Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TimeGhost History"
channel.
-
12
-
A Scam Involving Corndogs How? By that logic anarchism and communism, left wing ideologies that preach statelessness, are somehow not left wing at all. Nationalization and government power aren't inherently left wing, no more than the removal of those things is inherently right wing. While yes, those were most often done by left wingers, some were also done by monarchists, or really just dictators in general. And I say all of this because, as I believe I said, doing surface level "left wing" things for the sole purpose of pushing a right wing cultural and social goal, in pursuit of a right wing society, kind of overrides any ideological tendencies their actions had, and just shows them to be opportunists. Of course they weren't pure capitalists, nor were they socialists, but to say they had some left wing ideas when said ideas were abandoned whenever applicable is a bit silly, they (again) were more political and economic opportunists than anything.
6
-
6
-
A Scam Involving Corndogs Ok, I actually agree with your definition of left vs right, broadly. However, the nationalizations of the nazis weren't done with the purpose of egalitarianism, not unless one stretches the word. They had somewhat of a welfare state... that excluded most gays, non-whites, political dissidents, disabled people, ect. They disbanded labor unions, and replaced them with organizations that in fact took power away from the people. The wealthy, on average, participated in the regime and got much richer not only than the average person, but also than they used to be. The nationalized property rarely went to the people, it either went to party representatives/allies or private business owners. While some of this certainly did help increase equality among those favored by the nazi party, it was to the detriment of the vast majority of people who were not. And that's why I say even their economics were not that wing, because to me personally (and I mean no offense by this) saying that they promoted equality, but only for a small group, is like saying that one could advocate for civil rights in the 1960s by only advocating for equal rights in white people. If your equality is that segregated and picky, how can one call it equality at all? Again, no offense meant, but that's my view.
2
-
@wulfywulf7033 And I would agree that that isn't a perfect argument to saying the nazis weren't socialists, as are quite a few more, but the thing is there are many arguments, discussing the idea from all angle. And sorry for I guess lashing out with that huge paragraph, there just seems to be people a lot less reasonable than you here in the comments who want to place the blame solely on one side. BUt I would still say the nazis were not socialist.
And I would agree and disagree here, because it's a bit important to draw some distinction. Yes, some of the ideas of nazism did come from socialism, but others came from national syndicalism, others came from capitalism, others came from monarchism, others came from social darwinism. It seems the nazis just implemented a lot of policies, not based on a coherent economic plan, but on whatever they thought would help them best achieve their goals. I think if you look at the nazi's philosophy, it's one of conquest, one of inherent hierarchy and class differences, one of a distrust of the lower classes rather than acceptance, and most importantly, one of social darwinism. I would say no action can really fall within a political ideology, at least not be default. To find that, you need to look at the intent behind it. The thing is, while "race" vs "class identity" was by far not the only major disagreement fascists and nazis have with socialists, it shows that they are already different. For example, by phrasing it like that, I could say capitalism is almost socialistic, because the workers each own their own production individually, and that the rich factory owners own the means of production. And, alongside that, Marx did take some concepts from capitalism when trying to explain his own political ideas, and things like communism. So I just feel that the connection isn't really worth making, it's like saying communism has a connection in ideology to capitalism (which it does), but that disregards the many, many differences. I would also say that Hitler is very different from the other failed implementations of socialism, and I wouldn't even say it counts as an attempt. Looking at hitler's quotes, his ideology seems to be to try to create an economic system based off of state dirigisme, which is something some socialists states did. But the problem is that for socialism, that step is just step one to get to socialism. Hitler, when defining national socialism, essentially said that he just wanted to start at step one, he didn't even want to bother reaching for an actual socialist system. So, like what I said earlier, intent does matter. I do not think nazi germany was a socialist state, but from what i've seen, I would also dispute that hitler was a socialist. Like I said above, he didn't seem like he wanted socialism, just a strong central government that crushes everything it can, with the help of certain markets that found themselves loyal to the system. And we could debate on whether socialism even can be done, i'm not a socialist myself even, but I think it's pretty clear from what i've seen that hitler did not lead a socialist state, and he had no intention of, not being a socialist himself. In any case, thanks for the pretty civil conversation.
2
-
@colers2366 Hey, hate to fill you in, but you not liking the nazis doesn't make them socialists. They weren't.
T give a brief overview, TIK misrepresents exactly what socialism is, what socialists advocate for, and what private vs public even means, ignoring that they don't perfectly correspond to capitalism vs socialism. The nazis were not socialists, and you should have learned as much before you even left your comment. Your exact same arguments have been disproved in this very thread.
also do just love how after all of that solid evidence against your case, you still try to come up with the silliest of long disproven excuses.
For your first quote, it is again worth bringing up that while the fascists did find themselves in opposition to liberal capitalism, as I said, they often found themselves segmenting it into pieces and removing the pieces that they found. After all, they thought that, "From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. " as well as, "No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it." In that case, as long as certain aspects of humanity lined up with their beliefs, it may be accepted into the fascistic ideology. That's why propaganda was such a big part of those regimes, because while they were "...educated to become a hero. In every mythology the
hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death." (Eco, Ur-Fascism)Things like private property, as I quoted before, were supposed to be largely left along by hitler, as long as they bowed down to his statist ideology. Another quick quote, this time from an interview "‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
(Strasser)
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?"
The state is all, and funnily enough,they considered that "all" to include things like heavily warped, propaganized individualism.
This is the thing that I hear most often, and it's something I think should be addressed in two ways. One, what were they talking about when they said "socialist?" And two, what is socialism, and marxism? So, first off. You allege that when Mussolini rails against socialism, he is only against "Marxist socialism." Now, thisi s patently false. It's a strategy used to deny many of the lines of Hitler and Mussolini explicitly hating socialism, like Mussolini's, "The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists." but the problem is it doesn't work. For one, they themselves spread this, but it made little sense then. Let me quote hitler here, really quick. "“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic." Ok, so if supposedly everything he is saying is against "marxian" socialism, where did he get the term? Another quote. "'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.
" In other words, they pretty openly said that they had nothing to do with socialism, in any form. In fact, the way they defined "marxian socialism" was in fact not at all just marxist socialism, but all socialism. After all, let's look at that Mussolini quote you posted earlier. "Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons..." We can see when he says "socialism" he is not just talking about the scientific socialism or marx, the "marxian socialism," but rather all socialism, even proto-socialist movements. So we know he wasn't just talking about marxist socialism. And what even is socialism? Well, it's when the workers own the means of production. Socialists disagree on how this is done, but they agree on that much. Fascism is not for the workers. It is not for the individual. It is not for the state, and therefore, it is not socialism.
If those three things were all it took to define socialism,
then not only would many things like monarchist regimes be considered socialist, but many subsets of socialism wouldn't even count either. That's quite sad to me, personally,to have a definition warped that far. It not only has different motives, but processes, actions, and end results. In short, it is in no way a form of socialism.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colers2366 I just love your assertions here, that somehow the workers owning the means of production knocks out, well, any type of socialism. You proved my point for me, that you don't know what socialism is, and you love to redefine it for a purpose of muddying the waters. After all, that definition applies to all socialist schools. It's what every socialist wants, and what it requires to be a socialist. Especially "marxist socialism," which basically says as much in as many words. Congratulations, you asserted nonsense, and your definition proves me right.
You notice how social ownership is not governmental or public ownership, right? Please tell me you know even that. Your definition is literally just a longer and more detailed version of mine, and it proves me right. Thanks!
1
-
@colers2366 Exactly, that's what I said. The thing is you're acting like giving three synonyms of the same definition somehow invalidates any of of them, or that this definition doesn't work. You do this, of course, with no proof. Why would you need that silly little thing?
It encompasses all of those ideologies, and rather well in fact. You can't just assert your own lack of knowledge about definition, and somehow assert your definition above all others (despite the fact that they are fully compatible) and expect menot to call you out for it, which I am.
It does, however, encapsulate marxist socialism, which I hate to break it to you, doesn't really exist. Marx didn't go around proposing solutions all that often, which means any system of "marxist socialism" would just be a system in which socialism is seen as the intermediate step between capitalism and communism. In any case, your objection makes no sense. Tell me, are the workers not a community? The community of say, employees, managing the MoP is perfectly able to happen under the first definition. Marx also never said they should ever exclude non-proletarians, his whole thing was uniting people under a common class, which is kind of hard when you exclude people randomly. You also completely miss the points you are making, which is not that Marx didn't think any additional effort would be needed after they abolished capitalism. He literally just didn't propose any, because he was primarily a theorist, not a utopian. My definition still fits this fine.
And here you literally explain exactly why it does still work, because our understanding of what it means to be a worker has changed with the times, but that doesn't much change what he wanted the workers to do. All of these definitions describe the same thing, and you're making up terms and fake definitions to try to somehow say otherwise. Yes, as you said, the economy of the era marx lived in and our own are very different, and while the working class has not at all died out it very much has shifted and changed in new ways. But that has nothing to do with how his ideology is defined, because we can look at his individual statements and are still able to translate them into a modern context. All of the definitions given so far reflect the exact same ideology, and that's pretty damn obvious.
Again, the definitions I gave you were all correct. What stays consistent is that they wanted social ownership of the MoP by communities, usually of workers of those factories, but sometimes by the working community as a whole. None of this goes against my definitions.
1
-
1
-
1