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

@jluvs2ride There’s no way for you to say that it’s irrelevant when you’ve been saying that only people on the left employ government authoritarianism and kings for thousands of years did so representing the established order.
1
@jluvs2ride What is describing it’s no different from policy in western Europe and the United States at the time. By such measures John F. Kennedy was also a socialist. But I doubt you’re willing to admit that.
1
@jluvs2ride Lol you don’t believe in left and right except to say that bad things only happen on the left.
1
@AverageAlien You seriously think that ancient regime monarchs were socialists?😂🤣😆🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride As you just tacitly acknowledged socialism and Marxism have common origins in common principles none of which either one shares with Nazism
1
@AverageAlien 😂🤣😂😂😆🤣😂🤣😫😫🤯 OK the word socialist clearly has no historical meaning to you at all. We could pick any other word and it would be just as relevant to what you’re talking about.
1
@jluvs2ride It’s funny how you keep saying that you don’t believe in the left right paradigm but insist that Nazis belong in the same group with Eugene Debs and Clement Adlai if not Joseph Stalin. You’re pretty incoherent
1
@jluvs2ride Well a lot of people on the road today like to arbitrarily exclude JFK for God knows what reason even though he was very much a Statist an old fashioned national liberal. But apart from anarcho-libertarians and other crackpots most people don’t consider JFK or people like him to be socialists simply for being Statist proponents of a mixed economy. I understand now that to you everyone who’s not an anarchist is a socialist. I don’t like JFK statism but I still think it’s important to correctly identify what he was.
1
@jluvs2ride No I don’t really think that everyone who is not an anarchist is a socialist. But that does appear to be what you think. I was just making the observation. It seems to me that you think that government, any government is socialism. Maybe you’re like that loon here who just told me that European monarchs before the French revolution were socialists… Thanks for the laugh
1
@jluvs2ride People have taken the argument that feudalism led to socialism and rendered it absurd by saying they’re “the same thing” when they’re not remotely close to the same thing. Feudalism didn’t entail confiscating the property of the noble Lord and giving it to the peasants you he charge rent for its use. It didn’t entail any state care of everyone and it certainly didn’t entail the elimination the reduction social classes.
1
@jluvs2ride About all you can say honestly is that the Nazis used some of the rhetoric of socialism re-purposed for their own ideology because you don’t have evidence of actual socialist policies in Nazi Germany. Government involvement in Nazi Germany and simply authoritarianism with a mixed economy like that out of the United States at the time. And then we get this canard that “all authoritarianism is socialism” even though authoritarianism couldn’t include socialist ideology any time before the end of the 18th century it has been around for a longer than that. At this point you’re just saying that virtually all government is socialism
1
@jluvs2ride Hitler was a socialist in the Nazi usage of that word because he said so. He explained how that word usage is not remotely close to the way leftists use it. William Gladstone was a “liberal” by one definition of the word. So does that mean that he’s like Franklin Roosevelt? You need to answer this before you can say that all we need to know is that they used the same word as a label.
1
@jluvs2ride The Nazis added the word “national” Specifically to disassociate themselves from leftism.
1
@jluvs2ride Oh but Gladstone said he was a liberal. So you’re just refusing to accept reality if you say he wasn’t like FDR. As you have vindicated it doesn’t matter that they followed completely different policies. All that really matters is that they used the same word to label themselves, right? Gladstone said he was a liberal so that means that he was in favor Keynesian economics and big social welfare programs national health insurance pensions child care free public education all of it right? It has to because he said he was a liberal, right?
1
@jluvs2ride Roosevelt like Bismark before him claimed he was acting to prevent Socialism from happening. And since neither one of them called themselves socialist they couldn’t have been by your standard right?
1
@jluvs2ride Do you really need it spelled out for you? The same word can be used to refer to very different and even conflicting things. It could be used just to get attention from certain people in order to deceive them. Or it could mean very different things to the user depending upon who used it.
1
@jluvs2ride Labor unions historically played a role in bringing about socialism and you think that Hitler was doing so by getting rid of them? 🤣😂
1
@jluvs2ride Everyone including the United States Britain and many other major belligerents imposed strict price controls and war planning of the economy. That hardly makes the German state into the Soviet Union. Again you’re back to saying that everything is socialism
1
@jluvs2ride Sure public schools and public roads are socialist too. It’s socialist to give out parking tickets isn’t it?
1
@jluvs2ride He essentially destroyed trade unions using the Nazi party as the ultimate strike breakers. And the list of large scale German corporations left untouched and allowed to enrich themselves before during and even after world war two is long. Do you want me to list them?
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah you think it’s everything except anarchy. You’re a lunatic with absurd ideas
1
About all you can actually say about the Nazis is that they pilfered some of the language of Socialism, maintained an authoritarian state like any traditionally conservative German regime before them and made a series of vague statements about enacting real socialist policies after the war. Meanwhile they preserved many vast private companies and estates that enriched themselves before during and after the war and even privatized more companies before the war than some supposed democracies. This is not leftist economic policy not even close. If people don’t like authoritarianism I don’t blame them. But it does no good to pretend that it only occurs on the left because your libertarian dogma says so.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah you said that it’s just about everything that you don’t like. But that kind of consistency doesn’t make for any historical accuracy. I can be very consistent in saying that Marxist philosophy is about Sports betting and make just as much sense.
1
@jluvs2ride Again if there no significant differences why do you keep insisting on the location of this or that along it?
1
@jluvs2ride The bottom line is they didn’t enact such policies. They didn’t nationalize major industry or redistribute wealth on a scale any greater than that of western democracies at the time and actually less so in most cases. Instead, Capitalists got richer under the Nazis. This is not socialism in the sense used by anyone on the left.
1
@jluvs2ride It certainly has at times but not always. And the same can be said of the right. You can’t avoid tyranny just by avoiding the left.
1
@guyvert49 By that definition the old kingdom pharaoh Khufu of ancient Egypt was a socialist😂🤣😆🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride He replaced them with something that was not a trade union. At the same time Franklin Roosevelt was creating the national labor relations board to work with real unions.
1
@guyvert49 Yet you’re saying we should judge the past with a definition you just made up in clear disregard of the past and how such ideas were understood at the time.🤣😂😆🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@guyvert49 Examples of authoritarianism on the right other than Hitler? LOL For instance every monarch in the Romanov, Bourbon and Hohenzollern houses, Otto von Bismarck, the Medici, The Tokugawa shogunate, every ruling dynasty in China for literally thousands of years, Every monarch of imperial Rome-How much time do you have?
1
@jluvs2ride No you need to conceptualize what happened accurately and compare it to what was happening in places that actually moved to the left in the way they treated unions like, for instance, the United States at the time. Attempting to shame a historian with YOUR ignorance, as you’re doing now is a particularly stupid thing to do.
1
@guyvert49 😂🤣😂🤣 Never mind that the very concept of the modern left was coined during the French revolution as the first leftists rebelled against an authoritarian monarch of the Bourbon House. Do you remember what they did with him? no probably you don’t even know that. At some point you’re going to have to face the fact that you’re totally clueless about the history of ideology and can’t speak with any comprehension about any of it.
1
@jluvs2ride A truly leftist king would abdicate and work towards the abolition of the monarchy. Those to his right might be people like Joseph Demaistre who wanted to preserve or restore the monarchy. Demaistre’s Work provided a lot of the foundations of Nazism.
1
@jluvs2ride It would unite people within the master race across social classes but it wasn’t going to destroy social classes. That would be a campaign for class warfare. Class warfare is exactly what Hitler attacked Marxists for doing because it destroyed a unity between classes.
1
@guyvert49 The point is that Nazism is a historical ideology. Its history is what determines where it came from. And no new definition at ANY TIME in the future can change its history. But there are plenty of right wing dictators in the 20th century. Here's only a start: Albania: Ahmet Zogu Zog Shefqet Verlaci Mustafa Kruja Rexhelp Mitrovica Austria: Engelbert Dollfuss Kurt Schuschnigg Croatia: Ante Pavelic Czech Republic: Emil Hacha Portugal: Joaquim Pimenta de Castro Sidónio Pais Óscar Carmona António de Oliveira Salazar Marcelo Caetano
1
@jluvs2ride MA from the University of Tennessee and thesis defense with distinction says otherwise.
1
@jluvs2ride Britain and the US enacted wage and price controls without abolishing independent labor movements.
1
@guyvert49 Oh they most definitely were authoritarian. None of them subscribed to leftist ideology. You’re going to try at this point to change historical origins of ideologies because they don’t fit a definition that you came up with or someone like you came up with long after the fact and it just doesn’t work that way. Again remember the principles of an ideology are defined by its history not by what you or someone thinks it should be today. As I’ve already pointed out conservative authoritarianism has a very long history in Europe and in Latin America too among other places. 20th Century right wing dictatorships came out of that same tradition and have had many things in common with their antecedents.
1
@guyvert49 Liberal democracies Including the United States and France arose from rebellions against traditional authoritarian governments. But with enough historically illiterate morons, Demagogues and crackpot anarchists, who don’t know and or don’t care what’s necessary to maintain liberty, they can also succumb back to authoritarian rule. In your ignorance you believe that the right has always been defined in terms of individual liberty but that’s a very recent phenomenon in history. The right has co-opted or attempted to co-opt what actually started on the left. But its authoritarian tendencies often return to imperil the individual.
1
@jluvs2ride I’m not ignorant. I studied with Cornell European intellectual historian Dr. Owen Bradley, Writing about the development of fascist thought from Joseph Demaistre to Carl Schmitt. Your belief in fantasies that fly in the face of the known facts of the largely private, capitalistic German economy under the Nazis does not change what it was. Your complete misunderstanding of the foundations of Nazi ideology is nowhere near as good as my knowledge of them.
1
@jluvs2ride No your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge. It’s called reading. And unless you do it you have no idea what you’re talking about, no way to separate propaganda from full consideration of historical facts or any knowledge of the people who developed fascism and what they said about it. We don’t just read secondhand sources in grad school. We read the original writings of the political theorists who developed ideology like fascism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. You’re the one who has been programmed with nonsense from people who either don’t know or don’t care about the facts of history.
1
@jluvs2ride It’s laughable how you people think that you can characterize ideological theory that developed over a more than a century without reading any of the original writings from the people who developed it during that time. Instead you ape the words of conspiracy theorists who go on a fishing expedition to try to cull out enough factoids to prove the absurd and then you call the people who are actually read on the subject “programmed”🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride I also quoted original speeches from Hitler and I provided Context for what you quoted that you ignored Or didn’t understand because you’re uneducated.
1
@jluvs2ride I think at least one of the speeches that you quoted attributing to Hitler was from Otto Strasser not Hitler by the way. Even Strasser wasn’t a real leftist. But he represented more of what Hitler was trying to purge out of the Nazi party than what Hitler wanted. I’m sure you also don’t know that as a condition for getting their support to be named German chancellor Hitler met with German industrialists and promised that there would be no actual socialist economic policies taking away their property and that then he kept those promises in most every case. So I have to laugh when you claim that I’m the one lacking in education because I don’t repeat the ignorant propaganda that you don’t know is wrong because you haven’t looked at the actual sources and facts.
1
@Yvory6 If that’s how you look at it you’re actually rewriting history. Socialism is one ideology with economic and social philosophy: that’s how it was started.
1
@Yvory6 Oh it’s not so simple as saying that anything with an authoritarian government is Socialism. It’s not so simple as saying that what we might consider to be conservative in the present-day United States or Britain would be in 1920s or 30s Germany. It’s not so simple that you can identify Hitler’s ideology simply based on where he was spotted in public. It’s not so simple that you can understand Socialism as a historical movement without reading its history since the 18th century. But if you do that it is coherent. There are common threads of thought that identify Socialism and distinguish it from other ideology. It’s not whatever you want to be Socialism can be because of whatever arbitrary nonsense you make up.
1