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

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming" video.

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
@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
@sabhishek9289 when did Darwin himself advocate such a thing? Aren’t you conflating Darwin with social Darwinism?
3
@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
@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
@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
@squatchfromearth4076 Nobody involved in actually writing the 2nd Amendment said that its purpose was for the people to depose their own government.
3
Just without any of the leftist ideology. It was reactionary authoritarianism.
2
@colebehnke7767 except that they didn’t implement any policies that they were against. The Nazis did none of the things that the Soviets did by way of nationalizing the means of production or destroying the bourgeoisie. you’re just repeating a bunch of nonsense that flies in the face of the facts.
2
@oscartang4587u3 not as much as for instance, the United States did. Certainly nothing like what the Soviets did. you don’t understand mid 20th century history or how European ideology differs from that in North America.
2
You need to do one on Hitler’s humanitarianism, his avoidance of narcotics and his carnivorous lifestyle
2
@colebehnke7767 I’ve watched all his videos. They all boil down to the theme that “all authoritarianism is socialism” citing as “evidence” any government action of any kind short of outright anarchy and the presence of fascist leaders like Hitler with actual socialists, without regard for the circumstances. It would make more sense for him to simply do a video reading of Ayn Rand that never ends.
2
@colebehnke7767 Yeah to fully understand it, one needs to read quite a lot from the founders of the ideology. But some of its core principles include redistribution of wealth according to need and basing access to resources on the presumed equality and equal rights of all people. Fascist ideology like Nazism is dedicated to eliminating precisely any assumption of equality or equal rights: it’s their primary goal. Instead it seeks to secure masters and slaves, killing anyone who has neither the “right” to be a master nor is useful as a slave.
2
@oscartang4587u3 LOL..try some serious scholarship..
2
@oscartang4587u3 which is laughable. The whole point of fascist ideologies is to create a master race that enslaves or destroys others. thus destroying all notions of equality between races is vital to fascist ideology. If you think that fascism is about equality, you don’t know the first thing about fascism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 socialism is based on equality. Fascism is based on inequality. There’s no way that those two can go together.
2
@oscartang4587u3 “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
@oscartang4587u3 “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 Go ahead and try to explain how Hitler is describing ANY leftist ideology. “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 “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
2
@oscartang4587u3 I don’t know where you’re coming from but one thing that Americans rarely understand is that American political thought is not identical to that in Europe, and that what they think of is conservative it’s not necessarily what has been considered conservative in Europe. there is a long tradition of Statism and authoritarian rule within European conservatism. It’s much older, in fact, than the left.
2
@colebehnke7767 no I just don’t accept the idiotic theories in the video
2
@oscartang4587u3 well, that’s dumb to recognize the existence of authoritarian capitalism throughout western history since the renaissance is not to deny socialist authoritarianism beginning in the early 20th century. It seems that you have a problem not just with history, but with logic.
2
@oscartang4587u3 do you not understand that the names of things used change over time? before you ask any more questions you need to read more about the history of capitalism and authoritarian rule in Europe since the renaissance.
2
@oscartang4587u3 Look you just don’t have the knowledge of history to even be talking about this. You’re just trying to extrapolate what you think it means based on your own limited experience and that just isn’t going to work. my advice would be to start reading history, beginning with the renaissance in Italy on the origins of capitalism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
2
@oscartang4587u3 well then, so does the US government today. We call it eminent domain. Again we’re back to anything short of anarchy is Socialism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 LOL when you don’t know what you’re talking about again. It wasn’t until near the end of the war that you COULDN’T go into a café and buy coffee and pastries or whatever in Germany because Nazi Germany didn’t mobilize for total war until then.
2
@oscartang4587u3 well, you had to show ration books in Britain and the United States to eat in a restaurant: that didn’t make it socialistic. Do you actually know anything about the homefront during World War II in the allied countries?
2
@oscartang4587u3 🤣😂you’re living in an alternate reality. This one clearly doesn’t matter to you🤷🏼‍♂️ as long as were making up alternate history, Japan was part of the United States in the 1940s and Winston Churchill was actually governor general of Canada
2
@anonygent right but the alternative to Lockean individualism isn’t necessarily Socialism. It could also be right wing authoritarianism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 You must be enjoying a glass of dehydrated water as you write that
2
Whatever you do, don’t ever associate anything evil or Orwellian, with Conservatives: find some bizarre contortion of logic to suggest that right wing authoritarians are actually leftist, despite their bitter hatred of leftists and everything they stood for, and see how many people you can fool.
1
@colebehnke7767 name a policy that they implemented that they were actually against and I’ll prove you wrong
1
@colebehnke7767 and I was asking you to give an example of a policy they implemented that they were against. I call BS.
1
@colebehnke7767 I’m saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about
1
@colebehnke7767 I’m saying that you’re mouthing a silly delusion of ignoramuses on the right who just can’t handle any suggestion that there is anything but goodness associated with the right.
1
@colebehnke7767 this mythology comes from the same mindset as that of the claim that there were tens of thousands of black confederate combat troops.
1
@colebehnke7767 he didn’t end private property rights. There is more major industry in private hands in Germany than England in 1943. And the Nazi labor organization weekend worker bargaining didn’t strengthen it.
1
@colebehnke7767 there was an extensive welfare system created in the late 19th century under Bismarck and expand during the time or republic. Hitler scaled it back. Wage and price controls were implemented earlier in the United States, and most every other major belligerent.
1
communism is everything for the benefit of the dictator: so by that measure Louis the 14th was a communist. I don’t think so
1
@dwizzi1724 it’s crony capitalism, which usually goes hand-in-hand with authoritarian capitalism, which is what Nazi Germany used
1
@dwizzi1724 and, of course, fascism defines the community as excluding most people within it unless they’re part of the master race. So it can’t possibly be true Socialism.
1
@terrygribb9185 libertarianism is a cult, and like many cults or beliefs, require quite a few unusual twists of logic or a logic
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
@colebehnke7767 Less so than Britain or the US at the time
1
@colebehnke7767 if you don’t know what I mean when I use the phrase, lackey and individualism, I’m not gonna be able to explain that to you here. Why don’t you try reading some 18th century political theorists such as John Locke. And a word of advice. If you’re going to try to understand Nazi ideology. In historical context, you really do need an education. You can’t just go on what you read in places like this.
1
@jaqssmith1666 and yet mid 20th century Britain was closer to Socialism in the left true sense than Germany at the time
1
It’s certainly an easy definition: Fascism, and communism of the same thing, and anything that involves any government regulation is fascism and communism. Essentially anarcho libertarians are the only people who are not fascist and communist. LOL
1
Trevor Brannon well but hopefully not through authoritarian rule, followed by a war of genocide
1