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
7
Next
...
All

@FrankGrauStudio It’s not a false premise that leftist ideology is based on economic class conflict and the elimination of economic classes. That’s in all leftist thought. Can you identify any leftist theory defending racism? It’s only in fascism. The fact that some leftists have also been racist doesn’t change the theory of the ideology, the written principles that describe what leftism is. It just makes them hypocrites
1
@FrankGrauStudio Not every socialist leader has diverted the state from socialist ideological principles. But even if they had it wouldn’t change the ideology itself. It would just prove that it hasn’t been realized in the real world and the same could be said of anarcho capitalism. That is one thing that sets Nazism apart from most other ideology: It has been realized rather consistently in the real world and that’s one of the great tragedies of history
1
@FrankGrauStudio American identity politics since the 1960s has abandoned core leftist ideas Of equality for all. As such I think it does have more in common with fascism then true leftism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work. I didn’t say that statist capitalism doesn’t work
1
@FrankGrauStudio You think it’s laughable to say that anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work while citing examples of state capitalism to prove its success? Where is your example of an anarcho capitalist society that does work? Can you provide even one?
1
@FrankGrauStudio The wealth of Bernie Sanders: again hypocrisy of individuals doesn’t change the principles of the ideology. The principles don’t have to function in the real world to exist on paper. Indeed it is a hallmark of ideology that very often they don’t. Again this is something you also see you in anarcho capitalist ideology.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Hitler blamed only Jews and other supposedly inferior people for Germany’s economic problems and that’s contrary to principles basic to leftist thought. Leftist thought doesn’t target race enemies and blame them for economic problems. It attributes economic problems to the existence of economic classes regardless of race. Targeting racial enemies and blaming them for economic problems doesn’t locate the source of the problem in the existence of economic classes the way leftists would and always have. In targeting racial enemies and blaming Them Hitler wasn’t blaming Germany’s economic problems on the disproportionate holding of wealth but rather on the holding of anything by the wrong people. He didn’t have a problem with an unequal distribution of wealth between Aryans and that just doesn’t fit leftist ideology. He didn’t even want inferior people to exist much less hold any property
1
@FrankGrauStudio Both. It should be obvious that leftist failure to completely remove nationalist feelings doesn’t change their ideological principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio LOL you’re trying to identify leftist ideological principles while dismissing all of the authors of the actual principles and saying that we can only consider political leaders who may or may not have adhered to the principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio But there is one thing about the Nazis which set them apart from most other ideologies: their political leaders were very consistent in applying the principles of their ideology. Both the theory and practice of Nazism show that it’s simply not a leftist ideology.
1
@colebehnke7767 it would look like a Satanic Jesus or John D Rockefeller, declaring his undying support for communism. It’s a non sequitur, because the basis of Marxist ideology is explicitly against racism among other things. And I’ve studied the history of ideology in the 19th century in graduate school so I think I do know what I’m talking about-actually quite a bit more than you, I’m sure given your petulant, ignorant way of speaking.
1
There are however common principles that identify leftist ideology. If something doesn’t have any of them it’s not economically left no matter what its name is.
1
@EyePatchGuy88 Nationalism has always been contrary to leftist ideology, Which is based on uniting people. Nationalism is the essence of fascism. But it’s an extreme form of nationalism that justifies crimes against other nationalities. I personally don’t believe that all nationalism is bad. But then again I’m not a leftist or Nazi.
1
Yeah that should tell you right there that the assertion that fascism is Socialism is wrong. Of course Henry Ford wasn’t an economic leftist. That would’ve been entirely contrary to his interests and against everything he did throughout his life. And he didn’t subscribe to the beliefs of other people associated with the left either.
1
@kingorange7739 They don’t. Left his policies would confiscate most of their wealth and I don’t know of any rich person who is supporting that today. Do you?
1
@phillip3495 So you just sad that free enterprise unchecked by organized labor is conservatism. Actual fascist oppose labor unions bed early. But yet you’re claiming that labor unions are fascist. Labor unions historically have been defended by the left and are usually identified with the left. I think you’re really confused
1
@kingorange7739 Leftist ideological principles are limited to the Marxists. Authoritarianism isn’t limited to the left. Hitler didn’t enact leftist economic policies
1
@kingorange7739 Well in a sense Marxism can’t pre-date Karl Marx. But the foundations of Marxism are laid down during the enlightenment in Western Europe and then in the French revolution. These are also the foundations of all other forms of Socialism. You can’t treat Marx and his ideas is if they had no foundation before Marx was alive: that’s ludicrous and easily disproved. You can’t understand what Socialism is without identifying its core ideological principles shared by all branches of socialism. You can’t determine what is and isn’t Socialism without understanding those unifying principles.
1
@phillip3495 Maybe you should’ve told that to Hitler because he destroyed worker formed labor unions and replaced them with government representatives that were just a sham. Yes you have a reasonable definition of conservativism Insofar as it goes but you don’t know what institutions were being preserved in Italy and Germany by the fascists. You’re trying to assert a mythical past where everyone was free of authoritarian rule all over the world so that anyone who didn’t try to conserve this supposed past can’t be conservative. But the reality is that Italy and Germany were authoritarian countries before fascists arrived in either one and that capitalism functioned in both under traditional authoritarian control. Hitler argued that capitalism couldn’t work unless a ruling elite was in charge. He argued that giving everyone liberty would destroy capitalism and turn the country to communism, by denying the power and control that property holders had earned through superior ability and effort.
1
So using the logic here: the North Korean State is called the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. By this fact alone we know that it’s a free and open Democratic Society in the true sense of the word Democracy. We can be sure that the use of the word Democratic here means exactly that in practice and that it’s not being appropriated by the North Koreans for propaganda purposes or to give anyone the wrong idea about what they really are. Now if you observe that the North Koreans are exercising authoritarian and totalitarian state oppression and terror and that people don’t have any rights that merely tells you that this is a special kind of free and democratic society where the freedoms don’t yet exist but it’s still democratic and free. It’s a true Democracy just where the Democratic means of forming the government are replaced by totalitarian means. I’m going to comb through all the instances where the North Korean government and its representatives have said that they are democratic and that they are Protecting individual rights even better than the United States to prove that they are indeed a democratic country. Instances where they have used oppressive and authoritarian measures against their own people are irrelevant because they’re just replacing the usual democratic forms of government with totalitarianism in this type of democracy. It’s like when Nazi socialists substitute race for the usual socialist class conflict found in other forms of socialism and tell you they will redistribute wealth “later.” Seriously, it’s still Socialism, no matter what else it might really look like. There’s a new school of thought inspired by Orwell that has produced many new books which I want to tell you about that will tell you how black is white, evil is good and so on.
1
You can’t be serious! It’s a satire of your position about Nazism. No wonder you think that Nazis were leftist🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@chachacha2023 I think you need to look up the word satire in a dictionary at this point.
1
@chachacha2023 If you really think that the kind of sham votes that take place in North Korea are comparable to voting in the United States or Britain, No wonder you think that Nazis were leftist🤷🏼‍♂️ You can’t make this stuff up folks. OK well I guess you can and that’s of course the whole problem with the ideas here.
1
Perhaps in your research you’ve discovered that Hitler didn’t think so either and indeed that he thought Authoritarianism was necessary to prevent capitalism from being destroyed by Marxism. But perhaps that gets filtered out by your own ideology. Religious faith in a free market and a distrust of democracy don’t seem to be very compatible to me. Indeed it sounds like you’ve gotten yourself twisted thoroughly into knots.
1
@TheImperatorKnight Perhaps you see the same threat to private property from democracy that Hitler saw: a mob using the authority of the state to restrict property rights. But if that were the case why would you be attacking the Nazis as ideological enemies? I don’t think they really are your ideological enemies but you obviously do.
1
@silent_stalker3687 That’s total nonsense to say that Hitler abolished private property. That didn’t happen. All those controls were nothing but war measures: the same thing happened in the United States. Actually they were more extensive in the United States. Does that make the country socialist because they control the economy during a war? What about when they were not in war and didn’t have those controls in place?
1
@silent_stalker3687 I dare you to present a primary source of any kind that proves the Nazis “abolished private property.” That’s a ridiculous lie that the people who are repeating know is not the truth. In fact Hitler privatized more property during his rule and many German corporations not only remained private but greatly enrich themselves during an even after the war. You people are constructing a ludicrous alternate reality which bears no resemblance to the actual historical one. You may as well say that the Nazis were a comedy troupe from a Mel Brooks movie.
1
@silent_stalker3687 That’s a lie..It didn’t suspend or abolish private property. Property ownership continued to all throughout Germany all throughout the 1930s. You’re trying to make it sound like nationalization of property in the Soviet Union. It was certainly arbitrary and tyrannical use of dictatorial power but people didn’t cease owning private property as a result. It simply removed civil rights protections.
1
@silent_stalker3687 If you opposed the Nazi regime you were likely to die. That makes them evil authoritarians. It doesn’t mean they had to espouse socialist ideology and they didn’t.
1
@silent_stalker3687 Leftists seize property in order to make it public and redistribute wealth eliminating differences in wealth between people to provide to everyone according to need. Authoritarians who are not doing this but simply taking people’s rights away as a punitive measure are not advancing leftist ideological goals. They might take someone’s property just to destroy enemies of the state and then give it to someone else who is not. That is in fact what the Nazis did. It’s certainly tyranny. It’s certainly not socialism Not as a true leftist uses the term.
1
@silent_stalker3687 He didn’t seize any property in order to fulfill leftist goals of providing to all according to need. You still haven’t presented any evidence of the abolition of private property in Nazi Germany and that assertion based on the source you presented is ridiculous not to mention all of the private property that continued in the hands of business owners and landowners of all types all throughout the 1930s. That couldn’t possibly be if they really eliminated private property as you’re saying. How can you possibly say that private property was eliminated when literally millions of people continued to own private property including vast amounts of it in the hands of the wealthy all throughout the 1930s and 40s in Germany? Either you’re a complete moron or you’re trying to use a brand new and completely ahistorical definition of private property. It would have to be a nonsensical definition to denies literal reality in a completely arbitrary fashion to the point that words no longer mean anything.
1
@oscartang4587u3 LOL allows one to make the ludicrous argument that an ideology like Fascism diametrically opposed to socialism is just “less than ideal” socialism rather than socialist in name only.
1
@oscartang4587u3 Both socialism and fascism have their origins in the 18th century. So does the American constitution. That does not make them the same thing or derived from each other. Fascism including Nazism are opposed to the economic class warfare, internationalism and social equality that are at the core of socialism. Even a casual reading of fascist theory makes this obvious.
1
@oscartang4587u3 that’s idiotic. Fascism is diametrically opposed to Marxism. The only thing they have in common is that each has been authoritarian.
1
@oscartang4587u3 and you’re pulling Sternhill out of context in an effort to make him say something he doesn’t actually say.
1
@oscartang4587u3 so you’re admitting that he doesn’t claim that fascism or Nazism is a form of Marxian socialism?
1
@oscartang4587u3 yes, I know he did by turning Germany into a right wing authoritarian state and declaring war on the left. Yes I’ve been walking watching the videos. But no amount of orange salad can change the founding principles of fascist and socialist ideologies. can you explain how once he came into power Hitler fulfilled a leftist economic program of any kind?
1
@colebehnke7767 only one form of capitalism and a form that Hitler believed was doomed to fail because he argued it. It put inferior people in control of resources that they didn’t know how to handle and prevented the master race from making decisions. Hitler was an authoritarian capitalist. Part of the myopia of libertarians in the present day is this historically, illiterate assumption they makes it liberal capitalism is the only form of capitalism. It’s more like a religion because it ignores most of the history of actual capitalism.
1
@oscartang4587u3 indeed, but there’s a little doubt that Florence was also what we would now call authoritarian-as you would quickly discover if you were not of a wealthy and powerful family.And it’s no accident that it’s also the birthplace of Machiavelli. as for being the popes vassal, you know that Florence sometimes controlled the papacy itself through the Medici.
1
@oscartang4587u3 Are you familiar with the conditions in renaissance Italy?
1
@oscartang4587u3 Autocratic rule by leading families-both hereditary and a rising merchant class which founded western capitalism. The circumstances for most were very different from a liberal democracy of the 20th century, much less those of an anarcho-libertarian fantasy. Most were tightly controlled by the elites. In this respect it wasn’t that different from 18th century England or Prussia or 17th century Holland-another “republic”
1
@oscartang4587u3 Early feudal governments put peasants under rule very much like authoritarian rule, just without a capitalist economic system. The latter was added beginning in the Italian renaissance, the point being that capitalism has thrived for centuries under authoritarian conditions long before socialist ideology was formed beginning in the 18th century.
1
@oscartang4587u3 splitting hairs…in practice for most people, living in renaissance Florence would be very much like living in 1930s Germany, the former long before socialism was developed, the latter extremely hostile to true socialism and all other “leveling ideologies.”
1
@oscartang4587u3 Well only true socialists claimed that the pursuit of equality defined as the uplifting of the masses at the expense of bourgeois overlords was a goal. Hitler saw that possibility as the RUIN of Nazi goals: “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 “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 economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932
1
@oscartang4587u3 Oh so whenever Hitler says something that doesn’t fit your narrative, he’s lying. Except that he was not lying. There was no nationalization of major German industry, and no new social welfare programs after Hitler gained power. In fact, the Nazis actually scale back pre-existing social programs and privatized major German industry more so than did the British during that period. How do you people float a conspiracy theory about well it wasn’t really privatized, because the beneficiaries of this privatization were part of the Nazi party. But that makes it a kleptocracy and a crony capitalist state not a socialist state. and then what are you going to war measures that Germany actually was late in setting up relative to the western democracies it was at war with? And even if Germany had done more of that, it would’ve simply proven what we already knew the Statism would of Germany during a war. What are you don’t see at any time in the history of Nazi Germany is anything like the central economic planning or government ownership of industry in the Soviet union at the time. if you learn nothing else from the history of the 20th century, you should learn that Fascism was at war with the left, defining it as a Jewish subhuman conspiracy to deprive the master race of what belonged to it by right. to understand this you have to accept the deep authoritarian roots of conservatism and statism and drop the ahistorical/historically illiterate notion that they belong exclusively on the left
1
@oscartang4587u3 private property was not abolished in Germany under the Nazis. That’s not what that law did at all, and they were literally millions of private property owners in Germany at the end of the third Reich, including owners of major industry, railroads banking etc. The other things you’re referring to, or either preexistent the Nazis, and then some cases were scaled back by them, or would still put Germany to the right of Franklin Roosevelt during that period still not remotely comparable to what was happening in the Soviet union at the time
1
@oscartang4587u3 heavy regulations, were imposed on German industry prior to the Nazis as were social welfare programs and workers rights. The Nazis actually scaled those back and they certainly didn’t eliminate private property rights. That’s a flat out lie. and again German government control over private industry during World War II was no greater than that of the United States. If anything it was less, which contributed to Germany’s defeat during the war. Yes, the Nazis were awarded high party officials with private property. It was a kleptocracy. What they didn’t do is redistribute the means of production to the working class.
1
@oscartang4587u3 seriously? I wasn’t talking about just at the end of the war but all throughout the history of the third Reich. are you seriously claiming that all or nearly all property was state owned in Germany prior to the end of the Third Reich?
1
@oscartang4587u3 yeah so did the United States and Britain and most other major belligerents during the war. So now we’re back to everyone in the world was socialist except those who conformed to a nonexistent anarcho Libertarian ideal.
1
I’m working on a book about Karl Marx’s laissez-faire capitalism.
1

Previous
7
Next
...
All