Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @scott1324  It would make more sense for people here to simply discuss authoritarianism. It’s much easier for a majority of people to agree on the evils of authoritarianism. But libertarians are ideologues and utopians and if they acknowledge that there can be authoritarians on the conservative end of the political spectrum they’ve committed heresy. So simply opposing authoritarianism isn’t enough for them: they have to maintain the ideological purity of the right by gerrymandering Nazism out of anything that might make someone think they are associated with it. No matter, history shows that authoritarianism is abundant on both left and the right and that it’s the real evil. Perhaps at least you and I can agree on that.
    13
  2. I watched it. It’s still full of nonsense
    10
  3. Implicit in all these pages is an effort to rewrite political history so that the whole category of authoritarian capitalism never existed. It’s the kind of thing that authoritarians do when they change history to fit their ideology
    9
  4. Libertarian economists want to call any thing authoritarian leftism even though that flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history
    8
  5. Only if you ignore core tenets of socialism and assert that ALL authoritarianism is socialism. But that requires you to ignore thousands of years of history before the left as we know it even existed. And it isn’t just Marxists who say this. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history does. Libertarian crackpots just can’t accept any suggestions that there’s any flaw with conservatism or that it’s ever possible to be conservative and authoritarian. But a binary universe in which there is only liberty or enslavement to Socialism. is just a historically illiterate fantasy.
    7
  6. National Socialism is a form of Socialism that has none of the attributes of actual Socialism.
    7
  7. It’s amazing how oblivious this “theory” is to Nazi weltanschauung, which is all about glorifying aggression and power and “great heroes” dominating “inferiors”-the very people that socialists want to own the means of production. You can only find this kind of blindness to reality in a cult.
    6
  8. Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. Adolf Hitler 1923
    5
  9.  @ericharmon7163  OK so basic history of modern ideology: it begins in the French revolution as radicals identified for the first time based on where they sat in the French National Assembly(the left) Break with reformers to actually move to overthrow the French monarchy. Those who didn’t support their revolutionary program are sitting on the right. If you’re trying to relocate fascists from their actual historical position on the right And put them on the left as this presentation is doing there’s no way that it cannot be talking about conservatism and what it means. What Hitler actually did once he got in power in the deed just to be named chancellor of Germany involved supporting conservative policies. For example he agreed not to seize property of corporations or aristocrats. He ended worker rights protections and real labor unions thereby removing restrictions on capitalist in Germany in so far as what they could do with their property. And 100 down and eliminated as many actual leftists as he could. Be there by earned the support of other German conservatives who saw him as what he was a traditional German authoritarian fully behind private property ownership and German capitalism. In fact he was even more supportive of it than Otto von Bismarck, Who originally was the true source of what have sometimes been called socialist measures in order to prevent Germany from becoming socialist. Hitler did away with even Bismarck’s reforms in order to support unfettered capitalism in Germany. And the list of German corporations that grew ever wealthier during the third Reich his long. He certainly didn’t set up state planning committees or forced collectivization of property, state ownership of industry a la the Soviet union. Nothing could be further from the truth then to suggest that. Whether you know enough about what you’re talking about to know it or not anytime Hitler and the Nazis are brought up you’re raising the subject of conservatism as practiced in Germany because that’s what they represented.
    5
  10.  @ericharmon7163  I taught western civilization and fascism actually begins with the French revolution through the writings of Joseph Demaistre among others. You can’t understand this just by watching YouTube videos. You need actual education reading the original sources by the people involved. It seems pretty clear you haven’t done that. So you don’t know what you’re talking about
    5
  11.  @JK-rv9tp  Pure nonsense to say that the Nazis abolished private property. They glorified private property
    5
  12. @wOkeKing Have you actually been a graduate student at a major university? You’re sounding like people who have not and are just basing what they say on suspicion and innuendo rather than first-hand experience.
    5
  13. @wOkeKing That’s ridiculous! If I had a nickel for every time some right wing nut equates something with critical race theory that really doesn’t have anything to do with it….Basically you’re saying that any attempt to tell the whole story of all people, provide equality before the law or be inclusive is a plot of critical race theory. But the actual source for that idea in our country is the Declaration of Independence doofus.
    5
  14.  @PhatStacksPoker  LOL by that definition there have been leftist authoritarians long before leftist ideology even began. By that definition Louis the 14th or even the ancient pharaohs were leftists. It’s a sign of a real dogmatic utopian ideologue when they say “my side is utterly pure of any of the corrupting effects of power on human nature“ but that’s what libertarians and other conservatives are doing when they attempt to suggest that authoritarianism can’t possibly happen in anything conservative. It’s also a ludicrous display of astonishing ignorance of the authoritarian regimes of early modern and ancient Europe. Conservatism to them meant defending the rule of the king and the noble lords under him. And you think that makes them communist LOL
    5
  15. So if you’re going to define leftism as anything involving strong or oppressive government without regard to the principles and goals of whatever it is you’re talking about, then “leftist” governments have been around since long before the left as we know it existed. But authoritarianism by itself doesn’t contain necessarily any of the principles of leftist economic theory such as class conflict, redistribution of wealth, or worker ownership of the means of production. If you’re going to look at an authoritarian capitalist state that promotes private ownership of the means of production and call that socialist just because the government is authoritarian and they use the word socialist without doing anything In any socialist program, then you’re just redefining the definition of the word socialist without acknowledging what you’re doing.
    5
  16.  @donaldsheckler3636  That doesn't make him a leftist. Germany NEVER had those kind of limitations on government before Hitler. Trying to extrapolate what is conservative to a German traditionalist based on American history is a fruitless exercise, that only reveals one's ignorance of German history.
    5
  17. He’s clearly knowledgeable about military campaigns but his Enako libertarian economic views make him extremely biased it is analysis of economic history.. To the point that he can’t understand any of it outside of a very solipsistic perspective of the ideologue which is to say not at all
    5
  18. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938
    5
  19. It’s not that Hitler didn’t realize how corporations are organized. It’s that you’re attempting to conflate a publicly traded Corporation with a government owned corporation. Hitler and everyone else who is not trying to change the definition of private property understood how corporations work. His point was that you need authoritarianism to make capitalism work as intended. Otherwise no one who is not already wealthy has a chance to compete according to their ability. The fact that he’s even attempting to protect free market competition should tell you that he’s not a leftist. Again this goes back to defining leftism as nothing more than any authoritarianism without any of the other attributes historically associated with leftist ideology from its inception. But if authoritarians were always leftist then the early capitalist states were actually leftist from the Italian renaissance all the way through the French Revolution.
    5
  20. So I suppose your point is that Hitler was a secret communist: he kept his communism so secret all throughout his career that he never actually acted upon any of his communist plans. He couldn’t actually implement his communist plans because if he did so he would reveal himself to be a communist thereby giving the plans away. For Hitler keeping his communism secret was more important than actually doing anything to make it a reality in Germany Keeping his rabid communism secret all that time was impressive but nowhere near as impressive as Ronald Reagan’s ability to keep his stealth communism secret. Even fewer people know that Reagan was actually a virulent communist. Still fewer know that Karl Marx and VI Lenin were not really communists. You can tell who is a real communist because only the real communists avoid actually implementing communism. Only fake communists actually employ communist policies.
    4
  21.  @TheImperatorKnight  I would be more concerned if actual historians show up if I were you
    4
  22. I can’t say that I share your enjoyment of self delusion or some kind of bizarre schadenfreude over peoples justifiable consternation at your ignorant efforts to falsify history. It’s not like you can actually change history by redefining things according to your own terms this way.
    4
  23.  @ericharmon7163  I won’t have to do that in this or others concerning history. I studied European intellectual history as a post graduate. I know a lot more about this than you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just wrong about everything. It’s amazing how uneducated people are so sure in their ignorance. Only the ignorant can be so foolish. Before you say something like that and make a fool of yourself again you should do some reading of the original sources from the history of European ideology in the 18th and early 19th centuries. I can recommend some sources if you’re willing to listen. Otherwise continue to wallow in ignorance.
    4
  24. @wOkeKing Marxism is in the university. But its influence is often overblown. It’s certainly not taught the way it was in the Soviet Union for instance, as if it’s the only possible truth.
    4
  25.  @TheManofthecross  Oh so you’re going to lie in order to silence someone when you don’t have an answer for them to cover up your own misinformation. This is just what we would expect from a coward and knave.
    4
  26.  @scott1324  It’s important to understand the principles and origins of all dangerous ideologies so you know what to watch out for. That’s why it’s important. If you think that there can be no danger from the right as the author of this page would evidently have you believe, you create the perfect opening for the next Hitler.
    4
  27.  @neilreynolds3858  OK so never mind the tenets of the Ideology, all you need to know to determine whether or not someone is a Marxist is whether or not they have friends? I’m sure you’re going to put a lot of political science professors out of work with that one. LOL
    4
  28. That depends on who you’re listening to and how carefully you’re listening. If you’re accepting uncritically what a propagandist tells you you might actually conclude that a true worldview is false.
    4
  29. As people have so often pointed out here leftist ideology focuses on the collective of humanity placing less value on the actions of the individual. It’s not about the achievement of individuals: Vanquishing others through superior ability. But Nazi ideology was.
    4
  30.  @merpius  Which is to say that Hitler defined people according to race in a way that is completely hostile to and contradicts historical leftist ideological principles. Advancing a particular “race” at the expense of others means you’re not a leftist according to any historical principles of leftist ideology. It’s like saying the pope is a kind of Christian who defines Jesus as Satan. It doesn’t work. You can’t say that he’s a kind of leftist who does this because it’s not something you can do and be a leftist. What you need to understand is that both fascist and leftist ideology come out of traditions of thought that go back to Europe in the 18th century. Each is developed with certain core principles which allow you to tell if what you’re looking at comes from this or that tradition. Racist and nationalist ideology is coming out of a fascist tradition that begins with counterrevolutionary thought in response to the French revolution not the leftist thought that drove the revolution.
    4
  31. If Nazis were true economic socialists, then every authoritarian government and many mixed economy liberal democratic states are also socialist and the historical principles of socialist economics such as redistribution of wealth to eliminate classes and government ownership of most or all industry don’t matter. We’re basically just using “socialism” as an endlessly elastic catch all for anything we don’t like. It’s essentially an inversion of the “no true Scotsman fallacy.”
    4
  32. Too bad Hitler himself can’t read some of this nonsense. I think he would be amazed and appalled that so many people think he wasn’t conservative, that they think he would’ve supported what he regarded as Jewish ideology designed to destroy the achievements of the “master race” and allow “Subhumans” to use the state to take the fruits of aryan labor and creative thought. I’m sure he would’ve been appalled that people who place no value on the disciplined adherence to authority would consider themselves to be conservative. I’m sure he would’ve seen anarcho capitalists as infected with “Jewish nonsense and corruption” about equality of the races and material acquisition for its own sake. And he’d probably want them arrested.
    3
  33.  @Si_Mondo  I think the Marxist interpretation of everything is utopian tending to beg the question. In this respect it’s very similar to the contemporary anarcho-libertarian method of interpreting everything: For instance their dogma says that capitalism means “total freedom” so anything without total freedom can’t be capitalism. This is just the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. And it results in a ludicrous attempt to deny just about all of the history of actual capitalism much of which has taken place under authoritarian governments such as that of the Nazis.
    3
  34.  @TheImperatorKnight  Three actions of logicians and psychologists to your explanations would probably be the most interesting.
    3
  35.  @JK-rv9tp  in your ignorance of the history of ideas you think we need a “Trope” to establish distance that’s always been there. What’s actually happening is we’re pointing out the vast gulf between Nazi and leftist ideology dating all the way back to their 18th century origins. I don’t think you’re gonna be able to demonstrate that the role of Napoleon and the collected writings of Joseph Demaistre are just a “leftist trope” but go ahead and try if you like. I could use a good laugh
    3
  36.  @neboyshanicolich761  So now you’re defining social mobility as inherently leftist? Do you know that the Duke of Marlborough and many other European nobles were descended from common tradesmen? The French formalized the system by recognizing different types of nobility based on how they were ennobled including many whose ancestors had been peasants not that long before. If social mobility is an attribute of leftism then libertarianism is also a hard left ideology isn’t it? How much of this nonsense are you people going to trot out just to throw everything bad into the left bucket?
    3
  37.  @ThunderChunky101  To suggest that this kind of evil can only exist in the hearts of your enemies is the talk of a utopian ideologue utterly blind to anything but what he subscribes to as articles of faith.
    3
  38.  @bustercrabbe8447  which is what this always comes back down to: never mind the principles of Socialism from their origin point in the 18th century, Socialism is really just authoritarianism. But if that’s true old kingdom pharaohs in ancient Egypt were socialists literally thousands of years before socialist Ideology was developed..
    3
  39.  @sabhishek9289  when did Darwin himself advocate such a thing? Aren’t you conflating Darwin with social Darwinism?
    3
  40.  @bagasitogitto.f1826  Why don’t you just go ahead and define capitalism as only the good parts and Socialism is only the bad parts because “I say so”? If something bad happens because of capitalism that means that it’s not capitalism automatically. No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.
    3
  41.  @TheManofthecross  You know perfectly well that the facts are on my side and that you cannot refute a single thing I’ve said with truth.
    3
  42.  @anonygent  yeah that’s just an ignoramuses way of trying to frame a much more complex history of ideology into his own binary Conception of “freedom versus Socialism.” That’s not the full picture of the history of political ideology in Europe much less the world. There’s not just one coin and conservatism means different things at different times and places. In Germany in the early to mid 20th century, it meant authoritarianism and capitalism. The fact that Hitler appropriated the language of Socialism to trick people into joining his right wing authoritarian party doesn’t change that
    3
  43.  @arebelscum9495  About that: “The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor, and a perfect title to public gratitude. I, therefore, entertain a hope, that the present session will not pass, without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” George Washington in a message to Congress 1794
    3
  44.  @glyndwr15  and furthermore, most of those features pre-dated the Nazis, and were even scaled back by the Nazis and he tries to make it sound like they came from the Nazis
    3
  45.  @squatchfromearth4076  Nobody involved in actually writing the 2nd Amendment said that its purpose was for the people to depose their own government.
    3
  46. Except the bases where Hitler actually installs a socialist regime with socialist policies when he has the power to do so. Of course we don’t identify socialist because they implement socialists policies. What’s far more important is the labels they use and whether we can find them present in certain times and places. This is how we know that Kim Jong-un is a democratic leader because he calls his country the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and has been spotted over and over again at functions celebrating his “democracy” in the individual freedoms that it stands for. Don’t tell me that North Korea is not a democracy based on the government’s policies Or the way it’s organized because only the words that are used really matter.
    3
  47.  @evertjan9479  Well a majority of people here have been fooled into thinking that Hitler was a leftist based on labels that he was associated with alone. So why should this be surprising?
    3
  48. Hint this is not a sign of “knowledge”
    3
  49. Capitalists can’t do evil things. They can’t deprive people of liberty or receive the backing of a gangster state. If you think that capitalists could do anything evil or with the support of authoritarian governments repeat that that’s impossible and that you were stupid not to think that it can only happen on the left. Human nature is different on the right you see. You can’t be corrupted or do evil things when you’re a capitalist. Capitalists are incapable of harming people because faith in capitalism removes the potential of human nature to cause harm to anyone. Only good things happen in capitalism just like a fairy tale. If something bad happens that’s how you know it’s not capitalism.
    3
  50.  @WantedArgonianMale  He was a fascist. He wasn’t a socialist in ANY of the ways that leftists are socialist. He explained what he meant when he used the word socialist to describe his party: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
    3