matters.
8
@slaterslater5944 Actually TIK points that issue out in this video. Rohem the left wing Socialist of 1933 was fighting the left in 1919 while Hitler the right wing anti christ was fighting for the communist in 1919. None of them were right wing but all leftist fighting other leftist. YET leftist always pick and choose who is left or right at whatever time they wish for coincidence.
7
@walterbailey2950 Yet those ideologies are made by individuals with personal opinions.
7
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
@zachio69 Well I can tell you didn't read my comment just as you likely didn't watch the video either. You entirely missed when I said "... prior to the summer of 1919..." every and I mean literally every single point you made is from post summer of 1919 not pre summer of 1919. TIKhistory even points that out in the video. Your entire fit in both your reply to my comment and your reply to this video is not relevant. Also many points you do mention are not entirely true either way. TIKhistory has never argued that Hitler was a Marxist during his years in the DAP/NSDAP. Again if you bothered to watch the video you would know that. TIKhistory has made pretty clear destinations between Nazism and Marxism just as he has Fascism vs Marxism and Fascism vs Nazism. Again actually watch his videos and hear his arguments so you actually KNOW WHAT to argue about, as you clearly missed it by a mile. If you want to know TIKhistory's views on what Nazism is, watch his more recent video Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming... and actually watch it before trying to make an argument because you utterly failed here.
6
@JamesPeers5454 They're the same side, just people's concept of said sides are messed up. Example, if you go back to the formulation of Left vs Right, it harkens back to the divide in the original French Republic's political divide, a republic founded by Liberal Revolutionaries. Issue is much of the intelligentsia which gave rise to the Enlightenment Period which founded modern Liberal views were themselves members of the middle (merchant class) or lower to upper aristocracy. The primary divide was not Liberal vs Conservative like many on the left try to preach, but Equality vs Liberty. The left wanted equality while the right wanted liberty ie democracy but maintain the general social structure of the country. Both sides were primarily Liberal. You see this even today. What rights does the Right fight to preserve? Liberty. The Left still fight for Equality even if it's at the expense of Liberty. It's why both sides are Liberal but fight for different Liberal values. Conservativism was coined by the left primarily to explain why supposed Revolutionaries would dare oppose the Left's battle for Equality. This is also why the Right supports Individualism and Economic Liberalism as well. Both Liberal ideas.
5
No it was after he join the Illuminati, and came in contact with Aliens from Pluto.
5
@CrazyLeiFeng Similar thing happened in East Germany and Hungary. Post war former Nazis and Fascist became leaders and members of the local Communist parties. West German Social Democrats nicknamed them Red Nazis... which is funny as Nazis always flew a red banner in a literal sense. But there are too many examples of Communist, Marxist, Fascist and Nazis fluidly switching sides. Sometimes multiple times.
5
@walterbailey2950 Was he an intellectual then? If so then it's proof someone who follows Rousseau may not uphold his ideals to the letter. In this case, antisemitism which Rousseau was devoutly against, yet Napoleon endorsed.
5
@theantilifeequation8150 Stalin was a continuation of Lenin, just cranked up a few notches. And Neither Stalin or Hitler were as extreme as Mao, who also was devoutly supportive of Leninism. I wouldn't say they're so extreme that they don't fit in the spectrum, they're just examples of what the left in it's extreme thrives to be whether it knows it or not, regardless of all the theories and speeches.
4
Well that is a blatant fabrication of history. All these events in TIKs video happened in the Spring of 1919. Hitler didn't become a spy until the SUMMER of 1919. He supposedly became a spy for the Army to spy on the German Worker's Party, before he eventually joined the Party itself. So you're literally getting your timeline all mixed up. There is also scant evidence he actually was a spy even for the DAP.
4
Can be said about all Socialist then. Being Political on the public stage makes someone a politician. So Lenin was a politician, so would be Marx himself. They were all selling a product to the common people, which is why it evolved changed and contradicts... because they would tell people what they wanted to hear. This is also why I roll my eyes when Socialist call Hitler a liar as it's blatantly obvious, but it's also hypocritical as so did Marx and Lenin. So..
4
@walterbailey2950 So in short, he is relatively redundant in this day and age as few movements that exist now really uphold his ideals.
4
@awkwardautistic "First" identified. Issue is we are talking about the spring of 1919 not the fall of 1919. TIK also pointed out that there is some evidence that he tried to join the Communist Party in 1918 in another video. He also points out in this video that Richard Evans states Hitler had already learned the oratory of how to speak like a Socialist before ever joining the DAP which means he at the very least already learned how to speak, or had been listening to socialist speeches for years and possibly even practicing prior to. He wouldn't of learned how to speak like that if he didn't hang out with Socialist prior. Also there has been a lot of evidence over the years about a specific Cafe' house in Vienna that Hitler, Trotsky, Tito and Stalin all visited and was a major Socialist/Communist hot spot in Vienna. This would of been years before he joined the DAP. Why would Hitler hang out at a Cafe' shop that was filled with Socialist and was a pilgrimage hot spot for major communist/socialist leaders throughout Europe? Many of these figures lived in Vienna at the time so ironically it's very likely Hitler may have even met Trotsky, Stalin or Tito at one time or another and at the very least listened to them speak. Issue is it's very likely that prior to the summer of 1919 Hitler did have socialist and communist leanings. Evidence heavily supports this. Yet people still reject it which is lunacy in my opinion.
3
It's easy to Rebuttal as Hitler never spied on the Communist. These events in this video happened in the Spring of 1919 primarily. The People's State of Bavaria ended in April of 1919. The Bavarian Soviet Republic lasted less than a month after. Hitler supposedly became a spy in July of 1919. So the timeline of him being a spy doesn't match up with real world events. So that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
3
Okay... what I find interesting about this is.. don't Socialist argue that you can not take Hitler's words for it and that his books are nothing but propaganda... YET... they're using Hitler's excuse for being in Munich at the time as truth? So .. seriously, contradictions literally going through the roof on this one. I've run into people on other history channels on youtube who say TIK can not be trusted, he uses Nazi sources, Nazi propaganda, he spreads Nazi propaganda... but from what I've noticed it seems Socialist are the ones doing that at this point, only the Nazi propaganda that is convenient to their world view however.
3
@leonardticsay8046 I know one person quite accurately described the primary fundamental difference between the left and right as "Equality vs Liberty."
3
It's because the political chart is broken. If it's called Far Left or Far Right odds are good they're neither and honestly the same thing relatively speaking. There is this thing called the Horseshoe Theory which specifically exist to explain the contradictions that are the similarities between Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communist, and pretty much all collectivist ideologies, mean one some are considered FAR LEFT and others FAR RIGHT. So they made a bandaid theory to explain it. Pretty much the Theory goes, if you go far enough to the left or right you end up with roughly the same thing. Basically the Horseshoe theory literally relies on the Political Chart being a Global, or relying on some kind of physics like magnetism where opposites attract. Basically instead of admitting that the political chart they're using is flawed, or perhaps broken, they have to make a theory to explain why it isn't.
3
@walterbailey2950 "Rousseau indeed provided part of the foundation for both Socialism and fascism. What people did with his ideas wasn’t under his control after his death Or even while he was still alive." Oh boy, that really puts things into perspective.
3
@MrFrankfurt13 Oh it's fun sometimes. I remember when I called Zeon Zum Deikun from Mobile Suit Gundam the Karl Marx of the Gundam Universe. Oh boy... Zeon fans went ballistic because god for bid if you compare the Zeon's Newtype theory to Trotsky's Soviet New Man. By the way Fanboys of Zeon from Mobile Suit Gundam have very wehraboo or Nazi leanings normally. It's also fun when the primary writer for Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn (2010-2016) referring to Zeonism as a Religion. Being Zeonism is meant to represent Collectivist ideologies in general including Nazism and Communism. Starting to think some people in Japan's media know more than western directors/writers. Also explains why Zeon fanboys on average hated Gundam Unicorn as well. hehe
2
Go far enough back and all movements are reactionary, including Marxism.
2
Which is likely why TIK hesitated to make this video earlier. I forgot which video. But he mentioned in one that Hitler might have been a communist in his early years but he didn't have confirmation of it yet so said "take it with a grain of salt" or something like that. Being he's made a dedicated video on the subject, I'd assume he is convinced it's true. I do know from things I've read about Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin they all including Htiler visited the same pro Socialist Tea House in Vienna ie a place Socialist would go to speak, talk and debate while enjoying tea. If that story is true it would be something else he left out of Mein Kamphy Chair.
2
I'd argue Marx was behind both of them. =3
2
@ngnxtan Yes, they were communist, and yes they installed a communist Government. What many communist think as Communism has never been the goal of 19th century Marxist. The Soviets achieved their Goal of creating a Federation of Worker's Counsels. They only lied to make the "slaves" think better times were coming, but in no way was it ever the goal to create a stateless communal society. Marxism itself requires the State Marx himself emphasized it. It was Engels who tried to paint it as stateless. By focusing on Marx's State will wither away nonsense which contradicts almost everything else he was calling for. No Communist regime before or since ever had that goal as that isn't what Communism was really about. It's a lie in short. Communism is literally just State Syndicalism. Syndicalism is always State Syndicalism. Also the French Revolution was a mess, a reign of mass murder and terror and it was destroyed by the first proto Oligarch of Socialism Napoleon. I love how Socialist bring it up as an example of the failure of Democracy when other Democracies existed, like in Holland and the newly Founded United States, neither of which were failed states. You bring up the French Revolution because it's convenient and it's hard wired into Socialist ideology because lets be frank, the French Revolution was the foundation for violent revolutionaries for centuries to come and is the Proto Socialist Revolution on display.
2
@ngnxtan Oh boy, you have to go so far back into prehistory to present examples of societies without hierarchies yet rely on speculation that they didn't have hierarchies. Btw hunter gather tribes are small enough that social hierarchies are not necessary even then they're still built around oldest patriarchs/matriarchs so there is still a structure. About Your indus civilization "There was a leader but there wasn't much governing. In most cases the people of the Indus Valley went by according to their religion. No evidence of monuments were built for the memorial of their governors, therefore it is not certain whether or not Indus had governments, but through research and archaeology there was one person in the Indus Valley who carried seals (which signified power) and wore ornaments of rare material, and that person is currently considered as the leader (not a government)." "People were born into social classes that could not be changed: - Brahmins (priests and the king) - Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers) - Vaishyas (cultivators, artisans, and merchants) - Shudras (peasants and serfs)" Boy.... sure sounds like Hierarchies existed.
2
Darnit, it's not my Birthday yet!
2
3rd way is just a slogan they use to distance themselves from Marxism. ie We are not as far left as the Communist! Yet some Communist like Stalin considered Fascism to be even farther to the left than Communism. So clearly they're not a 3rd way. Though I would agree on Fascism not being as extreme left wing as Marxism, I can not say the same about National Socialism.
2
He's openly criticized Putin in two videos. And his own country in countless videos.
2
@sethtwc I don't see how. Outside of groups who associate with the right because they've been convinced they're right wing. Nationalism for example isn't a right wing belief yet is so heavily labeled as such today that most Nationalist believe they're right wing. Same issue with liberals. Liberalism isn't left wing yet liberals are raised to believe it is. This is why you have people like Tim Pool observing that if liberals and conservatives would just talk to eachother they'd find out they have more similarities than differences. He's noticed the contradiction but doesn't understand it. Why? Because often people who identify as conservatives are often more liberal than the leftist who decide what is left/right wing on political charts and why so many liberals on the left find themselves increasingly marginalized as the left radicalizes around them unable to grasp why the Left isn't upholding the liberal values they were told the left stood for. Because the left isn't liberal, and conservatism is also a label leftist came up with to demonized their opposite. Let's face it, western civilization was built on Liberal values, so literally to be conservative in the west is to be Liberal at your core.
2
Actually Hess and Hitler both worked on it. It's very likely all the Aryan nonsense is because of Hess original. Being his teacher/idol was big on it.
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
American trucks, tractors, steel, oil, among so much else, let alone millions from private donors, hired American engineers to help with building projects and massive support from a number of American media giants like The New York Times. Proof I guess that the USSR wasn't Socialist? Yes we know Socialist love to contradict themselves. People often forget big business giants always look for something to captialize off of even if in a Socialist regime. Get the foot in the door. PepsiCo did this in the USSR as well even got a small fleet of submarines out of the relationship in a comic way. So it's always funny when someone says "Durrr American Capitalist backed Hitler, so he was obviously a Capitalist." Ignoring all the western support the USSR got from private firms even during the Cold War.
2
@legendarymarston9174 Because by making a Chart then Claiming this is Far Left and that is Far Right, makes peons avoid it like the plague. If you think you're right wing, and your right wing political leader says it's Far Left, you will likely not ever bother looking into it. Repeat from the opposite end. In the end, it's a method of control. So if your a Marxist, and you don't want your peons to know Fascism is a form of Socialism, you dub it Far Right and your serfs will avoid it. It's why you see the SPD being labeled far right, counter revolutionary almost on day one. The preachers didn't want their followers to even look into why the Social Democrats are Hostile to your People's Republic. Marx did this a lot as well. Before left and right were really a thing he'd throw Bourgeoisie infront of everything he didn't want his followers getting exposed to, ie other ways of thinking. This is why the term Bourgeoisi Socialism exist. He didn't want his serfs following opposing Socialist movements.. some of which even predates Marxism.
2
@legendarymarston9174 I was thinking more of Utopian Socialist like Babeuf. But there are a lot of Socialist schools from this time period before Marxism. Biggest two are Utopian and Conservative Socialist schools. Both came before Marxism. Most Conservative Socialist branches don't even include Socialism in their name because of the Association Socialism has with Marxism.
2
Why?
2
@walterbailey2950 Racism as we know it today wasn't even a concept back then in the 18th century definitely in Christian Europe. Racism is a product of Social Darwinian school who himself was influenced by Rousseau whether Darwin championed it himself is irrelevant.
2
@walterbailey2950 Among intellectual nobility yes, but among the common left wing social revolutionaries no. It's the uneducated social activist which dominated the leftist movement by the 19th Century. Even people like Napoleon despite being an admirer of Rousseau still rolled back social reforms championed by his ideas toward some religious groups. The American revolution despite being influenced still allowed slavery as well.
2
Never knew being a Liberal was a bad thing.
2
@slaterslater5944 Pretty sure we were over this on another video. But you're blatantly wrong.
1
@slaterslater5944 If you say so. But you didn't post anything that helped prove they supported the right, as most people's interpretation of the Right is built on Leftist stereotypes of it. Being the left is a progressive and ever changing movement just about everything under the sun has been accused of being right wing at one time or another by leftist intellectuals and politicians. Best example is Libertarianism, originally was championed by the Left yet now many leftist call it Far Right because Progressivism and Liberalism in recent years have been at odds with eachother. Issue is, leftist don't understand what is even on left or right to begin with. 😒
1
But Marxist Leninism was already dropped on it's head.
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
@ddddzzzz5426 https://youtu.be/g4aYUOWchhg?t=383 Too often this time stamped clip is a lot of fun for mocking Putin's hypocrisy. I know since about 2015 Moscow's Police forces have had very SS like police uniforms, definitely formal ware.
1
@brandonevans4295 Is any government an example of good and stable government?
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
@Vlu_U2 Sadly its' the most comment defense used. But it's so easy to prove wrong. I guess they don't pay attention to dates, read articles which arrange of a miss matched time line so things make sense in their world view.
1
@alligatoruno6975 Oh, I know he is. Most Denialist get Marxism and Socialism mixed up. When I read Ishay Landa criticism of Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism for example, he only successfully proved Spengler was not a Marxist, not that he was not a Socialist. It's a common issue that even historians have.
1
Well we do have a few hints. The biggest being one of the Coffee houses Hitler frequently visited in Vienna was Cafe Kubata (Central). This Cafe in particular was known for being a speaking house for Socialist, and Marxist. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and even Tito were known to have visited this particular Cafe during their visits to Vienna. This is often an overlooked part of history. It also presents a pretty good sign that out of all the Coffee houses in Vienna why would Hitler Frequent this one? We have no written words on his beliefs prior to 1919, however this is a good sign that he at least had some Marxist sympathies in his youth. So being a willing part of the People's State of Bavaria is not out of the question. Definitely being we know he became a spy only after these events, and he spied on the German Worker's Party. So it's likely he was a moderate socialist or Marxist at this time, on the fence but the events of the spring of 1919 shook him in some fashion. Which is not surprisingly one of the arguments TIK makes in this video.
1
I used to be a Fascist, and supported the left for most of my adult life up until 2017. Of course I kept that fact a secret from my friends as they wouldn't understand why. So I would call myself a Social Civic Nationalist instead at the time. I even met Barack Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate. Which is an interesting story as he took party in a local lawnmower themed festival while campaigning. That being said. TIK has been one of the better History Tubers on the subject of Fascism.
1
He used a photo from 1920. Which is why he posted the date. The image was the result of Lenin. He wasn't specifying a date, just identifying the photo's date. Lenin fought a war against the Kulaks for years, starting in 1918 and didn't end until the early 20s. Mostly because of revolts, and even armed rebellions by farmers, and other Socialist against Lenin and his red army when they were trying to take grain by force, to help feed and act as trade/capital to fuel the war. This had dire consequences later on in Russia as by 1924 Russia entered into a famine even worse than what happened under Stalin's watch.
1
@ngnxtan Communism is pretty much Feudalism rebranded. Communist Societies have proven to be quite none democratic at least in the sense most common people view Democracy. They often end in a form of Pyramid scheme which party officials end up dominating the lives of the common people within society. Replacing Kings/Nobles with the Party, and Fiefs with Trade Unions which just about everyone in society are forced to join. Unlike Feudalism there are no longer the Freeman Class, or Merchant Class as well so pretty much the entire population that isn't part of the Communist Party are slaves to the Party. When in feudalism it was only the serfs. Meaning Communism ends up being less Free, and less liberal than even Feudalism. As Bakunin would very much agree with a "Slavery to bureaucrats, and a Slavery to Intellectuals." Which is what Marxism and by extension Communism leads to. Lenin or Stalin didn't starve, the Kims became God Kings, and Mao well, he turned children on their parents, like a religious crusade. The failures of those who claimed to be communist in the past is so blatantly outstanding that the fact anyone thinks communism is a good idea today is tragic say the least. These are not failures of good intensions but show how a top down Party dictatorship is not freedom nor liberty and in turn equals only oppression.
1
@ngnxtan 1. They didn't fail. Their goal was to create a Soviet of Worker's Counsels and install the Dictatorship of the Proletatiat and they were successfully. 2. TIK has plenty of citations of this, and including moments modern communist omit and lie. 3. Yes... lets totally make a stateless society while advocating State Control. It's the contradiction that Bakunin pointed out about Marxism, he literally called it the cult of the State. 4. Never said it was Communist. I was stating Socialist are obsessed with the French Revolution snd it's pre/post years had have used it like a poster child. It was the proto Revolution that Socialist drool over. 5. Didn't need to because successful examples of democracy existed before the French Revolution yet Socialist obsession with it is because it was a failure in then end. It fits much of their wants, and oratory needs.
1
@ngnxtan Trick is you're never going to reach Communism that is the lie of Marxism. Similar to how Rousseau stated Revolutions for liberty will most often lead to just more tyranny. Why? The human element. Society always forms hierarchies. This is no different when Socialism is established. Because of this Socialism will never transition into that Stateless Society, as to be a society literally requires being a State and those in chargeof the social ladder will do whatever is in their power to stay at the top. So a collective control state centric system is all Socialism and by extension Communism will ever be. Liberalism as a whole primarily formed in the Enlightenment Period of European history, it within just one century gave rise to Democracy in practice. With only a few ancient examples to compare. Socialism and by extension Communism has failed for 200 years and no sight of ever being successful. It had had far longer to prove itself and despite well over a dozen regimes across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas it has failed every single time. Those that still remain are absolutely nonthing when compared to the ideology they claimed to follow.
1
Only because they believed Marxism was a scam being run by the Jews. Outside of that they're very similar to each other. It ends up coming down to one wanting to make a Worker's Collective and another a Racial Collective. In both the concept of the SELF Seeker, putting themselves above the greater good of their Collective Group as a crime. As a result they end up being fundamentally the same ideology even though they're fighting for two different collectivized groups, and are even hostile toward each other. There is little difference between large State run or affiliated Corporations than State run Trade Unions so even that detail is kind of silly to argue as it's still the same hierarchy with the working man being a slave to the system.
1
The Peoples State of Bavaria broke down in April of 1919. The Bavarian Soviet Republic was destroyed the following month. Hitler didn't become an operative for the German Military until the summer of 1919 and he was sent to spy on the German Worker's Party, ie the future Nazi Party. Basically you're making claims without any understanding of the chain of events or what actually happened.
1
@96books Yes after seeing TIK's description of the Thule's Society on another video and their beliefs, they're basically 1910s flat Earthers but believing a different wacko religion. You'd trust them? Definitely when many of it's members became Nazis and would willing help Hitler distance himself from any Communist past out of loyalty?
1
@TheImperatorKnight Honestly it's mostly just people saying you can not use "Nazis" as sources because they're liars, and doing so is spreading Nazi Propaganda, and TIK's heavy reliance on Mine Kampfy Chair is PROOF he is a Nazi etc etc. You know the basic dribble. Same kind of people who want such books banned from sale likely. But when I see some of the arguments people use being literally from Mine Kampfy Chair just that amusing because it would mean that 'anti' Nazis are spreading Nazi propaganda right from the Lion's mouth and they're likely doing it because they don't even know he said it. So they're ruining their own argument. It also rings true how much we know about HItler's Pre-War (WWI) and Interwar life is based heavily on Nazi Propaganda. Seems you can not even use Spengler these days either, as according to Ishay Landa Prussian Socialism isn't "Real" Socialism. Though I've seen one person who tried that argument along side using quotes from Richard Evans and Ishay Landa but they fall on a bed of nails when you realize their arguments are Marxonian in nature. (Marxonian gives me squiggles when I use it so it's likely not a word but rolls of the toung so well)
1
Honestly I think Rightism vs Leftism seems to be Liberty vs Equality. Collectivism is just the means the Left uses to create Equality... issue Equality comed at the expense of Liberty. But the problem is. If you Seek Equality, it requires oppression to take from those who have more in an attempt to achieve it. If there is oppression you will never have Equality and around it goes.
1
@mrmackey8776 Not a convincing case.
1
@mrmackey8776 As if that argument every worked.
1
@mrmackey8776 Asked a question. Not even a yes or no one. Could of said anything, brought up any point, presented any evidence to prove your claim. Yet, your response was childish. You providing no proof of your claim, just double downed. Then threw out insults. Sorry, but that isn't how an argument works. You refused to engage in it, in any capacity.
1
@mrmackey8776 Shrugs mine do not involve eating poo at least.
1
 @mrmackey8776 You seem to approve being South Park has a ridiculous amount of elemental school nudity throughout it's history.
1
@mrmackey8776 Rules of the Internet: Refer to Rule 34.
1
What exactly did he distort?
1
@walterbailey2950 So Rousseau help give rise to Proto Fascism? Interesting. Even if indirectly.
1