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

  1.  @pooyahasani6772  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
    2
  2.  @pooyahasani6772  You’re obviously not a national socialist or anything that requires any thought.
    2
  3. @The Philosoraptor I can understand your confusion. I’m from a place you’ve obviously never heard of where nothing is ever purely one thing or the other called “the real world.”
    2
  4.  @oscartang4587u3  You must be enjoying a glass of dehydrated water as you write that
    2
  5.  @benitopepolini1249  Dude flush out your headgear. How many times do I have to repeat this? I was satirizing the apologists for capitalism as a supposedly perfect system. I agree with you that it’s not!
    2
  6. It’s not uncritically accepting anything. it’s refusal to go along with right wing utopian ideologues who are determined to pull out all the stops to paper over Contradictions between leftism and Nazism that make it impossible for them to be ideologically together: The elimination of economic classes, the redistribution of wealth, the equality of all people-all of these things are death to fascist ideology. Uncritically accepting libertarian propaganda designed to reframe a far right ideology as something leftist without reading what the people actually said and did who subscribe to that ideology is simply allowing yourself to be brainwashed.
    2
  7.  @donaldsheckler3636  Nor do we have to demonstrate that utopian ideologies like laissez-faire capitalism or socialism actually meet their goals to identify them based on their beliefs. Having miraculous and unattainable goals is what makes them utopian after all. But when you see that they really do believe such unachievable stuff you know you’ve correctly identified them.
    2
  8.  @donaldsheckler3636  LOL..liberties? In the German states?!..🤣 Why do you think so many Germans fled during the revolutions of 1848 to the United States? Do you think they were fleeing the welcoming of new liberties for German people by the governments involved? You really need to know something about European history to talk about this..otherwise you just look like a fool as in this case.
    2
  9.  @Herv3  Really in what way? Such social welfare programs as there were in Germany were actually installed in imperial Germany in order to prevent socialism and Hitler scaled many of those back or eliminated them. He also did away with labor unions and worker rights protections to give capitalists more control over their property. He refused calls to nationalize German industry and aristocratic estates and actually privatized more businesses. Then he hunted down and killed people who advocated leftist policies. How is this leftist in any way?
    2
  10.  @Herv3  Total make-believe which relies on the vestiges of things put in place by others before Hitler’s rise to power in order to stop Socialism not what Hitler himself did. The unfortunate reality for you people is that Hitler was a right wing anti-communist who did everything he could to do away with the left. He certainly wasn’t a leftist. It’s uncomfortable for ignorant people of the American alt right to think that authoritarianism has a long conservative history because they like to think of themselves as proponents of individual liberty but that’s not really what they’re doing or what they’re really a part of. Authoritarianism especially in Europe is the true history of the right whether you like it or not.
    2
  11.  @Herv3  You’re the one making it up. This is the reality of Hitler’s “socialism” “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932 “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 1933 Now quit lying about history!
    2
  12. Where do you get the idea that it was all state ownership. That’s hardly true. In fact the Nazis privatized more industry than the British during the 1930s
    2
  13.  @Gvjrapiro  He was also right wing because he was an advocate of capitalist elites owning private property Including the means of production
    2
  14.  @Gvjrapiro  Indeed the right is attempting to define anything authoritarian- collectivist is the word they use-as left wing by definition which flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history long before they even was a left is the term has ever been understood. Basically when you hear someone call Hitler a true socialist you’re probably confronting a lunatic who views all of history through a warped anachronistic and ahistorical binary perspective that can be summed up as either anarchy or collectivism(meaning any legal limitation on what the individual can do, any government at all). This is a radical nihilistic fantasy that leads only to chaos or the very authoritarianism it tries to avoid.
    2
  15. In other words he repurposed the term to mean something completely different from its historical use by leftists.
    2
  16.  Wulf  Hitler himself sought advice from occult mystics and tried to divine the future through occult practices. If you look at what the Nazis called research it’s as much mysticism as it is pseudoscience. And a lot of the Nazi regalia and heraldry, even the names of SS military units were heavily derived from Teutonic mythology. Like the mad king Ludwig of Bavaria Hitler viewed Wagner as much more than just music. It wasn’t fantasy to him. It was prophecy and divinity.
    2
  17.  Wulf  I’m not sure what you mean when you use the word racialism. It’s clearly not a description of any form of fascism such as that of the Nazis. You’d have to be unimaginably blind not to see that the Nazis were doing everything they could to uplift one people at the expense of others.
    2
  18.  Wulf  And its more narrow sense a revolution just means a change in government. It doesn’t specify whether or not that restores an earlier form of government or attempts to do something new.
    2
  19.  Wulf  Indeed in many cases Marxist claims to fight for the working class didn’t pan out, usually because gangsters opportunistically seized upon the revolution to grab power away from the idealistic Marxists who provided the theory. But the Nazis didn’t even start with a theory of advancing an economic class. Indeed they explicitly rejected that idea as a threat to advancing the Aryan RACE.
    2
  20.  Wulf  My sources include the writings of Marx, Engels, Babeauf, Rousseau, Eugene Debs,Thomas Paine, Antonio Gramsci, Totsky, Clement Attlee, Gajo Petrovic among others. They’re not hard to find
    2
  21.  Wulf  Nationalism as an ideology came after the revolution: that doesn’t mean that nationalist thought had no origin before the French revolution or that nationalist didn’t try to preserve what they saw as a traditional sense of tribal identity. Indeed the whole point of nationalism was to preserve tribal identity thought to have much earlier origins.
    2
  22.  Wulf  Oh I didn’t say the SS ruled Germany. Hitler ruled Germany. The SS was his praetorian guard and his his ideological elite. You are confusing Stalin’s paranoid purge of the red Army officer corps with the earlier Bolshevik liquidation of the Russian aristocracy. The former didn’t necessarily target ideological enemies so much as Stalin’s personal enemies: real or imagined. The latter is something that the bolsheviks did immediately upon gaining power because their ideology was about destroying the aristocracy. Stalin‘s purge of landholding peasants also followed that motivation. Neither one was taken as a measure to defend against invasion. And there was no such purge of people in Nazi Germany because they held property or represented some sort of class enemy. It wasn’t just that the aristocracy survived in Germany. It was never touched. Nazi ideology violently opposed the leftist notion of class conflict because it pitted members of the master race against each other. That’s why Hitler saw Bolshevism as a Jewish plot to destroy the master race.
    2
  23.  Wulf  I don’t know what you think is significant about the fact that the SS wasn’t the German state itself. It was very much the “organs” of the state, its political and cultural elite. It bore personal loyalty to the head of the state and was the embodiment of his ethos.
    2
  24.  @goonsdoona2979  Why would you read something which states a ludicrously false premise upfront something you know has been promoted as a conspiracy theory by ideologues who can’t accept reality.
    2
  25.  @goonsdoona2979  From everything that TIK says about it it won’t help you understand socialist or Nazi ideology. Unless he is misleading to a very large extent about the contents of the book it is a work of deception designed to rewrite history to fit the cold beliefs of Ideologue suit don’t have much connection with reality. It’s much better to read what Hitler wrote, what other Nazis wrote, and study what they did when they were in power. You should also read what authentic socialists have written about their ideology and do some comparisons. That’s how you think for yourself not by having someone present a Propaganda peace to you that distorts these original sources
    2
  26.  @silent_stalker3687  The last thing on earth and Nazis wanted was equality. “You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” Hitler 1930 “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?
    2
  27. On the contrary Hitler argued that capitalism was impossible in a democracy because it denied those who had worked their way to the top the fruits of their labor forcing them to give rights to workers and ultimately degenerated into Socialism. Hitler privatized more industry than anyone else during the 1930s. Nazi policies also protected private property and traditional power structures. Being authoritarian historically is more of a conservative attribute then something that has been practice by the left. Authoritarianism existed long before you’re even was a left. Louis the 14th of France was an authoritarian who instituted strong government controls over his country. Are you seriously going to say that he was a communist? LOL
    2
  28.  Wulf  Yes some people consider traditionalists and Paleo conservatives to be extremist. But I’d say they’re quite a few more and quite a lot better arguments that authoritarians left and right are extremists. As a conservative in an early American sense of that word I have the better argument to being grounded in objective reality rather than ideology. The people who call someone with my beliefs extremist are usually on the far left: People whose view of truth is almost pure ideology without any objectivity.
    2
  29.  Wulf  Because there are standards to measure objectively what is factual and what isn’t. They are the same standards used by the founding generation: rationalism and empiricism. Since each individual sees only a part of reality it is impossible for anyone to be perfectly objective. But that doesn’t mean that every perspective is just as ideologically driven away from facts as any other.
    2
  30.  Wulf  Yes but not every point of view reflects extreme ideological blinders On top of individual perspective. It takes something like Marxism, fascism, or anarchism to blind you to that degree. Then you don’t even see what your own eyes tell you, just what the ideology and or its leader dictates. This is why ideologically driven thinking is so dangerous
    2
  31.  Wulf  “Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    2
  32.  Wulf  No ideology isn’t simply identity. It’s forming your identity around a rigid dogma that defines the world only according to its own terms a priori and disregards everything else no matter what.
    2
  33.  Wulf  Force isn’t necessarily evil. It depends on how and why it is used. As our American founders recognized you can’t have government or liberty without force. I know anarchist ideology says otherwise but the results of that have always been contrary to what the ideology states.
    2
  34.  Wulf  That’s why I included the quote from Solzhenitsyn. He answers that question directly that it is ideology which makes people capable of doing really awful things and he understood this better than most as a victim of Stalin’s brutality who became a Nobel laureate in literature. I highly recommend Solzhenitsyn if you want to learn more about how ideology poisons human actions, Maximizes human potential for corruption and depravity.
    2
  35.  Wulf  Well the American founders on numerous occasions warned us against overseas adventurism. I find it bizarre that you are trying to separate ideas from actions as if they have no relationship to each other despite all the evidence of people acting on their ideas throughout history.
    2
  36.  Wulf  no I’m saying that awful things can and often have happened BECAUSE of ideology. This happens less likely within individual households(Bad things happening because of ideology are more likely to be done by the state) but it has certainly happened. For instance in Stalinist Russia ideology compelled people to inform on their own family members and get them sent to concentration camps often for no other reason.
    2
  37.  Wulf  So because people are self righteous that means that good and evil don’t exist? You sound like a true moral relativist.
    2
  38.  Wulf  So in other words you’re acknowledging that you are a relativist. It’s not a label that you’re trying to run from. I just wanted to clarify that point. I don’t think we can destroy ideology forever just like I don’t think we can stop murder or war forever. But that doesn’t mean we should be OK with it! That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to prevent it whenever we can.
    2
  39.  Wulf  So since you can’t stop war or murder for all time you should never make any effort to stop any particular war or murder? Should we therefore legalize murder because laws against it do represent attempts to stop at least some murder? We should condemn opposition to any war as an exercise in futility? We shouldn’t even try to warn people about the dangers of Nazi, anarchist and communist ideology? I’m not saying we should burn books or prevent people from espousing hateful beliefs but to make no distinction at all between good and evil doesn’t seem like a good idea either.
    2
  40.  Wulf  I didn’t say that ideology is not part of objective reality. But Ideology is also not a universal condition of thought. Not every point of view is ideologically driven. mine for instance is not. It is possible to avoid ideology as an individual even if we can’t remove it from the entire planet forever. If you’re OK with trying to prevent at least some wars and murders then you shouldn’t have a problem with trying to persuade people not to fall into ideological thinking where they and many others can easily get hurt. The fact that you can’t stop everyone from doing that doesn’t mean that you can’t do some good by stopping many people from doing it. If we can’t even try then the frequency of regimes like the Nazis is sure to increase.
    2
  41.  Wulf  because ascribing to an ideology is an active choice. I think you’re trying to conflate ideology with point of view as if everyone is naturally thinking in ideological terms at birth. Ideology is not a constant within human history however. it doesn’t really begin to develop in the west until the early modern period. And if someone isn’t exposed to ideology they won’t even have an opportunity to make a choice as to whether or not to follow an ideology. I don’t think you know how to define the word ideology or much of anything else about the history of ideology so you’re simply confused.
    2
  42.  Wulf  Which word do you use matters if you want to describe what you’re talking about. Words like ideology are not interchangeable with other concepts concerned with political views or individual perspective. If I had said that I could escape from having an individual point of view you might have a point but I didn’t say that. I said that I don’t have to describe to the tenants of an ideology, any ideology if I don’t want to. Nor do you. You do have a choice.
    2
  43.  Wulf  Again not everyone is thinking an ideological terms nor does the existence of both good and evil prove that either one must triumph in every case Or that there’s nothing we can do about it. Ideological polarization if that’s what you’re talking about is indeed not good precisely because it pushes so many people away from objective consideration of facts. Your response seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say that well that’s just the way things always are and have been, but that is not an accurate description of history and what it shows.
    2
  44.  Wulf  Create a society for the common good? How do you propose to do that? I don’t think that ideologies offer a likely path but you will need some sort of plan and there are a variety of different plans that all have the goals that you’re interested in. How do you know which one is best?
    2
  45.  @Bronzeagecaveman  I think it’s more than being contrarian. He’s trying to project his own rather fanciful cult libertarian ideology onto the entire sweep of world history and say that either your agree with him or you’re a socialist.
    2
  46.  @odinisnotthesomefather4687  We’re supposed to believe that you would even understand just five words? Lol!
    2
  47. If someone uses the word capitalist to describe something that doesn’t have any of the principles of capitalism you should
    2
  48.  @ThZuao  And if we stuck with the most restrictive definition it would still include renaissance Italy where the government was quite authoritarian.
    2
  49.  @ThZuao  The author of this page and his supporters are defining capitalism as a utopian ideal of perfect freedom. Anything that doesn’t actually manifest itself as the ideal is “socialism.” So essentially what TIK is saying is that every system in history has been socialist and capitalism has never actually existed as anything more than a theory.
    2
  50. If you’re a libertarian today it’s heresy to allow there to be anything associated with the right that is unsavory. According to libertarian dogma nothing authoritarian can be conservative either. Never mind that authoritarianism has been conservative for most of its history. The Nazis are a big problem for this reason and libertarians must pull out all the stops to reframe them as leftist no matter how ridiculous it gets. Their religious precepts depend upon this.
    2