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

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

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

Previous
13
Next
...
All

@pierrelabounty9917 it’s much more consistent with human nature to become irrationally devoted to an ideology to the point that you will try to force everything into it, leading to absurd rationalizations like “fascists are actually on the far left because my ideology doesn’t allow for any flaws to exist on the right, any great evil to be possible, because my ideology says that the right can only equal freedom therefore, anything that’s evil and oppressive can’t be on the right.” This is when you refuse to accept any evidence in the world to the contrary. This is the mindset of the anarcho libertarian ideologue.
1
@jameshannagan4256 leftist ideas? What leftist ideas you may not know this, but in Germany, authoritarianism and statism have a very long history as conservative values
1
@danielbrown6112 well, it obviously doesn’t fit the pro fascist, ethnic genocide narrative not to teach it… how else can people be expected to murder millions of people because of conspiracy theories based on their religion?
1
@jakublulek3261 It’s not like that we’re talking about polar opposites that have only authoritarianism in common
1
@jluvs2ride The danger is coming from different directions: you can’t just look in the direction of the left. To a libertarian every other ideology is collectivist. Today libertarians are nothing but anarchist ideologues
1
@jluvs2ride Not really. And at the same conference from which the plan emerged Hitler repeatedly refused to agree with the confiscation of aristocratic estates in Germany.
1
@jluvs2ride No not really. In fact not at all, as Hitler made clear in a 1930 debate with Otto Strasser: Strasser: “I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers. Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.” Strasser: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
1
@jluvs2ride Modern libertarianism is anarchism. Pretty much all government is deemed to be collectivist and it’s true you can’t have law if you’re concerned exclusively with individuals
1
@jluvs2ride Then why are you people so desperate to avoid associating anything close to what you believe with the right?
1
@jluvs2ride Its economy was less centrally planned than those of Britain, France, or the US at the time and far less so than that of the Soviet Union. If central planning and authoritarianism is really all you need to be leftist, then France under Louis the 14th and even ancient Egypt were leftist states.
1
@jluvs2ride Never mind the fact that authoritarian governments have been around for literally millennia before leftism as an ideology even existed. Never mind that that’s the only thing other than a word that Nazism has in common with the Soviet State. Let’s just keep on pretending that nothing bad ever happens anywhere on the right like the good utopian ideologues that we are.
1
@jluvs2ride You can make a much better argument that Stalin was a socialist: he certainly supported real socialist policies unlike Hitler. But the worst thing about Stalin was that like Hitler he was an authoritarian gangster Who had no problem enslaving and killing people. Your obsession with denial of the reality that such actions happen all across the political spectrum leaves us more vulnerable to them.
1
@jluvs2ride I’m not the one who keeps insisting that the Nazis had to be leftists. And I won’t stop calling out such falsification of history because it’s dangerous, because it leaves us vulnerable to the next Hitler because we’re not looking in all directions that he can come from.
1
It comes from reality a refusal to falsify history because you can’t let go of libertarian dogma.
1
@TheImperatorKnight What about your religion as to what’s “real capitalism” or “real conservatism”? Do you think you’re immune to the distorting effects of ideology on your perspective-that this is just a problem for people who disagree with you? LOL
1
@philodonoghue3062 Sure because we can’t accept the idea that anything really awful could come from the right. That would be heresy.
1
@donaldsheckler3636 The definition of collectivism given by libertarians increasingly seems to encompass anything other than anarchy. And since anarchy leads to tyranny by whoever has the most power then that means everything is authoritarian and there’s no escaping from authoritarianism. This is reductio absurdum at its best
1
@jluvs2ride Again I’m not the one desperately trying to reframe Nazis as leftists. I’m the one in the real world viewing things objectively as they really are without your ideological blinders.
1
@jluvs2ride calling the German economy centrally planned is a gross distortion if by central planning you mean anything more than what existed in the United States during World War II. In fact the Germans were late in focusing their economy on war production relative to the United States. Central planning a la the Soviet union was very far from the way the German economy was organized at any point much less before the war. People who say the German economy was centrally planned like that of the Soviet Union are either ignorant or lying. Which are you?
1
@jluvs2ride No that’s not it I studied enough political philosophy in college and grad school to have a good understanding of 20th century ideologies and their history. I think there is a real possibility that you don’t know enough about either fascism or real Socialism to understand the differences however.
1
@jluvs2ride Again he wasn’t extolling the virtues of true socialism. He said explicitly that he was taking the word and redefining it. “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.” If you had actually studied leftist thought you would better understand perhaps how this runs counter to its foundational principles in every way. But that might not be possible because you’ve decided to ignore everything but your predetermined conclusion. So this really isn’t a rational argument for you. It’s an article of faith and nothing can shake you from it. That’s a shame. It’s not as if the worlds going to end if you admit that not everything conservative has been good and that it is within human nature with any system thought that the real potential for evil lies
1
@vladimpaler3498 He ruined the economy by getting into a war with two superpowers. That didn’t just ruin the economy. It destroyed the entire country. You don’t have to be a genius or come up with any more elaborate explanation than that for what happened to Germany. But whatever you can find to sustain this narrative right? You people are just as much ideologues as Hitler was. “Heretic!!! conservatism is pure and untainted, the holiest of blood!! Nothing bad ever happens because of conservatism or anything to do with it! Don’t say that it can have anything to do with the Nazis’-Silence heretic!!l
1
@jluvs2ride In fact I do. It’s you who is mistaken. For instance Germany continued to produce a large volume of consumer goods well into the war when central planning would’ve called for the production of more munitions. This handicapped the German war effort and represented a weakness in Nazi Germany caused by a LACK of central planning. You would think that someone who is pontificating with such assurance about how everything in Germany was centrally planned would know that. You continue to float this totally make-believe fantasy of a Soviet style central planning committee for supposedly state owned industry without any evidence in Nazi Germany. But the Dunning Kruger effect Combined with extreme ideological blinders from the nutcase libertarian theory that you espouse has prepared you to believe anything, Reality notwithstanding.
1
@jluvs2ride Well by that definition Britain is more socialist at the time than Germany and the Soviet Union far more so. But it’s not that simple. Socialism is also founded upon an ideology that advocates redistribution of wealth to provide for every person according to their need without regard to considerations such as race or nationality. It espouses not just state ownership but worker ownership of the means of production so that economic elites are completely eliminated and it does this with a goal of eliminating classes altogether. All of this was anathema to the Nazis under Hitler. The Nazi State actually owned few of the means of production and preserved both hereditary and economic classes while allowing them to retain virtually all their wealth We won’t agree on any definition other than the actual one formulated by the founders of Socialism in the 19th century. I’m not going to let you move the goalposts so that you can fit Socialism around something that isn’t.
1
@jluvs2ride It is a fallacy but if you’re complaining about it now you’re a hypocrite. If you don’t want to draw my scorn which is earned by your petulant ignorance don’t talk to me like I don’t understand what I’m talking about. You should know by now that is far from the truth.
1
@jluvs2ride No it’s not the accepted definition. If it were then socialism would extend back hundreds of years before any socialist thought. And Socialism would include systems of most western countries today including much of the American economy. All leftist economic ideology of the present a share common origins in 18th century Europe. It’s about more than just central planning. It calls for property to be held in common, the redistribution of wealth and the elimination of disparities in wealth. It’s a reaction against not a continuation of feudalism in it’s inception. Marxism is socialism. But socialism denies the right of aristocratic elites to inherited property, whether it comes specifically from Marx-Engels or not. It’s an ideology supposedly about perfecting all, not just a chosen few, In the name of progress and the securing of rights supposed to belong to all equally. Trying to expand the definition to anything simply involving central planning leaves behind the core principles of the ideology and allows inclusion of things that are hostile to socialist ideology such as fascism and other forms of authoritarianism. But that’s the point for a libertarian ideologue. You’re not just trying to portray Nazism as a leftist ideology but all authoritarianism as such despite the absurdity that this creates in having us believe that leftist ideology has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years before any leftist thought actually emerged.
1
@jluvs2ride Here we get the utopianism of libertarian dogma which like Marxist dogma insists that only the perfect realization of the theory is capitalism or communism as the case may be. So by your measure capitalism has never actually existed in all of history because what has been called capitalism has always had such imperfections such as those in gangster or crony capitalism or even just a market imperfection of advertising which prevents rational utility maximization. And it certainly includes markets where monopolies exist. These allow capitalists to control markets and therefore plan them. So I guess that makes John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie socialists by your reckoning. Another example of what must be a socialist to you is JP Morgan who helped prop up the US financial system for the US government. LOL
1
@jluvs2ride What would you know about the facts of history? You haven’t given any evidence of having any idea of the philosophical origins of socialism in 18th and early 19th century Europe. You’re just parroting an absurdist libertarian article of faith that literally anything authoritarian or centrally planned is leftist. You wouldn’t pass a First year college western civilization class with that definition much less be able to talk to an economic Historian. That’s the kind of explanation that used to make me want to tear my hair out when I graded Western civ., the kind that revealed the student hadn’t been listening to the professor at all or else missed the import of everything he said.
1
@jluvs2ride It’s funny that you would direct people to the 25 point plan that emerged from Bamberg, the same conference where Hitler repeatedly refused to consider confiscating the estates of German aristocrats the way a real socialist would and blasted leftism. You just can’t stop yourself from Cherry picking history to support your twisted view of Nazism. For you it would be heresy to admit the truth!
1
@jluvs2ride I can tell that you have an ideologues obsession with keeping your ideology absolutely pure in a way that’s totally unrealistic and ahistorical. Whether you realize it or not the view in this page of a national socialism is a fringe view that’s not supported by scholarship or the facts. It relies on ignoring the basic principles of leftism and cherry-picking quotes to paint a false picture with an absurd conclusion.
1
@jluvs2ride You just reveal your ignorance when you talk about a “paradigm” used in the history of ideas since the French revolution as if it was just made up by some modern cult theorist such as a libertarian..LOL You can ignore history but you can’t make it go away or understand ideology without it.
1
@jluvs2ride If you really want to get up to speed on this history I can recommend some books. But there’s no “Cliff Notes version” to learning the stuff.
1
@jluvs2ride Well because you’re stuck in the Cliff Notes version you missed what went down in the Bamberg conference where those points were laid down. Hitler called the conference in order outmaneuver the remaining leftists in the Nazi party(This was in 1926 before Hitler had completed his takeover of the party). He let them include points in a platform and then shot down everything to do with economic leftism in a speech he delivered in front of them, Repeatedly blocking their calls to seize the property of the aristocrats and redistribute wealth as a communist plot that he would not allow to destroy Germany. The points didn’t change but Hitler made it clear that henceforth a party would be about following his rule and no other plan or program. Then he hunted down the actual leftists remaining in the party. The only ones he ended up actually enacting or the ones concerned with privileging the so-called master race above non-Aryans. He didn’t carry out any of the leftist ideas in the points. It’s funny though that not all of the points are really even what most people would consider leftist, even today. Equal rights? Wow that’s really leftist, a real communist plot. Jefferson must’ve been a communist eh? Self determination? Collectivism at its worst right? Ensuring that everyone has a job and a strong middle class? Franklin Roosevelt said the same thing at the time. Again your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge and you’re still talking nonsense. Nazism is still a far right ideology of hate and authoritarianism.
1
@jluvs2ride Because doofus then as now people who identified as left were ideologically opposed to people on the right and for many of the same reasons even today. It was then and remains a useful way to categorize real and meaningful ideological differences. People who want to fudge profound differences in ideological principles may wish to avoid categorization but that’s just a propagandists trick wielded by an ideologue who is attempting to cover up the obvious.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah excuse me but I think it’s not very likely that I’ll get good recommendations for secondary sources from a person who is totally ignorant of the primary sources on the history of the ideology. I think that I’ll probably get material from other ideologues who are either ignorant of the original sources themselves or a cherry picking them to support a predetermined and absurd conclusion: That Nazis were leftist for example. There are too many good things to read to waste time on libertarian propaganda.
1
@dusk6159 Well you know that Hitler actually argued that it was democracy that took away the freedom of capitalists to run their businesses as they saw fit ultimately completely taking away their property rights and establishing communism. I don’t necessarily agree that he was right but he wasn’t a leftist property confiscator himself.
1
@jluvs2ride I’ll tell him that you said he was a communist. After all you’re the one who is insisting on calling all authoritarians are leftists. It’s hilarious to see you say “well the far right were leftists but don’t talk about left and right distinctions except when were calling Nazis leftists. Then we have to make sure that everyone knows that no other label is acceptable under any circumstances. It’s absolute heresy not to call them leftist… but again don’t get too hung up on calling people left or right..” I don’t think you’ll ever make up your mind about anything except your own hypocrisy😂😆😂😂
1
@jluvs2ride You presented the points that Hitler used to outmaneuver the few remaining leftists in the party, essentially the means he used to hijack it and turn it into a right wing authoritarian organization, without any awareness of the speech that he also gave announcing to them that they’d been had and that he was now in control. So if you really don’t know about the Bamberg speech and what was in it maybe you weren’t cherry picking. Maybe you’re just ignorant. But you should know that he didn’t actually do the things in the program that the leftists wanted after he got in power. There was nothing like the forced collectivization of the Kulaks in the Soviet Union for example, no mass seizure of industry either.
1
@jluvs2ride NoI’ve been right about all of it. You just don’t know it because you’re blinded by libertarian propaganda nonsense-a perfect example of the dunning-Kruger effect combined with a cult ideology founded upon a petulant denial of the very need to have any actual knowledge about the history of ideology in order to pontificate about rather complex ideological history. Libertarianism is even more simplistic in it’s utopian predictions than Marxism.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah because if you just say the individual is more important than the state and define anything where the state is more important than the individual as leftist you’re saying that the vast majority of governments for thousands of years have been leftist before leftist ideology even existed. It isn’t complicated to understand that leftism hasn’t been around since the pyramids. But once it does begin to appear during the French revolution there’s a bit more to it than simply authoritarianism. Since you haven’t even bothered to discover when it appears it’s kind of pointless to talk about all the things that you don’t know about the history of leftist ideology.
1
@jluvs2ride Does science really have to be that complicated? Well you’re not gonna understand what it is by ignoring what it is.
1
@jluvs2ride LOL I minored in philosophy at a state College in Virginia. Then I studied European intellectual history and wrote a thesis in US church history at a graduate university elsewhere in the South. But I didn’t have to do those things to know that libertarian dogma is ahistorical and that leftism is more than just authoritarianism. Those things I learned in high school. I’m sorry if it was too complicated for you.
1
@jluvs2ride Person who thinks that leftist ideology is anything throughout history that is authoritarian says someone else lacks critical thinking skills? LOL You really, really have no idea. You’re like that football coach in the US Senate who barely knows which way is up and is talking about imaginary enemies and friends all the time.
1
@jluvs2ride I doubt that you know what anyone’s nationality is, even your own.
1
@jluvs2ride Sure you do...My views are those of James Madison. If you know what you claim to know, you'll understand what that means in terms of the relationship of the individual to the state. But based on the way you're trying to frame it, I doubt that you can understand Madison.
1
@jluvs2ride Of course he was trying to persuade leftist Aryans to abandon "jewish" bolshevism. He saw doing so as vital to the salvation of Europe. "Communism is not a higher evolutionary stage, but the most primitive basic form of shaping peoples and nations. In devoting ourselves in this way to caring for our own blood, a blood which Fate has entrusted to us, we are best helping to protect other peoples from diseases which spread from race to race and from Volk to Volk. If a single volk were to fall to Bolshevism in Western or central Europe, this poison would continue its corrosive work and devastate today's oldest and most beautiful cultural possession on earth." Hitler 1938 You can continue to ignore his statements about what he was offering and how it differed from leftism. But that doesn't change the fact. "In principle, the government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the state, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property." Hitler 1938 "A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not." Hitler 1938
1
@jluvs2ride What a waste of time it is to talk to you. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence you ignoramus.
1
@novusmundi Nice try but he frequently called then Marxists without referencing jews. For instance: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not.” He wasn’t just against Marxism because he considered it Jewish.
1
@novusmundi That was hardly the only reason that he opposed Marxism. “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.” Hitler 1938 Earlier at the Bamberg conference in 1926 Hitler opposed confiscation of aristocratic estates as Marxism that would destroy Germany.
1
@novusmundi Hitler was certainly certainly aware of the fact that there were plenty of non-Jewish communists. He didn’t like the ideology any better when it was practiced by non-Jews
1

Previous
13
Next
...
All