Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
88
-
58
-
47
-
40
-
37
-
27
-
24
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@UltraKardas Except according to all rational and objective history, they weren't socialists, at all. The only people who say they were, are right wing ideological fanatics who can't deal with the mark history rightfully puts on them.
The objective of socialism has never been to make money, because making money has never been necessary for maintaining the welfare of one's citizens. You can say socialism doesn't work under capitalism all you want, but that tells me nothing about socialism as a system. Also, the USSR went capitalist even under Lenin, and a socialist country cannot have any form of capitalism, that makes no sense. In any case, no, the nazis removed the old and weak, even though they could be supported, because the nazi's far right ideology despised those who needed help, and preached an absolute supremacy that must always be competed and worked for.
The nazis, quite literally, privatized a medical system that worked fine before they came into power, and when similar systems were implemented afterwards they worked fine as well. The nazis quite literally despised the old, the weak, and the "racially weak," and they didn't give a damn about the economics of that decision, given that their economy quite literally only survived on help from international industrialists. Social Security for all its flaws has been one of the most stable and successful policies... before right wingers started defunding it for no reason, taking poor and old people away from that benefit. Yet again, proving the link between modern right wingers, and historical right wingers like the nazis.
Socialism is not, and has never been, complete government control by the economy. If that was the definition, the vast majority of socialists, including those who first devised the term, Marx, and others, would not be socialists at all. Germany, however, did not even attempt, nor want, "complete economic control by the government." Hitler himself praised the "efficiency" and "ingenuity" of german private business (hence the whole german ideological supremacy thing his ideology was built on) and quite openly said he despised economies controlled by the government, and said they were some sort of marxist, j*wish conspiracy. The companies that bidded over the right to build Auschwitz still exist today, as does the company that manufactured zyklon b. The nazis privatized and restricted the majority of people from welfare, education, and food (like modern right wingers do) and outlawed the ability for workers to control their production in any capacity (like modern and historical right wingers did.) They despised government control openly, and that has never been the definition of socialism. The nazis were less socialist than you. They were, quite openly, far right anti-socialists. And you being so willing to lie, to change definitions and ignore all recorded history in your assertions, just tells me that the only way to even argue the nazis were socialists... is to lie about the meaning of every word in that sentence. Deal with the truth.
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
@OntologicalQuandry The problem of course being that I doubt you've actually watched it, considering your apparent lack of knowledge on the points he goes over. That, and his claim that the German Reich was socialist is false, (and he in fact made excuses to point out why they didn't achieve socialism) and that the Nazis didn't even want socialism.
And as usual, all of this is wrong, and all is easily proven wrong. That's the best part of history, that the further you look into things, the more the obvious answer appears. First off, hitler did not delcare himself socialist, not originally. His party called itself socialist, before he even had total control over it, and apparently he was quite annoyed with this decision. However, he reconciled it with himself by saying things like this: ""1. '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, he saw no connection to socialism as an ideology, and considered the "socialist" part of his title to simply represent a type of economic nationalism. His policies, likewise, were not socialist. He in fact outlawed a huge amount of unions to replace them with a single state run union so he didn't have to worry about the workers asking him to collect on the name, he worked with private interests and vowed to protect their wealth, what the market did not control the dictator and party did, he despised any for of equality, ect. None of this is socialist, much is anti socialist in fact. The only "socialist" policies you can find were related to minor governmental reform specifically relating to his aryan workers, the same kinds of policies (non-race based though) you may see today in social democratic countries, countries we (and even TIK used to) agree were capitalist. His agenda was not the furtherance of socialism, absolutely. He had no desire to put the workers in control of the means of production, not even the aryan workers. He was infamous for calling certain government programs like those benefiting disabled people a drain on the economy, and even paid for the making of several propaganda films like Erbkrank to show how much government spending was "wasted" on these people. Hardly socialist.
Hitler's control of the economy, if anyone, benefited the wealth aryan landowners who supported his regime, the very same dynamic that socialism was founded to fight against. Not only did he have complete control of all the things you mentioned, even if he did, he still wouldn't be a socialist unless he gave those things up to the workers. The germans, nor the aryans, got an inch of that. The soviets at the same time had entirely different policies, ones that (at least in the beginning) actually did attempt to give workers control of the means of production. Oh, and one more thing. Socialism is impossible under a dictatorship.
I know you were hoping for your own heavily biased worldview to be substantiated, and thanks for admitting to that bias, but I don't much care. He spend about 1.5 hours pretending to understand economics, is that not enough for you? Socialism cannot exist with fascism, they are incompatible. Fascism is pretty much the opposite of socialism in all regards. Right wing, hierarchical, social Darwinism, traditionalism, the list goes on, fascism differs in nearly every aspect. I do however find it funny that you somehow think that South American socialist economics, are somehow emblematic of fascism. After all, it wasn't socialists who were throwing people out of helicopters or trying to get rats to eat them. China is perfectly emblematic of the return to state capitalism, i think that much is plainly obvious, and the fact that you somehow think they are any more dishonest in trade than their competition is again, a point of humor for me.
And here, finally, I have to disagree with you, though you potentially could be right. But that's worse. After all, it's much more likely that TIK truly is deluded, and is driven by some sort of fanatic sunk-cost fallacy to continue pushing this narrative. That fanaticism, or ignorance, most likely drives him to make the insults and statements he does, lacking proof. But you could be right, he truly could know more about this than me, and simply be lying to his audience. Your understanding of these events, as lacking as it is, proves as much. So which is it? Is he an extremist fanatic trying to plaster his worldview onto history? Or is he a malicious liar, who cannot prove their arguments rationally, so they degrade to insults and denial?
10
-
9
-
9
-
@travisadams6279
But that isn't true. I hate to break it to you, but jewish people were part of the collective and society in question. They weren't even the only one punished or thrown in camps, all german citizens were repressed and those that weren't white, straight, cis, pro-nazi, anti-union, right wing, and so on were just as subject to be thrown away as jewish citizens. And yes, the soviets repressing the majority of their citizenship makes them by nature not socialist. You can have a collective, and socialists can be racist, but there is no such thing as racist socialism, and by excluding any group you are by definition rejecting socialism. The germans weren't socialists, it wasn't a "twisting," it was an outright rejection of socialism itself.
There was no collective in control of nazi gemany, and the collective as a whole, the community as a whole, cannot be excluded from, hence "as a whole." While there absolutely were some german citizens that thought it easier to ignore the crimes than oppose them, that doesn't change the fact that those same germans only did so because they had no control. The government didn't want to "help the people," it made those people afraid of eachother and wanted them to kill eachother. And no, that isn't true at all. First and foremost, the nazis weren't socialists, but secondarily it's absurd to claim that jewish people represented the upper class at the time, when the majority of the victims of hitler's antisemetic crimes were directed against the poor and middle class jewish people. The wealth even of those top few was never "redistributed" in any mean. Comparing a culture of people to an economic classification is nonsensical. And again, they weren't socialist, as we've been over. That does cancel out their system, and again, what you're describing by nature goes against the definition of socialism. Authoritarianism isn't socialism.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@lineseeking What do you mean I should watch the video? I have, that's why its so hilariously easy to disprove its "points." And of course you want to narrow down and cherry pick definitions, its the only way you people can pretend to be correct, redefine as many words and terms as possible, deny as much history as possible. Apparently, according to an economically and historically illiterate person such as yourself, taxation... is socialism. Of course you think there were "nationalizations, socializations, giving cronies the power to run government agencies" which of course didn't happen as TIK has been corrected on time and time again (I don't think either of you know what nationalization or socialization is) but even if they had happened...that isn't what socialism is? That has never been what socialism is?
There is no "my" socialism, no matter how much you revisionists want to pretend there are multiple definitions to feed into your lies. There is a definition of socialism that has existed from the beginning, from before Marx, and hitler was happy to let people know, in both action and word, that he did not fit this definition. Hitler, objectively, was not a socialist. There is no such thing as "race based socialism," after all, all of this is a right wing myth made so they don't have t deal with the increasingly radical fascist side of their movement.
There were no "other" socialist societies during that era, but of course, you know that - you're a proud liar, somehow thinking that any country you don't like is socialist. Hell, you're ignorant enough to think the USSR was socialist. People like you can't be helped, but here I am trying to educate you anyway.
Now, I expect an apology, you've been called out on your unsubstantiated lies, and you've wasted my time for asking me to respond to a paragraph filled with words but empty of facts. No matter what you and TIK's cult say or do, no matter my responses to you, the truth remains - Hitler was objectively not a socialist, and for all of history he will be remembered as such. Your ahistorical cult is temporary, and dying already.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@travisadams6279
How is that "fascinating?" It's pretty self evident. Individuals can be racist, yes. The ideology that said individuals hold however is not one based on racism. A socialist can be racist, but the ideology of socialism cannot be one based on racism. Pretty simple. And while "a" collective can exist without including all people, but the definition of socialism is "the collective as a whole," not just one random group of people. And asserting that the jewish citizens of nazi germany represented the upper class is just false, and a piece of propaganda the nazis put out to try to rally support for their policies. The problem here is, i've presented the objective definition of socialism, and your response is to baselessly call said definition "far off unrealistic." The germans didn't even want socialism. Your "boots to the ground socialism" has nothing to do with the actual definition. And we are talking about two countries in particular, one (The USSR) which aspired towards socialism, though openly admitted they didn't achieve it, and one (nazi germany) that had no desire for socialism. They never "admitted they were indeed socialists." Perhaps you should stop trusting only the most surface level propaganda, and try actually researching the countries, and seeing if they fit the definition of socialism? Your assertion is without basis. It's obvious that you cannot refute the actual definition of socialism, so choose to try to deny it. If people want to try to deny or deflect from the actual definition you're free to try, but it doesn't go away. Trying to discount the jewish people from the community as a whole, the collective as a whole, makes no sense. If collective, no matter how small, inefficient, and exclusive means "socialism," than capitalism is socialism, monarchism is socialism, ect. Socialism is defined by collective as a whole, not just one group of many. I don't care about what exists "in you eyes," I care about the application of objective reality. Anti-socialism isn't "worse socialism." Not all socialists hold the goal of communism. Furthermore, why should socialists be held to blame for the actions of the capitalists before them? Why can't you deal with the concept of social ownership? And when will you figure out that "redistribution" was never the goal? No, there is not ever a race that is scapegoated. That is antithetical to socialism. The whole point of socialism is to put the means of production in the hands of the worker, and abolish class difference. The government repressing and terrorizing the people by definition cannot be socialist. Why would you need power to turn capitalism into socialism, when capitalists simply need to stop exerting power for that to occur? Why do you assume revolution equals government repression, post revolution? Why do you assert that socialism must be authoritarian, when the opposite is historically shown? You can try to expand the definition of socialism to include anti-socialism all you want, but the simple fact is socialism has a concrete definition, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." As a whole. To repress any amount of that community is to disregard the definition. At the moment, bloodshed and authoritarianism are required to protect the dominant ideology, that many oppose. How is resisting that force some sort of human evolution? Why do you assume capitalists would ever allow for a peaceful transfer of power?
7
-
7
-
@travisadams6279
You don't seem to understand that your made up definition of socialism has been torn to shreds by this point.
of course, the nazis weren't "totally communal," nor were they communal at all. Of course, you continue to try to spread your denialist definitions, despite them being debunked. You don't even know the definition of socialism, silly. No, socialism isn't "a" collective, it is the collective, as a whole. Furthermore, you assert that the aryans under the nazis controlled the means of production, which is hilariously false. Workers had no say in what they worked on or why, production was decided by private owners and voluntary government contracts. The nazi state did not control the market and production, as we've been over, rather delegating that mostly to private property, which they ideologically supported. Here is the quoted definition of socialism "political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. " The nazis didn't want any collective to own the means of production, much less the collective as a whole.
7
-
7
-
@SchmulKrieger Yeah, that's not at all right. Hitler called his ideology nationalism first, and defined "socialism" as nationalism. This is not a semantic interest.
Hitler did state that nationalism was socialism, which objectively proved that in fact he wasn't a socialist at all, and that he in fact felt much more connection with the right.
Him being an internationalist only proves this further, as first and foremost socialism has always been an international ideology, and taking that away voids its socialism.
Of course he isn't a socialist, everything you've shown so far has proved that. Mussolini, similarly, was not a socialist and in fact openly rejected socialism. Syndicalism isn't socialism, for one, and for two he abandoned that as well.
And none of those people were socialists, thank you for admitting to this and proving me right.
7
-
7
-
@SchmulKrieger No, unlike you i'm just not a liar, I actually understand history and tell the truth about it.
The nazi ideology was about as anti-socialist as it gets, it wasn't socialism in the slightest. If you are literally at the point where you admit you don't know the definition of socialism, and define it as "a large group is considered to work for their wealth and the wealth of the group, sometimes considered to have means of production led by those groups. " then capitalism is socialism.
And nope, that is literally all objectively incorrect. The SPD was a social democratic party, they were neither national, and like the nazis, were not socialists. The KPD were communists, again, not national and not socialist. I'm beginning to think that you just don't know what the words you are saying mean. But of course that's no surprise really, you seem fine with lying about history and ignoring the biggest allies of the nazis (the conservatives that actually got them elected) so no surprises here.
And i'm sorry, but you do realize that disbanding labor unions and giving extra power to both private industry and a dictatorial state is anti-socialist and anti-syndicalist, right? So no, fascists are far right, anti-syndicalist, and anti-socialist. As we've been over.
I agree, you are a moron, and i've proved it time and time again.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TIK @TIK awww, you remembered me! I don't know why you think it give d you any credibility to never once address my arguments, but it certainly isn't a very good look for a historical denialist and extremist like yourself. After all, how many times have you left this exact comment? Begging your followers to stay in the dark, to never question your propaganda or expose themselves to outside arguments, lest your fragile facade fall away? I don't think I've ever once called you a bad person, though I'll take the opportunity to happily do so now, you are an awful person. Not because of my opinions of course, but because you knowingly tell lies to hundreds of people. I have provided facts, you have provided assertions, insults, and accusations. At this point I think I've watched the video since more than you, honestly, after all you can hardly remember your own arguments. I dont blame you, they were incoherent and nonsense to begin with, but it's a bit sad. Of course you don't want your followers to engage with reality. If they did, like so many before them, they would realize they were wrong. I've shown the truth to more than a few members of your comment sections, and many have taken it to heart. This, of course, scares you. Of course you want the praise of the ignorant, not the advice of the wise. That's why you threatened to censor me, right? Now Douglas, if you're reading this, you should question why TIK wants so desperately for you not to interact with me further, and why his assertions about me don't even match up with the response I gave you. And TIK, if you're reading this (of course you are, you're obsessed with me) then we both know you're wrong, and I'm sure that pisses you off to no end. I'm not going away until you admit that. The facts are on the table, and I'm right. We've debated before, and each time I prove you wrong, each time you accuse me of some imagined ideological or bigoted leaning and run away. When will you learn?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@OntologicalQuandry Again, I have to remind you, that unsubstantiated nonsense does not get you any points here. I addressed this statement of yours, in a good bit of detail, and your only response was "well TIK is nice to me." I would be happy to copy-past that bit if you'd like me to, but i'll do what's more satisfying in the meantime. Hitler was not a socialist, as both your and TIK's lack of arguments show plainly. His methods were not socialist, they were gained from the insistence and theorization of the radical right wing of his time. He had no desire to transfer worker ownership, or even aryan ownership, over to the means of production.
In a way, TIK's entire video is supposed to be a defense of capitalism. He has this odd idea of a binary between capitalism and socialism, and said himself that he would consider things like the Holocaust happening in a non-socialist country impossible. Of course capitalism does not apply to hitler, but this isn't a binary system. There are things beyond both capitalism and socialism,and things that reject both utterly. Whereas you charitably say he "defines it," we both know he does so in a biased way to argue for it's integrity as a system, rather than simply doing the job of defining it.
As I keep reminding you, I have watched the video, and come to very different conclusions. No matter how often you try to discredit my arguments by attacking me personally, it won't really do much for your cause. I will tell you I watched the video, you will deny it. My very existence in this comment section for so long should be proof enough, but whatever. Make an argument that isn't a personal attack, or make no arguments at all.
6
-
@travisadams6279
Just screaming "mental gymnastics!!" over and over without even attempting to explain why proves my point exactly, you can't actually come up with a rebuttal to the stated facts.
The definition of socialism is and always has been the ownership of the means of production by the collective, the community, as a whole. And yes, every single person who finds themselves working within or impacted by the system would have authority over how their contribution is used, and thus, the means of production would be owned socially. You assert that nobody else defines socialism this way, with literally zero backing, given that i've literally cited the definition of socialism to you. You can claim that the ideology itself isn't a good one, but that doesn't give you the ability to rewrite the definition to fit things that aren't socialist. You don't need to "join" some great collective, by virtue of existing you are already a part of the collective as a whole, the community as a whole. So no, a collective does not have to mean a group of people, that definition is vague and nonsensical. and yes, you are literally the only one saying that.
Your trying to argue that excluding a particular group cancels out socialism because its not a true "collective". This is silly, and more mental gymnastics. By your definition, every single person would have to be included for it to be real socialism... Again you are defining socialism in a way nobody else does, and going to great lengths to do so. Your definition simply isnt useful as it doesnt pertain to anything real. Like having no laws and so on. There is no one great collective that everyone has joined, and probably wont ever be. So a collective has to mean a group of people, not all peoples period. Also, Im not the one who is saying a "collective" alone makes socialism.
6
-
@travisadams6279
So you think the literal definition of socialism is nonsensical, and thus disagree with the ideology. Alright, could have said as much. Please, refrain from trying to tell the same lies over and over again. Yes, the collective/communist as a whole means as a whole. Pretty straight forwards. Socialism, according to you, is when any group is in change. You are literally rewriting the very definition of socialism in this thread. I said socialism can be a system of no laws, not that all socialism must fit that definition. Attempt to read. Again, you can scream "But you're just saying no true socialism!!!" all you want, but I have provided a cited definition and poked holes in your attempted redefinition.
Have you tried actually reading my responses? I point out exactly where and how you do this, in that you have declared that socialism can be when any group is in charge, therefore, every system in existence is socialist according to your definition. We're talking about collectives because you tried to assert that the nazis could be socialist despite their genocide, and I refuted that. The nazis did not hold in esteem any collective, they had no desire for the means of production to be owned by any group but the private owners backed by the state. The vast majority of nazi citizens had no power over the means of production, yes, including those of "his race." Are there different types of socialism? Sure. There's the socialists that predated marx, there's marxist-leninists and further derivatives, libertarian socialists, ect. All use the same definition of socialism. However, "racial socialism," as we've been over, is oxymoronic, and the nazi's ideology was in no way socialist. Germany did not fit any definition of socialism. You don't know what capitalism is, which is ironic given that you define it as socialism. No, under nazi germany, everything wasn't state run, and no, capitalism doesn't mean non-state. The germans prided private industry, and capitalism is explicitly statist. And what the fuck, no, state is not at all interchangeable with people or collective, the fuck are you talking about denialist? Hitler didn't even want the 'collective of aryans' in charge, and we've already discussed how that isn't socialism. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand that not everything is socialist. The collective as a whole (per the definition of socialism) is the collective as a whole, not just one small part of it as you assert. I think you're trying to deny facts you can't handle by clinging to your long disproven definition of socialism, and calling the actual definition "silly" because it proves you wrong. I don't care what you think is useful, I care about what is correct.
6
-
@travisadams6279
Why do you keep saying "Your definition of socialism?" As i've pointed out time and time again, the definition I cite to you (a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.) is quite literally the dictionary definition of socialism. You can believe all you want about the results of those attempting to achieve socialism, but that isn't the subject of discussion. If it was, I could point out that the greatest losses of death and human rights violations belong to capitalist countries, but as it is not, i'll refrain. I'm not a socialist, what is "MY socialism?" i'm simply telling you the objective definition. Again, I said that socialism can be achieved without laws enforcing it, and that socialism can exist in a lawless society, not that it must always be that way. Also, anarchism is an offshoot of socialism.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@SchmulKrieger It's ok, you're allowed to admit you're wrong. You essentially do it here.
Socialism is not just Marx and Engels' ideology, yes.
However, you can be a Christian socialist, but never a capitalist socialist. Ever. That's not how this works.
Syndicialism is an offshoot from unionist ideologies, including anarchism and communism. It's not just a form of socialism.
You're now deciding that, without proof, now random ideologies are somehow socialist. Great.
I'm sorry bud but you do realize Marx didn't believe in a "German People," or a "Slavic People," right? He didn't care in the slightest about nations, fake borders, and states. Because they're all made up, and don't matter.
Engels' work there you of course take out of context, but i'm sure to you it makes sense that the virulent critic of anti-semetism in Engels was somehow just hitler, and that hitler actually wanted a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Now cry about how wrong you are again. You can't even use the word reactionary right.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@herrhiterminator8149 What... does this even mean? This is a bunch of buzz word nonsense, that doesn't actually logically fit, so i'll address the one sentence you wrote that logically follows from the things you're supposedly responding to. Oh, also, to get it out of the way, nationalism and conservatism are wholly compatible. Anyways, your sentence "You've said that totalitarianism cannot be socialism but you're wrong." Justify that. Socialism is an ideology based around the ability of the people to collectively own their work, far more than under a capitalist system. How can that be an ideology based on totalitarianism? I would say a mass appeal towards liberation and individual ability to live one's life goes against the basis of totalitarianism, right? In any case, onto the nationalism thing. You're acting as if conservatism and nationalism are things one must choose between, instead of things that usually go hand in hand. I mean, conservatism lends itself heavily to nationalistic impulses, and nationalism is most often paired with a socially conservative outlook.
5
-
@riotraverv4518 Why yes, you are only asserting things. Because you have nothing else. Fascism isn't left wing, the creators called it right wing, they allied with conservatives and industrialists, was founded by traditionalists, and openly said the left would cause the end of civilization. The privatization was a part of it, sure, but you saying "privatization doesn't count because I don't like it" isn't an argument. Of course they weren't free market, because they thought it was too leftist for them. They were further right than capitalism. Or are you one of those idiots that thinks right wing means small government? Anyway, the free market is not immune to monopoly, and fascism is fine with reigning in capitalism to secure its goals. Fascism wasn't extreme left, it wasn't even left of center. Oh, wait, didn't read to the end yet, you are one of those idiots. You know that anarchism is left wing, right? And monarchism is right wing? No, sorry, big vs small government is not how the political spectrum works, and anyone that asserts otherwise is a liar. The right wing owns fascism, like it or not.
5
-
@riotraverv4518 No actually, they weren't. For example, Mussolini literally said he was right wing (along with gentile) and they both said in "The Doctrine of Fascism" that fascism is right wing, and rejects socialism. Mussolini personally said that his program was to "smash the heads of socialists." They hired classical liberals to create economic policy, they supported the conservative right, they denounced marx, and they outlawed the socialist parties. They loved conservatism, just thought it didn't go back far enough, that's why they were traditionalists. They also, objectively, hated marxism. Also, fun fact about Mises, hitler couldn't have cared less about hunting him down, but Mises was a member of a fascist party, promoted fascist economics, and praised fascism for fighting socialism.
5
-
@riotraverv4518 Yeah, former being the key word. Like Kropotkin was a former prince, Sowell was a former marxist, and America was a former brittish colony. He didn't want to "fix" socialism, he (again) openly said that he would leave socialism behind to create a new system, which again, he called right wing. Fascism and communism dislike eachother because they want different things, communists want a world devoid of state, class, hierarchy and money, while fascists want a strong state with absolutely all of those things to enforce their supremacy. If you think people can look at marx and not just arrive at different conclusions, but opposite conclusions? You might not be the smartest. The reality is that fascists, again, most often appealed to the conservative right with mild left leaning rhetoric. Your assertion, which you have not been able to prove and not even argued in the favor of, is that somehow the far right ideology that allied with the right, called itself right wing, and acted like a right wing system... was secretly left wing. why? You haven't explained that bit yet.
5
-
@riotraverv4518 Oh no, I understand the point you were trying to make. However, as you clearly don't know what marxism is, or what the history of fascism is, I corrected you and pointed out the flawed reasoning you used to arrive at your incorrect conclusion. Marxism is a method of historical analysis, looking from the lens of class material dialectics. The fascists hated materialism and class struggle in all forms, which means that the only way for them to "learn" from marxism would be to strip marxism of literally every part of it. So, they didn't. They abandoned it. Of course, you don't know what a strawman is, but seem entirely willing to keep using "fallacy" as a crutch to fall back. In fact, over half of your actual response has been just you pretending to care about bad faith arguments without responding. So here's a fallacy for you to look into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy#:~:text=Argument%20from%20fallacy%20is%20the,and%20the%20bad%20reasons%20fallacy.
5
-
Orwell was a socialist for most of his life, and to my knowledge, died one. He was very much against the manegerialists, a term he agreed with that was meant to described supposed socialist movements that didn't at all care about the socialism they pretended to follow. He used these tendencies, both on the right and left, to point out a trend towards authoritarianism. However, orwell himself would have very likely disagreed heavily with your understanding of socialism.
Which is to say, you're wrong. Socialism, by default, is not authoritarian, it can be libertarian. It can also be individualistic, to a degree.
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight Ah, it always tickles me so when you begin to pipe up, especially with such self-defeating arguments. In any case, first off, I would recommend reading Orwell's word discussing managerialism, if you haven't already. It largely explains the actual inspiration for 1994. To summarize, he agreed with the idea that new movements were springing up, both in capitalism and in socialism, that were betrayals of the principles of the movement, and sought to move away from them. These societies would not be socialists and would not be capitalist, but managerialist. In this paragraph especially you can see some of the inspiration for 1984. " The new ‘managerial’ societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom." Pretty interesting. He didn't make them Ingsoc as a reference to socialism, but as a betrayal to socialism. As for evidence he ever "turned" in his life, we really see none. He kept his morals until the end.
Animal farm does a very similar thing, it shows the beginning socialist principles as a pillar of strength, and then mourns the story of them being wiped away and erased over time. Orwell would not have been flippant or careless enough to call such a society fascist, you should know that he hated the use of fascism as a buzzword. I would agree, overally, that the point of such a story should be obvious to see, but given the continuous misinterpretation I have to doubt that. But i'm sure somehow to you your extrapolation of events makes perfect sense. Anyway, a few more quotes you might be interested in:
" The question that he ought to ask, and never does ask, is: Why does the lust for naked power become a major human motive exactly now, when the dominion of man over man is ceasing to be necessary? As for the claim that ‘human nature’, or ‘inexorable laws’ of this and that, make Socialism impossible, is simply a projection of the past into the future. In effect, Burnham argues that because a society of free and equal human beings has never existed, it never can exist. By the same argument one could have demonstrated the impossibility of aeroplanes in 1900, or of motor cars in 1850."
"Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralized society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham under the name of ‘managers’."
"Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery: though most of them have differed from Burnham in not assuming this development to be inevitable."
"Evidently the U.S.S.R. is not Socialist, and can only be called Socialist if one gives the word a meaning different from what it would have in any other context."
And there are a few more, but that is good for now.
5
-
5
-
@j.greenriver6293 ... Ok, mate, really? Kind of proving his point.
1. Allende literally had the people backing him, the people who didn't back him were in the american government who financed the coup against him. Not the most democratic process, and certainly not with Chilean interests in mind.
2. First off, Allende was largely neutral when it came to siding with Castro or other leftist regimes at the same time. He wasn't a dictator, he was a random politician who wanted to be elected, and was doing well while he was elected. Secondly, even ignoring that... you support the man we know murdered and tortured political dissidents, silenced dissent, and held a dictatorship over the man that maybe could have done that?
5
-
@phillip3495
Ah, so I see you're going for the "no true private property" argument, always a welcome fallacy to see, in that its so easy to instantly disprove.
It really should be self evident to ne who thinks about it for any amount of time, but I'd guess that doesn't describe you at all, given the utterly absurd and unfounded statements found in your comments.
So let's correct some misconceptions and lies you put forwards, hm?
Neither the nazis nor mussolini believed in the concept of capitalist decay, nor did they oppose the processes of capital in their own states. The nazi ideology was not constructed with any set economic program in mind, but with right wing social views taking its primary form. Nazi ideology is traditionalist, the polar opposite of progressive, nor is it socialist. And here you make the issue of projecting your own views onto the past. No, at the time there wasn't some well recorded span of "social problems" in socialist states, given such states at the time were sparse and often very varied in execution. Furthermore, they were far from weak at the time. The nazis and fascists didn't decide to retain private property ownership because it was a necessity, (which is a belief you hold, but not a fact) they did so because they ideologically agreed with and supported private property. While the state in many cases did retain a right to step in, both regimes made it clear that this was only to be done if absolutely necessary. Any state can take away property if it wishes, or they can reward property owners. The fascist states were just far more open about this relationship.
Your "logic" only seems to worsen from here, which is no shock.
And yeah, no, this is wrong. All states technically have the ability to step in and take/regulate/manage your property if it so desires. Furthermore, a future hypothetical doesn't change the present reality.
Think of it like this - everyone dies eventually, right? And despite that future hypothetical, you still live. Anyone with a gun could, technically, make your life and possessions forfeit. And yet, you still own, operate, and manage them now. If you rent out an apartment, the landlord might technically "own" the building, but they don't live there with you. A factory owner lording over their workers remains the exact same, even if on some piece of governmental paper a law is added saying that the factory in question could hypothetically be taken or managed at a different time.
The fascists allowed ownership of private property to continue as it had been in the vast majority of cases, only interfering, primarily, to offer financial incentives for said private owners to align with the party.
The Nazis taking the cue from Mussolini, decided that Capitalism was taking too long to decay as was predicted by Marx, and spawned their own revised system called "National Socialism", which was a progressive version of vanilla socialism. Hitler decided not to be internationalist, and instead focus on the motherland. After living among socialist nations with different results in Europe for a couple of decades, and familiar with the social problems encountered by all of these examples, these forward thinking folks, decided that the abolition of private property was too destructive to the economy, and instead decided to leave private property rights intact, but the state would retain the rights of use and disposal over all property.
5
-
@phillip3495
"I'll stop you right there, because if this is the preamble to your post then there may be no need for me to go further. "
Ah, already trying to come up with excuses to bow out of an argument you lost long ago, huh? Why am I not at all surprised. Your opinions are not facts.
You believe private property is a moral right.
That does not make it true, nor does that make it an assumption that all cultures or ideologies make. Furthermore, no, markets existed before private property and they can exist without them. The nazis, however, wanted private property, and so they defended it. They didn't "rigidly plan and control the economy," again, you're putting the cart before the horse, lying about the nazis to justify your ahistorical view of them. In any case, there's a simple explanation that you should well know by now. There has never been a successful laissez faire (not "Lessaiz") wartime economy. Even Jefferson had to acknowledge that his libertarian agrarian policies had no place in international warfare. The nazis did what every other wartime economy did, because it works for war. You don't have to be a libertarian to be a capitalist. Frankly put the nazis were economically apathetic/incompetent, but your basis for your statement is nonsense. You assume that the nazis agreed with you that capitalism was the best, and actively resisted this, rather than understanding that much nazi ideology was based on the notion that libertarian capitalism was bad for capitalists. No, they were not competent, and no, they did not do what you assert they did with no proof.
Again, your assertions only go downhill from here.
Your entire argument is based on calling the nazis socialists just because they "Said" they are, and assuming that they actually meant it, and meant it the same way you did. In contrast, the fact that they supported private property is one found through examination of their rhetoric, policy, and actions. All of the data to examine shows that the state did not have full and complete planning or control of the economy, nor would hitler have supported that system.
You are, again, actively taking the word of a genocidal fascist state. I, on the other hand, am examining what they actually did, not just what they said, and showed their policy through objective means. Your assertions come from contextless quotes and right wing denialism, with no basis in economic understanding.
And, no, it really wouldn't. First off, Occam's razor is a philosophical tool, and does not apply to everything. If a burglar exits your friend's house, and says he lives there, the simplest explanation is that he does. Obviously, that is not the correct explanation. In any case, Occam's razor entirely opposes you here. Hitler didn't implement a system that even resembled socialism, nor did he have any desire to. You assert that he "implement[ed] a system that in function and practice was identical to the ideal socialism," which makes no sense. How is a right wing system of private property 'ideal socialism?' Your assertion has no backing. He implemented a system that in function and practice was identical to the ideal anti-socialism. Of course, neither hitler nor mussolini were socialists, as we've been over time and time again. You're asserting that those that killed socialists and allied with anti-socialists, made conservatives happy and were called conservatives, repeated the rhetoric of the right and are praised and supported by the right to this day... were actually left wing socialists? Absurd. Again, your supposed "socialism" is found in modern conservatives. "Promise each work group, business, social class, race, creed that they could find, that they were on that group's side, and against their enemies." Their election campaign strategy was to lie, all while opposing socialism. They were liars, and it is very uncomfortable for their right wing denialist defenders to accept that.
And I know you have no desire to read marx and thus you seek to disprove him without even knowing what he believed, but as we've been over, the nazi and fascist movements had nothing to do with marx. You literally can't stop repeating open nazi rhetoric, even when that is pointed out.
I think that to claim that there are "very few differences" between the ideologies of MLK Jr and Hitler is historically absurd, and to claim that socialists and nazis "achieve the same results and implement the same reforms" is furthermore absurd and incorrect. If you want to see the group the nazis are most similar to, welcome to modern conservatism.
Your argument is based solely on your own ideology, and utterly ignores reality and historical fact, in favor of defense of the right from their legacy of fascism. You would call a rock a green apple, simply because you claim to not like how both taste, despite eating rocks by the handful when nobody's looking. You're required to go off on unrelated tangents filled with unsubstantiated claims because historical facts don't back you.
Your argument was a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
It was a "belief based on unsound argument"
We already know that you're wrong, you've shown that yourself.
And evidently this, like all of your other claims, was absolutely false.
5
-
@phillip3495
Tell me one good reason that you can't actually respond to my arguments, without doing everything in your power to deflect from the facts i'm attempting to bring to your attention?
You can try to moralistically posture all you want, it doesn't change observable historical reality.
We don't need to "go deeper" into your deflections, you need to actually provide counter arguments to statements that refute yours, and if not, admit to ignorance and move on.
Objective reality is knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. Shouldn't be an issue.
The very fact that you attempt to deny all historians of their credibility before seeing them named or hearing their arguments proves to me that you are afraid of what they have to say, since their facts are relevant to the conversation, and wholly disprove your irrational ahistorical denialism.
Your "possibilities" are a poor attempt at deflection.
1. You do not believe historians are relevant to the conversation because they directly oppose and refute your views, which does not fall in line with the baseless assertions you call facts.
Therefore, you cannot deny them, and your basis for attempting to do so is flawed and pitiful.
2. If you wanted a specific historian, and you were willing to address their work in good faith, you would have simply asked, rather than making arguments with no citation, that are responded to in euqal measure, and then trying to call out a lack of unrequested citation as an attempted argument. You have yet to actually back up a single one of your claims, so you're a hypocrite.
The simply problem is that no matter how many times facts are referenced and explained to your face, with the top rhetorical and logical standards humanly possible, you will not listen, and will do all in your power possible to deny or ignore their arguments rather than engaging with them. So far your have only delivered evasions, ad hominem, and irrelevancies. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that all those you disagree with are malicious actors or unresearched morons.
T
5
-
@phillip3495
See, the funny thing is, I have been addressing your argument, line by line, for quite a while now. The issue, of course, is that to acknowledge that fact means you'd actually have to construct a rebuttal, something you are not capable of.
I've done more than "hear" you're wrong, i've proved it. Sure, there are a hundred other people I could refer to in order to tell you that you're wrong, but evidently you won't listen, so i'm here directly telling you every way in which you're wrong, while you frantically try to deflect and run away. Anything to avoid actually constructing an argument to back your assertions, right?
And no, this isn't what's going on here. It's what you wish was going on, and what you will pretend is happening in order to deflect. Let me correct it.
Me: "Here is factual information that proves you wrong, that historians have been pointing out."
You: "Despite that literally being the subject, I declare it irrelevant because it doesn't agree with me."
Me: "Here are some more facts to prove you wrong, in my own words with my own arguments, backed by observations of historical fact. You can't just claim everything you dislike is irrelevant."
You: "Actually you're just referring to historians, not making your own arguments, so I win"
Me: "What? I literally just made my own argument with the backing of historical fact."
And the simple fact is, you have yet to meet the burden of proof. As you said yourself, you have presented your claim, but you have not yet presented evidence. I went a step beyond what was necessary, and refuted your baseless assertions, when all I actually needed to do was ask you to provide evidence for your claims. I await refutation, and you have yet to even attempt to provide it.
I have, time and time again, refuted your claim that my individual arguments were arguments from authority. Of course, you can't rebut that fact, so you ignore it.
I present to you historical facts and arguments, statements constructed by me backed by historical fact. I then make mention of the fact that there are countless historians, who have made careers out of this, who back said facts up with their own observations of objective reality. You ignore the first bit, and lie about the second.
I genuinely don't think you're reading my responses. I have explained why, in my own words, over and over and over again. In the few cases I have not, it is literally because i'm responding to you deflecting, and I am pointing out said deflection. You claim that the historians who prove you wrong aren't trustworthy, and then you claim that the historians didn't even exist. The fact that you cannot address or rebut my argumentation and refutations of your claims proves that you have no knowledge of the subject in question. I have explained why, over and over. You, on the other hand, have asserted the same nonsense without argumentation, citation, or logical reasoning.
What you have is a "feeling" that i'm wrong, and you claim that citing historical facts is "name dropping" because you don't agree with the results of said facts. On the other hand, I present arguments.
The onus of proof is not only on you to actually back up your initial claims, but to refute the refutations I have brought to you. At least you admit you have been unable to do that then.
In reality, you've relegated yourself to the "referee" because you know you can't actually disprove people's arguments, so you pretend they don't exist.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@travisadams6279
So, let's clarify this, just to be sure. You literally think the definition of socialism is when any "collective" owns the means of production. You then further say that the actual definition of socialism is "nonsensical," not with historical backing, but because you think socialism isn't possible. Disagreeing with a system doesn't mean you can rewrite the definition, if I believed in a system where everyone became immoral, you can't just rewrite the definition of that system to something else just because you think it isn't possible. Ideologies have no obligation to perfectly appear in the real world, you're working backwards. You assume that socialism must have existed, and so when faced with the definition, you assume the definition must be wrong because it doesn't match your preconceived notions. You then attempt to rewrite the definition, in the process making every human economic system socialist.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I wouldn't be expecting much depth with him on that. He called me and a few other people anti-semites in the comment section for allegedly being anti-semitic, using only his accusations of "marxism" as a basis, as well as a copy-pasted spam of marx quotes. I would agree that both marx and hitler were ant-semetic, but given that he spent so long trying to point out that not all socialism is marxist, I do agree with you that his accusation of all socialism being anti-semetic doesn't logically follow. He also ignores the large amount of historical jewish socialists, but that's asking a bit too much for him.The video has tons of problems like that, asserting a whole bunch of things that either contradict his previous points, or don't really make logical sense given his previous statements, or common understanding of definitons. His entire point rests on one of these, that socialism is state control, and that a state is any collection of people. Hitler really could not have been a socialist if the best defense one can put up for that point is to label all those that disagree with you as postmodernist, marxist, racist, anti-semetic, ect, all things he's called me personally, and redefine words. But that's just my view on the whole thing, his statements just seem absurd sometimes, and almost look to be motivated less out of some genuine desire to examine history and more out of a desire to strike back at those that criticized his previous videos on the subject.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@herrhiterminator8149 Who is "he?" TIK? If so, of course TIK says that, but it is a lie. And of course, the notion that all totalitarianisms is socialism, or even that socialism had to be totalitarian, is another lie. The german war effort was in no way socialism, this is agreed upon by every major scholar on the time period, the only people who believe otherwise are those like TIK, who are fine with lying about things as fundamental as hundred year old definitions, because said definitions go against his ideology. Germany never was "full blown socialism," nor did they ever aim for that, their writings and actual economy made that clear. You admit it yourself, the only way to call the germans socialist is to misdefine totalitarianism as socialism, which is an objective lie. In trying to push a point, you've admitted you're wrong. I gave you a sources specifically because, unlike TIK, that source is not poorly put together propaganda.
4
-
@herrhiterminator8149 Ok, no problem. First off, that isn't really the case. For one, nationalism doesn't always relate to ethnicity, in fact some nationalist movements are openly multi-ethnic. Nationalism is defined as "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." Most nations contain multiple ethnic groups. In any case, nationalist systems don't all want to gain control over their people or nation, although that isn't uncommon, that's just how political desires work. People want to actually be able to put them into practice. Also, nationalism isn't an economic or social "system," its an inclination, a belief. One cannot "implement" nationalism, and there is no one nationalist tendency or system. But the thing is, socialism isn't just "when the people work for a supposedly common good." Especially given the nazis didn't really care about the "civilian's good," when said civilians were being thrown in camps, in jail, or just generally suppressed and oppressed by the nazi government. Nationalism and Socialism tend to actually not get along that well. In any case, conservatism can absolutely be totalitarian. Conservatives supported the rise of the nazis, and social conservatism is a deeply intrusive ideology that is more often than not held up by the state or organized institutions like the church. In any case, conservatism, like nationalism, isn't really a "system" you can implement. There are literally hundreds of different types of conservative notions and ideologies.
And the reason for that last thing is because... why would they? Those most likely to revolt, the political dissidents or minority groups, were already being oppressed and thrown into prisons and camps. The remaining people, if they kept their heads down, could attempt to live safely among the nazis. They didn't revolt because they didn't want to risk it.
4
-
@herrhiterminator8149 According to who? It just sounds like you're saying that different ethnicities can't work together based on your own beliefs, not nationalist ones. I mean, being honest, there really is no such thing a a concrete description of a race or ethnicity. What we now consider white is made up of tens of different nationalities and ethnicities, and yet white supremacists think all white people can get along. I agree that nationalism must be openly hostile to "others," but those others don't have to be racial others, they can simply be people with other ideas, or people from other countries. And that's the problem with nationalism - that when they start throwing people in jail, they stop counting them as people. So the "ingroup," there, is an ever-shifting group with no defined borders. There were plenty of "aryan" germans being thrown in camps, because they opposed the nazis, because they were physically or mentally disabled, because they were gay, or old, or inured, ect. The nazis hated far more than just other races. And fair, if you wanted to point out the difference between one specific conservative ideology and a purely nationalist ideology, that's fine, and thank you for clearing that up in the end.
And no problem, i'm glad we could agree on that point, which applies a lot to many different scenarios, not just this one specifically, but anyway, you're welcome!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight We know, mate. Nobody knows what socialism is but you, and it doesn't once occur to you that if socialists have a different definition of socialism than you, and universally push said definition, that your association fallacy falls apart. But yes, given that you don't understand what socialism is I have to agree that what you just described (even if it was an accurate representation) is not socialist, and does not discount the fact that the nazis were not socialists, considering all of their ideological roots, associations, policies, rhetorical tactics, the list goes on.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight Wow, you really are an idiot. The left is calling for less military, less surveillance, less intervention, less of a police state, less government ability to pry into your life for the causes of "counter-terrorism," less corporate support by the government, less tax cuts for the rich, ect. Half of the things you're calling for, things like "central planning," and "central banks" the majority of the left is against. Others, like collective control of the means of production are only called for by a specific part of the left. And hell, parts like democracy, state education, and democracy are called for by both the left and right. Hell, you literally think that it's only the left calling for an organized society. If anything, historically, we can determine that the right has always been far more conducive to totalitarianism, and as the world has moved leftwards he have learned of the concepts of liberty, freedom, equality, ect. It really is sad how you push this baseless myth that is so easily countered.
No, actions matter more than words. And when most of the left is calling for a smaller state in most respects, and a large portion of people don't even want a state, you can not reasonably say that Left=Big, Right=Small. Can't wait for the incoming no true scotsman.
You're losing credibility by the second.
4
-
@discipleofdagon8195
As I said, I'm not interested in random pieces of rhetoric, but reality. All your response is, is just that. Random rhetoric, half remembered from other sources that made arguments you can't fully recall, and certainly not make any points in favor of now. I would ask you how the goal of social ownership requires a change to the very process of human thought, especially given it seems based in human thought and history to begin with, but it's clear you wouldn't have an answer even if I did. I don't care about utopia, and I don't care about the random collections of disparate policy that you call socialist and label utopian without a second thought, trying to merely associate it with that they disagree with and thus reject it. I believe, as I have been shown, the vast majority of people in this comment section act not because they believe in any sort of preservation of history, but because they believe in the preservation of their own ideological narrative. I need no platform to hold beliefs, but as of now, there is no downside to my speech so i'll take it. What you need to understand is that these people do not have "mixed views on what I believe," they have extremely strong views on what they project onto me and assume I believe in.
I don't care about your opinion on socialism, apparently I need to remind everyone I ever speak to in this god awful comment section that not everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist. As for the criticisms of socialism I have heard though, yours is one I cannot allow it go unquestioned, given that it weakens any anti-socialist arguments as a whole. What about social ownership requires going "full ingsoc?" What about collective ownership requires a full reworking of the human mind? The answer is quite simply put, nothing. Socialism to you is a boogeyman, an ideology defined not by policy, but by relation to your moral system. That's not a rational argument, and never will be. Wake. Up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@phillip3495
I hate to break it to you, but over-application of accusations of fallacy, especially when said accusations are made in such absurd circumstances, are not arguments. You assert that believing historians is an "argument from authority." Now, the problem with your line of "logic" is that it isn't logical at all. Is it a fallacy to randomly claim that a person that is well known or an authority in one thing is always correct? Yes. Is it a fallacy to say that historians who spend decades studying a subject and publishing work to be peer-reviewed and fact checked might know what they're talking about? No.
You are literally having this argument because you would prefer to believe a youtube video than the very sources it cites, because you would prefer to believe your ideology is correct than deal with the fact that it absolutely isn't. Historians generally know history. Sorry?
Your whole argument is that you are the sole arbiter of what "actual knowledge is," and coincidentally, it's whatever you happen to agree with, no matter how many mental hoops you have to jump through to justify it. Are there people who dedicated time to a subject, only to be wrong about it? Sure, there's a few in every thousand of experts, which are quickly weeded out and fact checked. Is that a good reason to dismiss the findings of hundreds of different figures that all easily refute your denialism? Nope.
4
-
@phillip3495
Child, just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. I've presented arguments, i've presented historical facts, and i've refuted your assertions. I have not once argued from authority, which even you admit. You, on the other hand, cannot rebut me, so you defer to a fallacy of fallacies in order to run away.
You have not presented a counter to my arguments, in fact, you pretend they don't exist. You have not refuted them because you cannot refute them.
So of course, I have the argument here. You are, in your own words, the "one with the assertion," the one with the baseless statement you have presented without logic, argumentation, and evidence, and expected everyone to rebut. Of course, nobody need sink to that level, one could simply point out that your argument has no evidence or argumentation and thus isn't worth a rebuttal, but I went the extra mile and effortlessly disproved you. We're in a debate, and you lost a while ago, given you inability to respond.
Child, i'm still waiting for a single rebuttal.
4
-
4
-
@polpol2739
I'm sorry, none of that is at all true.
His writings are full of hatred directed towards socialism and internationalism, and praise towards the processes of capitalism in his country, especially the supposedly superior german industries. He did not seize the means of production, nor did he distribute it, unless you count the distribution of Weimar-era public property into private hands.
He used Christianity, and I am fine admitting that as a person raised by Christians, and his morality had nothing to do wth liberalism. Christianity was one of his chief tools.
I'm sorry, this is just wrong. The only right wing thing about hitler was... well, everything about him, his nationalism, his economics, his social views, and so on. He was in no way anywhere but the far right, much less "totaly (sic) left socialist" as you assert, a statement reflecting the opposite of reality.
4
-
@polpol2739
Exactly. You denying the truth over and over does not make your statements any less false. His writings, as quoted here, show his far right anti-socialist bias, and show the deeply right wing opinions that he held, hence his allying with capitalists and allowing capitalism to proceed in his nation. Denying this with no evidence, as you continue to do, is quite silly, especially given your lack of coherent response that seems to be all too consistent with your replies.
He competed with the left because he was opposed to them, and at the same time defended and upheld the right because he was in favor of them.
His traditionalism was one constructed on the basis of Christian faith, and comparing his words to another deeply conservative religion that conservatives use as a strawman doesn't change that. Christianity is far from peaceful, hence, him using it as a weapon.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@glennchartrand5411 I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but that is all just false. First off, the 25 Point Program was a piece of propaganda, that hitler said he has no plans of implementing to his own party officials. Also, it is pretty disgusting to compare a jewish man that lost family in the holocaust and a far right dictator that committed it.
Nationalism is "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
So in short, national "socialism" isn't socialism at all, nor did the "race" control the means of production. Pretty basic stuff.
Hitler told his base "when I say socialism, I mean nationalism." Hitler told them he would protect their business. Hitler told them he would make their nation... great again. And to the socialists, hitler did nothing less than order their execution. I don't think you realize that in nazi germany, the far right was mainstream, and the far left was repressed at every chance.
Its funny how you seem unable to even give a definition of the ideology you call socialism, choosing instead to lump in a bunch of fundamentally different governments and call the whole thing "socialism." And when I say funny, I mean sad. The only people who still believe TIK's lies are people who are extremely good at lying to themselves and ignoring facts.
Its a cult.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OntologicalQuandry Oh, sure. He's seemed plenty appreciative of other people as well, including a literal holocaust denier. He also has an unfortunate habit of calling me a post-modernist marxist racist anti-semite, and no I am not making that up, he can agree with calling me every single one of those things.
He created the video, but beyond that, has had... quite some issues with substantiating it. When his points are addressed, he tends to insult before he responds, and that's if he responds at all with anything more than a copy pasted response or a link to another one of his videos. The thing is, i have watched the video. I've been arguing in this comment section for weeks, it would be stupid of me not to have. However, you don't have to agree with him because you watched the video,and the points I brought up,though he addressed them, still show how he is wrong. I know you wish to invalidate all criticism behind the label of "but you didn't watch the video" and it doesn't work. If you can't argue on your own terms and merits and have to use the video, one that is objectively wrong, as a crutch than you really didn't have an argument to begin with.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@travisadams6279
Jesus fuck, here I thought you were bad and then you go proving me right further. Capitalism is a statist system, and nazi germany was a fundamentally anti-socialist system that prided private ownership and called for the means of production to be primarily in their hands, while denying the notion that the means of production should be owned socially under any means. The state was not running all business, nor did hitler want it to, as that went against his idea of racial superiority. Also, state control isn't socialism. Furthermore, you then hilariously assert the fucking idiotic notion that "state is also interchangeable with people, or collective." The fuck are you talking about? A dictator does not represent the people or the collective. A state can represent the people as a whole, but saying that hitler was synonymous with the victims of the holocaust is absurd. You argue that the nazis had state control of the economy (false) and state means the people (also false, dictators are not supported by their victims) then using that to assert that some people had control, so it must be socialist.. (Again, absurd, and false.) You keep trying to hold onto this "different types of socialism" argument, but in trying to ahistorically broaden the definition of socialism to include far right anti-socialists like nazis, you've included literally all ideologies. Socialism is based not on just one random collective, but on the collective as a whole.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@travisadams6279
I have genuinely never before seen such a completely absurd and unsupported string of claims as the one you make here, and it's fucking baffling.
You are literally lying with every fiber of you being and it's sad, so let's go one by one. First off, nazis never outlawed private property. Yours is a claim not even TIK makes. In 1933, the nazis removed a right to private property from their state legal documents. You don't need a right to housing to own a house, don't need a right to healthcare to get a doctor, and you don't need some random government document to say the words "private property" in order to own and manage private property, which was happening under and with the support of the nazi regime. Secondly, non-private property isn't automatically "communal" property. You're literally saying that if a single dictator took something into state ownership, then it belongs to the community, which is absurd. Furthermore, the community of "aryans" under the nazis had no economic power, they were victims of the oppressive regime. You continue to say "nazis/aryans" or "nazis/general public," which is absurdly disgusting. The nazis were not supported by their populations or the general public, nor did they support thse groups in kind. You, evidently, have never read their laws. They didn't care about the good of the general public, they were literally throwing them in death camps. Furthermore, the state was always used as a last resort, for failure of private property in wartime critical and absolutely necessary cases.
4
-
@travisadams6279
Yes, I did, hence you finding my comments there and my bloody comments in the video itself. Jesus fuck are you people able to realize that people can read your bibles and still refute them?
He shows vague definitions and then attempts to piece them together, again, through association fallacies. His readings of the definitions make no sense, and are not reflected anywhere but his own extremist views. For example, one can count the amount of nations, countries, and states on the planet. It isn't even that high a number. However, TIK argues that for example, since the definition of nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory," any united groups of people can be considered a "nation," and thus have a state and government. This is, of course, absurd, for the reason primarily that the definition in question is meant to describe nations that are verified through other means, not perscribe random groups into being nations. Again, association fallacies.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Its amazing, I put in a single line at the end with insults whereas you colorfully sprinkle them throughout your entire response... and that's what you fixate on. I mean seriously, I don't even mean this in insult anymore, you actually do remind me aof a child. Throwing insults until you get one in return, which is when you decide to play the victim. You've called me much worse than "balding," friend, and quite frankly I don't care about your appearance and am already questioning why I included that in the firt place. That is, however, the first time i've ever said anything like that, you can cut the performance.
But yes, through your words, through your actions, and through your refusal to engage with the facts, you have admitted i'm right in all but signed confession. How... sad. I do desperately hope you have a life outside of youtube, TIK. Because that would be so, so much more beneficial than whatever the hell you're doing here. Leave the propaganda to better performers.
3
-
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Of course you agree with OP, TIK. Because you know you're wrong, and the best way to ignore that is to engage in fallacy, as you've been doing. All i've been doing, this whole time, is disagreeing and debating. Not one time have I thrown an insult, at least not nearly as insane and serious as yours, and I have addressed your points each time. I know you want to ignore this, because it proves that you cannot back up many of your points, but it won't go away, and this is a public forum where only a few minutes of scrolling with prove you wrong. You can accuse use of "meaningless insults" all you want, but this entire time (and even now) you call random people marxists, post modernists, anti semites because they simply disagree with you. And of course, you instantly leap into an insult. You really can't defend your points, can you.
Your agenda has always been to redefine history, revise it, and the whole time with the absurd goal in mind that the "popular narrative" or "mainstream understanding" must be wrong. You have decided that you would build your content off of the back of needless contrarianism and fearmongering. When you say "the comment sections are normally better," you mean, "they commenters normally don't know enough to call me out on my nonsense." But i've seen them do it, and i've seen you brush off first time commenters with the same baseless insults that you've attributed to me.
And of course, here you are again, engaging in needles contrarianism. You know why you can't subject this to mainstream historians, because they'd prove you wrong in an instant, as even most of your comments have done.
I see you've never actually been to university or understand the state, because buddy, most that i've been to teach Austrian economics first, and all else last. Hell, you remember Pinochet? The only reason he came into power was that the state sponsored Austrian-School economists to teach Chileans about their ideology, who were then sent back to form the new country. This country despises socialism more than you, but you can't bear to hear that.
Some of the Austrians also blamed the great depression on capitalism, but i'm sure you don't want to hear that. You also, of course, don't want to hear that Austrian economics has been mainstream, ever since it wormed itself out of the Fatherland Front. But I do find it comedic that you think Austrians understand basic economics, or even why you feel the need to bring this up in a comment complaining about this you don't like. Why's that? Oh, right, you refuse to engage in nuance and try to associate everyone you don't like into one giant anti-TIK conglomerate. You also refer to me as a statist and you not as one, which is personally funny to me.
I hate to bring this up. but we've already been over it. You did redefine these words, explicitly, under the pretense of going back to their base roots in an early language and connecting them there. I hate to remind you, but etymology didn't end before the english language really existed. When a socialist, say marx, talks about a "state" they don't mean your definition. When they talk about "collective ownership," they don't mean your definition. You try to make up these definitions to apply them, long after they're dead, as a way of obscuring their goals and associating them with other groups. Postmodernists actually tend to be against the state, but you've been redefining the term, so who knows.
When you decide to take a thousand year old definition and plaster it across the entire english language, yes, it doesn't work. You can complain about your fictional "marxists" all you like, you're not going to get a participation trophy for being wrong because of them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Wtiberon I know you're not arguing, because doing so would mean you're opening up yourself to the possibility of being wrong, and you'd rather not self reflect that much. I have put more effort into even this conversation than you by far, you are of course projecting again. I portray myself as someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research. Call that whatever you want, but that's the truth about me. And here's your best piece of denialism - "What does it matter if his sources disagree with him?" Kid. This is history. History isn't subjective, isn't opinions. History is based on facts. If I was to site 3 people saying 2+2=4 in my essay on why 2+2=5, my essay would be invalid, not only is it false, but the citations I give would be taken out of the context of their ultimate conclusion. That's why it matters, because he cited numerous sources that easily prove the nazis were not socialists... and then ignores the conclusions of said sources to cherry pick information. TIK isn't a historian, he's some gob with a youtube channel. And yes, i'm arguing peer reviewed and decades-credited historians have more credibility than this youtuber. I have already given you nothing but specific, coherent, logical reasons why he is wrong, and I have not committed anything close to the amount of logical fallacies you have. That's the thing - I don't care if you listen. You have proven yourself to be acting in bad faith and constantly shifting the goalposts. You don't care about evidence or citation, you don't want to have to research. We both know i'm right, that's why you keep asking for me to make arguments that don't requite you to actually look into the subject matter. If you don't want to debate me, you want to walk away with your ignorance, go ahead. That's your choice.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
MIT Mathematica it's ok dude you can drop the act. Nobody would be this defensive if I wasn't on point. So why did you change accounts? Is it because you got disproven so many times and you want to pretend that isn't the case? You used the exact same quotes and copy pasted insults, and the exact same framing. Its you bud.
In any case, as I've said previously, and you have yet to address - those quotes you mentioned are from, as you pointed out, propaganda speeches. These do not include his definitions, his words in private, or his actual actions. And you, a proven liar, know this. So why do you not include this context? Is it because you would rather not admit to hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti socialism? Is it because you agree with hitler, or want to defend him? What is it, liar?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ColvieChannel I literally have, I recommended you look up the comprehensive definition posed by Umberto Eco in "Ur Fascism," because not only did he survive fascism, but studied it for a good while and tried to find the similarities in fascist ideologies from regime to regime.
As for the question, I asked it because if we truly say that silencing dissent through violence is the only factor of fascism, then the Sons of Liberty, an organization that the Founders were either parts of or aligned with, were fascists. After all, they destroyed millions in property, incited riots, assaulted military personnel and random loyalist civilians, quite literally tortured people, made and burned effigies of public figures, I blelieve there was a case where they kidnapped a tax collector, and so on. By your definition, that association... makes them fascist. Yet, that isn't the government they put in place. You see the issue?
3
-
@riotraverv4518 Wow. That's, like, a whole run on sentence of garbage. You didn't even address the point, and by god man, learn to use basic punctuation. In any case, that wasn't a strawman, that was hyperbole on my part, and yeah, my bad. But there's this thing called "arguing from fallacy," and you're doing it. Trying to attack my argument not for the points it presents, but instead because you don't like how the points were presented. And again, we've been over this. You can't base your entire respond on nothing more than that fallacy-chasing, it's useless and gets us nowhere. I have provided proof for my claims, and at this point you're providing no actual counter to them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@phillip3495
Pure narcissism. You genuinely think that randomly saying nonsense over and over makes you better than historians that spent decades pouring over speeches, policies, writings, manifests, economic data, first hand accounts, and so on. You quite literally only think this because those historians quite easily prove you wrong.
No, you aren't doing a better job than the objective facts of historians. You are, quite literally, just saying these things, asserting them with no basis, reasoning, or argument. Your only "argument" thus far, in fact, is "they were socialists because I said so." Every single one of your claims is easily and instantly rebutted, and yet you are egotistical enough to think that you are more qualified than people who faced the scrutiny of the world and came out on top. You must confront the fact that you are not arguing, or even responding, in a rational way, and your statements in no way conform to actual historical reality.
I'm saying that your entire argument comes from the assumption that socialists are conspiratorial groups of mass control that exist solely to resist and discredit your ideology, as in, the same thing hitler believed. No matter how much right wingers want to face it, no matter how many youtubers and blogs tell them to deny primary and peer reviewed sources in favor of their own ideology, it cannot change reality. You cannot stop your actions, you cannot even bring yourself to not evade, evade, equivocate, deny, obscure, and distance yourself from objective reality.
Objective reality is something that can be studied, measured, and cited. You have done none of the above, and openly proclaimed yourself above those who spend decades studying, measuring, citing, and arguing in favor of objective reality. Your entire argument is based off of your own ideology, in other words, emotion. Feelings, whims, wishes, or hopes, in order to justify your irrational views. Do you see the problem yet? You have to spend paragraphs and paragraphs going on about reality, rather than actually making an argument.
You make single sentence assertions, with no basis, and expect them to stand as arguments. Nope, let's tear those down. Your "proof" of the nazis supposed socialism contradicts reality in the following ways:
"Nazi=National "Socialist" Worker's Party of Germany(or are they liars? Which is one of the points for "my" argument)"
Does them being liars really strike you as impossible? Political figures lie, sorry. Furthermore, the nazi party existed before Hitler, and interestingly enough, Hitler opposed the inclusion of "socialist" in the party name, later purging the faction that pushed for that. Furthermore, Hitler defined socialism as nationalism, and said as much openly.
So you're wrong. 0/1, me.
"The structure, function, and conclusion of the German Nazi Government. (looks like a duck, walks like a duck.......... It's a duck)"
Again, something you assert with no backing. This is a two-part dissonance on your end, warping the definition of socialism, and warping the history of the nazis to adhere to it. In any case, the structure of the nazi government was one based in the supposed supremacy of private property, and the "necessary" suppression of socialism, progressivism, and its allies. The function of the state was to push an enthonationalist historical lie, with no set economic system backing it. The conclusion of the nazi government was anti-socialism. Looks like a right winger, walks like a right winger.......... It's a ringht winger.
"The fact that Hitler & Mussolini (Would make an awesome sitcom) were self-proclaimed socialists. Hitler just really disliked "Communists", which is not interchangeable with the term "Socialism""
Yeah, that isn't true. Mussolini, for example, openly wrote that socialism was an ideology to be left behind, and that fascism was a movement of the right. Hitler echoed that latter statement, asserting that the parties of the left would lead to the end of germany, and that the parties of the right would lead the country to his nazism. While hitler used the word "socialist," he opposed it at first, later attempting to redefine it for the purpose of political association without ideological allegiance. He even openly stated that the nazi party may have once been called the "Liberal Party," the Liberal Party historically and contemporarily in germany referring to right wing libertarian groups. And again... people can lie. Half of your arguments so far is "well they put out propaganda before they were in power."
"The form and structure of the ideology that was used by Hitler.(It was pure Marxian/Hegelian dialectical materialism.) As if you took the Communist Manifesto, then crossed out all instances of the words Bourgeoisie, Proletariat.(Replaced with Jews, and Aryan Race, respectively.) The phrases "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"(replaced with "Rule of the Master Race"), "Labor as the source of economic power", replaced with(Purity of the Aryan Lineage).......I could go on, but I'm tired of typing parenthesis."
I already rebutted this. You have no idea what marxism is. You literally use the statement "Hegelian dialectical materialism," which is absurd, as Hegel simply created the theoretical concept of a "dialectic," Marx applied it to history through study of materialistic class differences. I hate to break it to you, but Hitler did not follow this ideology, or even some sort of switched around version of it. If you took the communist manifesto, and replaced all the words with words that meant entirely different things and represented different desires... it would be a different thing. Like do you understand how absurd your argument is? "Well you see if I crossed out when this person said 'i am right wing' and replaced it with 'i am left wing' they sound just like a leftist." In fact, you can do this. If you replace the term jewish with "immigrant" or "muslim" the words Aryan Race with "american patriots," the phrase "rule of the master race" with "national american production," you have the ideology of the modern conservative. In fact, conservatives proudly proclaim "America First," based off of Hitler's "Germany First." Your assertions don't even make any sense, how is "Labor as the source of economic power" at all equivalent or parallel to "purity of the aryan race?" One is an assertion of economic theory, the other is random ramblings. In any case, your assertion isn't even true. If you actually replaced the terms in question, you would see statements like "The [aryan race] should collectively and democratically control the product of their own individual labor, without the hesitance of the state" and "it is now [jewish people's] faults for the actions they take against other people's, it is simply a result of their class desires, and most of us would do the same in their position. Don't blame or hate them, pity them for the system they are forced into." You see the problem? Marx didn't advocate anything like hitler, and class is fundamentally different from race. Hitler's Master Race Control has nothing to do with society-wide collective control, economic data has nothing to do with racism, and so on. Your only assertion that Hitler followed some sort of marxism... was that he used populist rhetoric.
You really don't. Everything you've said here, you've said before, and you didn't even bother to address my rebuttals. But of course, no matter how much evidence I present, you will never change your ideology. You are, without a doubt, right wing, and thus stand to gain from the denial of the right wing basis of nazi ideology. I am "challenging your morality," by daring to point out facts about your favorite political system. I, on the other hand, am not a socialist. Sorry to drop that bombshell on you, but your fanaticism is literally wholly projection of your own problems.
When you come back, try to actually make an argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joshualittle877
I'm sorry you feel the need to defend the ideological descendants of nazism. No, they were not, not the marxist variety or any variety. For all the infighting between factions of socialists, from the Bolsheviks and mensheviks to the modern day, they always have several traits in common, traits the nazis do not share. Socialism has many varieties, yes, but far right anti-socialism is not one of them. The nazis were not socialists, it was a title hitler didn't agree with and made obvious his opposition to.
It isn't literal, and doesn't mean what it says. If it did, Hitler would have advocated a policy based on the collective control of one group over the means of production, which is not socialist. In reality, he didn't even do this. There was no "socialism based on nationality" under the far right anti-socialist reign of hitler. Socialism was around before marx, though that too was based on collective ownership by the community as a whole, however you can't even get Marx's definition right. He did not define socialism as just the abolition or lack of private ownership. It was, and is, defined as collective ownership by the community as a whole. This isn't a byproduct of state or central ownership at all, and usually exists in conflict with those concepts. Of course, none of this, even your definition, matched the nazis, as they didn't have a centrally controlled or managed economy, but a privately controlled one. People were allowed to keep and manage their property, without the threat of socialists or unionists getting in the way of their profit, hardly an illusion.
I'm sorry, but that question has no relevance to the subject at hand. Hitler didn't advocate for an economy in which the state tells business what they can and can't make, how much they can make, what they have to look like, and so on. He advocated for one in which, in all but the most dire circumstances, private business was allowed to exist, compete, and profit as it had been doing before, which is why so many got rich under his regime. If he wanted something done, he wouldn't force it, as he needed the backing of the private market. Rather, he'd offer a contract for guaranteed profit that said private companies would fight for. Your question has no actual likeness to the policies put forwards by hitler. So no, that is not the nazi version of private ownership. Even worse for your claim, the system you're describing, even if it existed, would not be socialist.
Hitler's speeches and writings lead to a single, simple conclusion. The ability for german citizens to fight, to dominate, to compete and profit, was core to his ideology. How could he pretend to be a member of some master race when he had to order around all of his citizens? How could he claim the strong always prevailed when you assert he was trying to lift up the weak? No, from his speeches and writings we can tell his support of the right, his support of private property, and his support of the anti-socialist policies and groups that we know him for today, all things you baselessly deny.
Hitler never thought socialism was good, and praised what he called "productive capitalism" often, allying with international industrialists and capitalist frequently. Far right religious extremists siding with other extremists, again, doesn't really do much at all to prove the point you're trying to make. The baath party wasn't "national socialist," either by the literal definition or the far right nazi misusage of the term. Socialism based on race is an oxymoron and doesn't describe the systems you're attributing it to. The nazis didn't have socialist economies, so no socialist economy would be similar to theirs. Any system of private ownership is by its very nature not socialist, even if the private ownership in question is curbed or regulated to a degree. Stop. Lying.
3
-
@polpol2739
So... you don't know what capitalism or socialism actually are, then. Sad.
No, i'm sorry, you're wrong. He pretty clearly said that private property was ideal, and the sole possible economic order for his ideology. He said that the private property in question was so good because it served his people, based on the bribes of his party.
I don't think you get it. All countries do that, especially capitalist ones in wartime. Hitler's ideology was one that explicitly defended private property unless it was wholly inefficient or impossible, in which case it would be modified to remain private but be more efficient. The system you describe is not at all socialist, it literally describes the action of modern day conservatives and their billionaire allies. Most modern capitalists don't like foreign trade either, see donald trump for example.
You just described a right wing capitalist system and labelled it socialist, with no argument or reason why. So he was ok with a lot of capitalism, and wasn't ok with any socialism. But I guess, according to you, capitalism is "a lot of socialism"
3
-
@althist2nd950 I have spent quite literally months, nearing a year, commenting under TIK's videos. Hell, the dude has taken the time to insult me, personally, for daring to correct him. Why would I bother copy-pasting the same responses to his nonsense here, when I know all it will do for people like you is give you another reason to ignore reality. His points are long debunked by myself and history, and I invite you to scroll through the threads under this very video to find my lengthy responses to people who probably hold the same historical misconceptions. You want a "debunking" delivered to your door? Fine, let's start with the fact that TIK admits his historical sources fundamentally disagree with him, and take an opposite stance to the narrative he pushes. Also, how was I "offended" by pointing out that your insults aren't arguments? If you want an arrogant dumbass that acts above people, and refuses to listen, this video is full of them. The problem with all of this is that you ask for evidence, you ask for points, and yet you evidently don't care about those things, because you haven't even bothered to check the sources TIK cites.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
BenjaminTheRogue The definition of socialism has been static for hundreds of years. Literally. There's a reason that the places conservatives call "Socialist" are rejected by actual socialists... and its pretty plain, they don't meet the definition. If you're sick of supposedly socialist countries being called not socialism, maybe stop calling every country socialist? Wait, nevermind, you already did it.
The nazis were not socialists. They were not nationalistic racist socialists, those exist, and differ in policy extraordinarily to nazis. They were more anti-socialist than you, champ, and you and TIK have been called out on your lies time and time again. The nazis, objectively, historically, and ideologically, weren't socialists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cyberherbalist Thanks! I have to admit, you're one of the only people that's actually been somewhat receptive of criticism to the video. The problem is that in calling socialism totalitarianism, you kind of have to ignore what socialists wanted, why these states went totalitarian, and how it changes the words. For example, we all know that the idea of the sun revolving around the earth is silly, right? Any such geocentric system is long disproven. But that doesn't mean geocentrism = wrong. We don't say "well you got this question geocentrism on your quiz." You see the issue? Conflating the results, or outwards interpretations with the usage of the word doesn't make much sense. Often, these states went totalitarian because they didn't have much of a choice, and had to rapidly industrialize and adapt. That doesn't much excuse the terrors under said regimes, and it shouldn't, but it's worth pointing out. Another thing would be that socialism as a system has historically been used in anti totalitarian settings, some of the first socialists in fact fought primarily against an absolute monarchy. Defining socialism as totalitarianism would make the french revolution into some big socialist civil war, between the monarchist "socialists" and those like Proudhon. Anyway, i've ranted for long enough, but i'd like to say one more thing - I wasn't kidding about the "considering companies states" kind of thing, TIK has openly said that he considers companies to be socialist entities, because public apparently means anything that isn't a single individual. No, I really am not joking, he goes over it a bit in this comment chain, as well as the video it's under. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksAqr4lLA_Y&lc=UgzyCYfRD3L-Hq5JlBV4AaABAg)
Anyway, again I wish you luck in watching the video, and thank you for keeping an open mind to discussion and criticism. Good luck mate, and if you feel like it, i'd love to know what you think of it afterwards, and if it changed/reinforced your view. I'll be happy to discuss it then as well. Anyway, have a good one.
3
-
3
-
@OntologicalQuandry Yes, I did watch it. The problem is, unlike you, I did not follow it religiously and write off an dissenting opinions when doing so, and didn't take it to be fact just because it aligned with my worldview. You do it right here, you write off my points as "irrelevant arguments" without once addressing a single one of them. Is it because you can't? Did all five hours not prepare you to so easily debunk my statements? Or, wait, did I actually watch it and still find these arguments unaddressed? Hm. I still have to question whether you actually watched it at all, considering you yourself seem to not understand where the vast majority of that citation went. Not to the issue at hand, but to surrounding issues. After all, a large part of the citation did not relate to the historical conditions of nazi germany, but instead were general attacks against socialism. However, your fanatci arguments just completely ignore all this. Does "capitalism" as a term apply to nazi germany? Well no, but then again "capitalism" as defined by TIK applies to pretty much zero modern countries, as he considers capitalism to be the private ownership of the MoP (which it is) but considers "private" to mean wholly individual. Which means if you employ people, too bad, you're a state now. Now, were they socialist? Of course they weren't, the evidence is plain as day. You could look into the definitions, both at the time and now, and find that hitler himself said that his "socialism" had nothing to do with the socialisms of the time, and that in fact he defined socialism as nationalism. He certainly did not want to give the workers the means of production, which was the pre-marx and even anti-marx definition of socialism, not just "marxist socialism." You could look into the allies and associations of the nazis and Mussolini, and see that they often praised people like Ford or Koch, who praised them back in turn, or see that there were many entirely influential anti-socialist figures that were heavily associated with both regimes, like De Stefani for Mussolini, or Von Papen for Hitler. You could look at the true ideological origin of both movements, and find the frantic writings of Carl Schmitt, the tales of western civilization from Oswald Spengler, or the traditionalist writings of Julius Evola. All of these things, down all of these avenues, prove that Hitler was not a socialist at all. You shouldn't even have to go that far, though. "Did Hitler want the workers as a whole to own the means of production?" "No." Well then he's not a socialist.
Hitler was not a socialist, and you know it. You've not done a single thing to prove your ahistorical hypothesis, like TIK you have attacked my character and treated it as an argument. Do you want to know what TIK has called me, in lieu of an actual argument? Marxist, post-modernist, anti-semetic, racist, fascist, idiotic, troll, ect. Do those sound like the words of someone so confident in his argument? Hell, the funniest bit is how he tried to justify them. Take the accusation of anti-semetism. He said I must be a socialist, and Marx was anti-semetic, so I must be. Now obviously this fails on a couple of fundamental levels. For one, i'm not a socialist. For two, I could point to some entirely racist or homophobic people he cited in this very video, and accuse him of the same. (i didn't.) And finally, watching the video, you know that TIK made the argument that not all socialism is "marxist," and socialism as a concept was not invented by him. A point he just openly contradicted. How fun. So no, i'm sorry to say it's much more often been the case of TIK attacking me, as he doesn't have evidence for his claims. He hasn't really provided "withering evidence" of anything, except that he is completely willing to contradict his own arguments to score a "point" against those that disagree with him, even if it means praising literal holocaust deniers, which you can in fact find him doing in this very comment section. Your and his inability to respond to my arguments proves quite the opposite of his claims, right? That for all of his "withering evidence" he neglected to acknowledge that etymology has progressed beyond the first words in our language.
If the only negative thing you can say about a person that devalues the concepts of fascism and anti-semite and operates on an exclusively ideological worldview is that you jokingly don't like where he's from, then you really should get your priorities together.
Regardless, he's wrong, as are you, and both of you lack of arguments proves this. We both know that the only reason you actually agree with him is because you want to use this false version of history to attack those that have a different political position than you. Obviously you don't care about historical fact, and obviously you won't listen to the mounds of evidence that contradict your narrative, but keep this in mind - when the modern right starts flying more swastikas (I say more because they already started) and calling for ethnic cleansing, maybe then can I ask you to stop blaming everything you don't agree with on socialists? Can I ask you to perhaps reconsider your ahistorical ideological narrative when the actual right-wing fascists begin to rise again? Oh, who am I kidding. We both know what you're going to do.
"First they came for the socialists... and then I guess the sunk-cost fallacy made right wingers blame the socialists themselves."
3
-
3
-
@Southpaw658 I.... What? What the fuck are you on about? If you wanted proof you should have just asked for it, now I need to address your mound of claims and falsehoods instead because you've shoved those in my face when they were not warranted, necessary, or even relevant. If you want definitive proof outside of youtube arguments... scroll through TIK's source list. He happily admits that all of the major historians he cite disagree with his conclusion heavily, and with good reason. If you want me to explain it to you, then just ask. Not in a massive paragraph, just a sentence will do. As for you "studying WW2 for a long time," i'm afraid playing HOI4 doesn't actually count, and if you actually have then you wouldn't be at all convinced by this mess of a video. That one's on you. As well as that, why is it my job to "prove him wrong" when all of modern and historical history records does that already? It may be, as you say, a "five hour video," but uh... there are literally thousands of hours and pages of material out there proving him wrong. As for his "sources," have you ever taken the time to actually scroll through them? Most of them are extremely biased, people like economists and wealthy capitalists rather than any form of historian, of course they'd want to spin a narrative. Hell, he cites a fucking twitch stream. And again, he readily admits that all of his sources from actual major, accredited historians disagree with his conlusion. And what the hell do you mean? Hitler was not a socialist, nor was he a "social fascist," or whatever other made-up term the right plans to use to distance their kind from eachother. Hitler was a fascist, plain and simple. "Racial socialism" does not and never has existed, and this is another example of you taking something batshit crazy as fact without providing any proof. Yes, the nazis and italian fascists were different, but the USA and places like Norway, or even like Chile under Pinochet are different too, and yet all are/were capitalist. You can have measures of differences between specific implementation and still remain a part of the same larger ideological grouping. On top of that... why the fuck are you trying to apologize for Mussolini? You're practically fucking praising the man, do you not at all see the problem? Stop buying into the propaganda of a dictator and listen for half a second. Mussolini's rule was racist and anti-semetic as hell, not only was he a willing and happy participant in the Holocaust but he himself instituted racialized laws to keep ethnic groups from traveling freely, participating in the economy, marrying, ect. By just trying to paint him as some man against "elites" and trying to reinstate an empire you are literally buying into his propaganda. I mean hell, the man literally hated other Italians, why the hell do you not know this? And I'll ask again, why are you praising him? This is the problem with videos like this, they shift the blame over to somewhere where you all feel like you're safe to literally back Mussolini. Did he unite "Neapolitans, Sicilians, Regular Italians, Austrians, French, ect" together for one cause? No he fucking didn't, he united what he felt were "true italians," and happily sent the other citizens of his and neighboring countries to die in camps, or restricted their freedoms heavily. You are buying into literal fascist propaganda. And how did Hitler do "the opposite?" Hell, if we take your logic for it, he wanted to unite prussians, germans, austrians, polish people, and so on because he felt they were all part of the "Germanic race." The difference is, you can admit he didn't actually do this, and instead spent years trying to narrow down what a "real" german was, all while killing millions. They both did the same thing, clinging to some false national or ethnic identity, claiming to want to unite all the true belongers to it, all while killing anyone they felt didn't fit. SO yes, I can sit here and in fact confirm what even TIK's sources claim, the man was a fascist, pure and simple. Hitler wanted a "united nation" just like Mussolini did... by killing anyone who wouldn't go along with it. And why didn't he claim "German East Africa and East Asia?" Now you're seeing the problem. There is no definition of a "true german/italian," its an irrational label that doesn't work. So of course he would discriminate against groups of "germans," because he thought they didn't actually count. Same with what Mussolini did to Jewish italians. And again, what is this mound of bullshit you're spreading? I don't care if you're a nationalist, but it proves that you are extremely biased, and that you don't understand that 1. Hitler was also a nationalist and 2. Nationalism, historically, has been the cause of a whole host of major world problems since before WW1.And again, why the hell do I care about your made up family? Man you're like 15. And yeah, no. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and neither was Mussolini. Basic fact that you would know if you actually studied any sort of history. And again, just... what? You can't combine "state into class," you realize that the state is in and of itself a class above others, right? And that "the working class" under both Mussolini and hitler (far-right fascists both) was completely ignored in most cases, and shipped off to be killed in others. If that "sounds like socialism on the surface" to you, then you've never studied socialism for a second. Don't worry, I can tell you never got a degree in history. I'm working on mine now. But no, fascism is not "based off of socialism" any more than its based off of monarchism or capitalism. That's why its "hard to see." Because you're wrong. And don't worry, I am more than happy to tell you how wrong you are, its as simple as what I just did. Maybe you should have spent the time to get some sources, because all it takes is a quick google search of the definitions of fascism and the actions of both Mussolini and Hitler to find that they both fit, and that Mussolini was far from some perfect uniter of the people. You didn't lay out "basic facts," you laid out century old literal fascist propaganda. Of course you didn't actually quote the video, I doubt you even watched it, and quoting it would not at all help your dead argument here. The problem is, you didn't "prove your reasoning." All you did was say "Mussolini and Hitler did some things differently so they can't be a part of the same ideology." Like, you realize that 1. You didn't actually explain how they were different, you said they were different while describing them doing the same thing, and 2. you simply asserting something does not make it true. I've explained to you why Hitler can easily be classified as a fascist, and not at all of the left or of socialism, by the same method you used - hope you don't mind. And OF FUCKING COURSE he wasn't a capitalist, but LISTEN FOR ONE GODDAMN SECOND. There isn't just socialism and capitalism, there are literally hundreds of independent political ideologies all with their own positions. But you don't even know that. There's a reason fascism is called "Third Way," and its because its literally the third major ideology of WW2. Capitalism, socialism, and something that is neither - fascism. As for Japan, yeah based on their racialized violence, extreme imperialism, nationalism, and authoritarianism, yes they were pretty damn fascist, although a debate can be made that they were a form of imperial-fascism. And how do you not... know that? Like how did you "study" WW2 if you can't even classify the political ideology of one of the biggest fighters in it? I hope after this you realize how wrong you are, and if your goal is to try to outlast me by shoving as many words into a response as possible to overwhelm me i'm afraid that doesn't actually work. Because most of what you typed out has little to do with the actual subject at hand or is even close to it. But fine, i've been a bit rude this whole time, and if you actually are willing to learn then I am happy to answer any good-faith questions you have, and I too love learning, but teaching as well, and I would be happy to help elsewhere. Just realize that its better to format an argument one point at a time, not like... that. And if you seriously just want me to point you to a historian, I mean, TIK's source list is right there. People like Richard Evans, one of if not the best historians of Germany in WW2, have written thousands of pages on Nazi Germany, and in that found that they could not be called socialist. Sorry for getting annoyed at the end there as well, but you can ask around, I've been debating TIK and his viewers for literally around half a year now, and i've seen many of these misconceptions before. No joke. But, anyway, if you want, I can give more quotes and recommendations, but I wanted to do what you did and just try to reason it out first. But hey, i'm a fan of open-minded learners, so sure, show me what you've got. I wish you the best and let's see where this goes.
3
-
3
-
@UltraKardas Except, unlike you, I have been using rational, objective, and unbiased history this whole time. You're just annoyed that the facts, conclusively, prove you wrong. The objective fact is that you are likely politically closer to socialists than any nazi, ever, has the capacity to be or has been. Grass grows, the sun shines, and far rightists deny their political allies.
The nazis weren't socialists. That's the truth. I'm sorry your cognitive dissonance has a hard time accepting the truth. The sooner you accept that fact, the sooner you can grow as a person.
And i'm sure you will provide these "socialist programs," without any bias and with correct citation, right? And you won't make assertions like "these programs are socialist because I said they are?" Oh wait, no, you did that in your very first sentence. What a shame. So let me educate you on why not everything you don't like is socialism, why capitalist policies aren't socialist, how deeply hated socialism and all forms of leftism were in the nazi party, and how wrong you have been thus far, as you apologize for the nazi regime and allow your modern ideological allies, fascists, to prosper.
#1. Alright, you're already starting off with a false assertion. Welfare exists under all sorts of systems, from capitalism to monarchism, and has existed long before socialism. Furthermore, the nazis were infamous for the privatization of welfare, which makes your assertion that all private welfare was abolished, simply untrue. As we've been over.
And yes, socialism is fundamentally against private property. And yet, the nazis were huge fans of private property, and praised it on many occasions, as well as privatizing huge swathes of their economy. What you describe isn't a socialist policy, nor did it happen.
The GLF only ever existed because the nazis were worried that socialists would oppose them. (which they did) So, they removed the right to collective bargaining, and instead forcefully admitted most workers and unionists to the GLF, which was directly under the control of private business. In other words, about as anti-socialist and anti-leftist as you can get.
And yeah, this is the problem. You assert that the GLF was a socialist organization, and yet it only existed to oppose socialism, and was run by private interests. It hurt workers, didn't empower them. Social Security is also a policy that 1. didn't exist in nazi germany and 2. isn't a socialist one, it is one only possible under capitalism or similar private economies.
Healthcare wasn't centralized, it was privatized, which makes this statement from you, yet again, totally and utterly false. The GLF was a creation of private backers and interests, and existed for the sole purpose of repressing the workers, taking the means of production out of their hands. You are describing a fundamentally anti-socialist policy that was used to placate the few people hitler wasn't oppressing.
So, a private organization, that enacts anti-socialist polices, that took ideas from literal far right, anti-socialist fascists. The German Labor Front even, as you said, attempted to reach out and create deals with private businesses to create incentives to support the nazi party's private enterprises. but of course, you don't realize that, or more likely refuse to admit to it since it proves you wrong.
And yet another assertion. "For the greater good" isn't a "defacto phrase" for socialism, in fact, most early socialists specifically said socialism was a better system because it allowed a far greater individuality. Is this all you have so far, making up things and pretending your enemies agree with them or said them? If so... sad.
And you don't see the contradiction with you asserting that they were socialist, while also asserting that they supported private enterprise?
And this is another lie I had addressed previously, the german government was not socialist and allowed open competition, maintained private property, and removed worker powers giving more power to their private bosses. So they did not own anything close to "everything" as you assert.
And you asserting that his system "failed worse than capitalist motor companies" and specifically citing Ford is funny because HITLERS SYSTEM ONLY EXISTED BECAUSE FORD FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED IT. In fact, Ford was a huge fan of the nazis, voluntarily helping them set up much of their war infrastructure and writing an antisemetic hit piece justifying the nazis policies. He was given the highest award a non-german could get by the nazis for these actions. Odd that a capitalist was such a big fan of "socialists," hm?
#2
Socialism was so deeply hated in germany that they openly appealed to people like Ford to help their regime spread, because no leftist would ever support them.
The German Labor Front was by its own definition a private entity that was fighting alongside industrialists and capitalists, to destroy socialism wherever it crops up. It often worked with the many privatized entities of germany, and as we've been over already, you don't know what socialism is.
And again - this is anti-socialist. You are describing a system in which the employers could demand more of their workers, giving them less pay, and forcing them to live in worse conditions. The workers themselves had no power, and were subject to this private repression. That is the opposite of socialism. And, as we've been over, the nazis despised social programs and privatized them, and the NHS is a capitalist program.
#3.
And yet, i'm not a socialist. I'm an anarchist. Those who correctly point out the nazis weren't socialists are not socialists, in fact, the majority of those who point out this fact are just regular capitalists, left or right wing. Hell, even modern nazis align themselves with the right, and proudly. The nazis called themselves socialists, not out of "honesty" (though i'm sure a child like you would agree with nazi propaganda) but out of political gain, all while attempting to redefine the word socialist, and doing everything socialists hated.
They restricted every social program that had already existed under the capitalist nation before them, and they openly privatized and gave power back to private business. The wealth of the richest private individuals increased under the nazis, yet another fact you refuse to admit. The nazis despised socialism.
Hitler often said that his "socialism" had nothing to do with the word itself, but was instead pro-religion, pro-private property, and pro-competition. He only called himself a socialist because he was confident his propaganda had rewritten the definition of the word.
So the objective fact, one that you are now going to apologize to me and admit, i'm sure? The nazis weren't socialists, they ran a country antithetical to socialist goals and policies. They despised marxism, calling it a j*wish plot, along with the rest of leftism. They followed fascist teachings, fascism of course being the far right ideology that it was admitted to being by all of its founders, all of whom were traditionalists and extreme conservatives. You calling fascism a "marxist ideology," when marxism is the thing every fascist will tell you they hate, is yet more proof of your ahistorical extremism. I agree, Italy was similar to the nazis, and italy was very open about being a far right country ran by a far right leader who put far right policies, fascism, into place.
And I hate to break it to you, but China's economy has been getting more and more private since the 80's, despite what their propaganda wants you to know. The nazis loved private property, which is why they loved eugenics and mass murder. The two seem to go hand in hand - see the genocidal USA for more examples there.
So, far right wingers and anti-socialists like Hitler, Pinochet, Leopold II and so on, are very happy to kill millions for their anti-leftist causes, many of those victims specifically being leftists. But then again, you support the nazis anti-socialism and their genocide, right?
So, through your inability to cite a single argument, inability to stick to historically accurate definitions, inability to correctly label or attribute certain policies and ideologies, and inability to tell the truth about your ideological allies, the nazis, we can see that it is objectively true that the nazis were not socialists. We do see what far rightists are willing to do to oppose leftism, kill millions of people, like you favorite countries continue to do, and lie with propaganda, much like you are attempting to do right now. Odd how you seem to be so similar.
So yes, it seems the real radical is you, who is willing to rewrite history to cover up for their genocidal ideological friends, who killed millions for their far right anti-socialist goal, which i'm sure you'd agree with under any other name.
Good job falling for nazi propaganda and agreeing with them. If you claim not to be a nazi, despite spreading literal nazi propaganda, then you should look into a mirror and learn what a nazi truly is. Your ideology continues to spread hate, eugenics, racism, and kill millions, and just like nazi denialists, i'm sure you'll deny those numbers.
Learn from history, child. I've just given you some. :)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielbowman7226 No, it's far right to anyone, it is far right of center. Of course you deny this basic reality.
It is, after all, the right that most often holds up collectivism and statism above all else.
And of course you seem to think that far right monarchism and fascism are comparable with any other economic system, but i'm not surprised, people with your political leaning seem to be historically, politically, and economically ill-informed.
Politics will make a lot more sense to you if you actually research them, not come up with bizarre classifications no professional analysist uses. Keep that in mind and use it to grow, will you?
3
-
@danielbowman7226 No? I didn't? We were talking about death camps, you said the soviets had death camps, I pointed out how this wasn't the case. nice whataboutism.
The nazis were worse in pretty much all cases, which is an undisputable fact you seem to be trying to avoid.
You trying to find excuses to minimize the ideological terror and material crimes of the nazis is, again, blatant holocaust apologia.
...and this line is random, has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not surprised though, it isn't as thought you've made actual points so far. I don't think you realize what i'm talking about. By your logic, private property is theft, and that might be one of the first times you've actually made a good point..
I'm sorry, but your genocidal violence backed system is not universal. Not unlike the nazis, you seek to make your ideology a "Fact of life" when in reality it is easily opposed or ignored.
Ah yes, those famous "communist countries..." such as? Again, I don't think you understand the difference between communism, socialism, and random people calling themselves either of those things. Or just keep calling capitalism socialist, I guess.
3
-
@danielbowman7226 Oh my god you're still going with that lie. The nazis didn't want anyone to be equal, nobody of race, nationality, anything. You assert they wanted germans to be equal, but in reality, they campaigned against the idea of equality itself, they killed thousands of even germans they deemed lesser.
The problem is, in trying to falsely compare two groups with practically nothing in common, you end up lying about one or more of the groups, making vague statements that are true of any number of ideologies, or just spitting nonsense. Just admit it - you're wrong.
3
-
@danielbowman7226 What do you mean, "by my logic?" This wasn't an exercise in logic, this was a retelling of historical fact. Historical fact you don't like.
The nazis didn't want to "equalize" the races, the nations, or the people. They wanted inequality, because to them, equality was a dangerous anti-human yth.
They weren't both equalizing, and the fact that you just blew off proof of this to instead continue to assert nonsense without a lick of proof is pretty sad.
"Commies" didn't want "only the workers to remain." They wanted zero classes. Zero state. Zero money. The nazis didn't want "only germans to remain," hell they were pretty adamant that they wanted to keep around other groups as second class citizens or slave labor. And they didn't even want the individual germans to be equal to eachother.
Your "only difference" isn't true, and i've pointed this out to you time and time again. The problem is, you're just going to keep repeating it, even though you know it isn't true.
You gave me a "list' that you made up, that wasn't backed up by history at all. I disproved every point, and you were unable to offer any sort of counter argument. But do nazis share more in common with communists than liberals? Lets see.
Nazis and Liberals both think the strong should dominate the weak, either in the market or in the state - communists disagree
Nazis and Liberals both thought leftism was the greatest threat to the world, and should be opposed on all fronts - communists disagree
Nazis and Liberals both thought an economic system of private property and competition was the most efficient - communists disagree
Nazis and Liberals both think the state isn't only necessary, but it is useful, should be expanded. Communists want to abolish it.
Both Nazis and Liberals have historically hated the labor movements, cracked down on leftism, promoted racist or anti-semetic conspiracy theories, and so on. In fact, it was from a fascist state that modern libertarianism was born, and from rich capitalist industrialists the historical fascists were funded.
You were, all in all, unable to prove your "points." You gave me a 'list.' Zero quotes, zero references, hell you didn't even come up with arguments or examples for each point. When I came in and gave you all of that, quotes, references, examples and arguments, you couldn't address a single one. You are wrong, because unlike me, you're biased. I'm not a socialist, i've been criticizing socialism this whole time. The problem is of course, if you told the truth there, you'd have to admit i'm right. So instead, like the ideological child you are, you accuse me of being a socialist because you can't come up with any facts to support your alternate history.
You are biased. You are trying to rewrite the history of fascism. And you know this, which is why you are unable to respond to a single one of my points. I am, objectively, correct. Get over it.
3
-
3
-
This is so hilariously wrong, on literally every level. No, I am not joking, every level. By your logic, I suppose buffalo wings are actually made of real buffalo, because they have the same name, right? Hitler himself said he was right wing and thought the left would lead to the end of civilization, and Mussolini literally just said that fascism is a right wing philosophy. Hitler working with stalin doesn't mean much for him being a socialist, considering a few things. For one, he literally betrayed stalin as soon as possible, and most likely never intended to keep the pact in place. For two, did you forget that the USA was allies with the USSR for far longer, and we fought a war on their side? And finally, Hitler allied with the right far more than the left, he was literally elected on the backs of conservatives, and during the war worked with numerous conservatives and praised many capitalists for their efforts. Hitler's actions in no way match a socialist model, he did not put the means of production into the hands of the workers. The fact that you're taking hitler on his word and believing literal nazi propaganda is why the american right is such a joke nowadays. Hitler was well known as a conservative long before modern times, that's why the conservatives of the past loved him so much, and made as much known. You also seem to think liberals and socialists are the same thing, which is yet more proof of your political illiteracy. You are literally calling a decentalized movement based on anti-fascism... fascist. Do you know how stupid that argument is? It's so stupid that a version of it existed in the time of Geroge Orwell, which he easily rebutted here. "What I object to is the intellectual cowardice of people who are objectively and to some extent emotionally pro-Fascist, but who don’t care to say so and take refuge behind the formula ‘I am just as anti-fascist as anyone, but—’. The result of this is that so-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda. Like war propaganda, it concentrates on putting forward a ‘case’, obscuring the opponent’s point of view and avoiding awkward questions. The line normally followed is ‘Those who fight against Fascism go Fascist themselves.’ In order to evade the quite obvious objections that can be raised to this, the following propaganda-tricks are used:
The Fascizing processes occurring in Britain as a result of war are systematically exaggerated.
The actual record of Fascism, especially its pre-war history, is ignored or pooh-poohed as ‘propaganda’. Discussion of what the world would actually be like if the Axis dominated it is evaded.
Those who want to struggle against Fascism are accused of being wholehearted defenders of capitalist ‘democracy’. The fact that the rich everywhere tend to be pro-Fascist and the working class are nearly always anti-Fascist is hushed up."
You're conflating unrelated groups, just like hitler did, because you don't like them. The people who don't like certain books are not the same people who choose to protest using the burning of their own books, but of course, someone who thinks with such a stupid totality as yourself could never see that. The right is fascist, and yet they blame the ones fighting against things like fascist government military expansion and fascist police emboldening for being the "real fascists." Do you know the rate of left wing terrorism to right wing terrorism? I thought not. The very reason you have this country, that the constitution was signed, and that we are not under a monarchist conservative government is because of liberals. A movement cannot "admit" to being marxist, and you use that myth to try to discredit the movement with ties to communism, which is not only what the nazis did, but what the KKK did. Your conspiarcies, thankfully, don't fool your average person. Antifa is not fascist child, not unless they become right wing and nationalist, like the current american right is. You can choose to pretend that you don't understand this, but I think you do. All the ad hominem attacks in the world cannot change this basic, objective reality.
They use the name to intimidate whites and even other blacks to conform. Antifa is actually fascists that accuse others to intimidate them. The name is almost always twisted to the opposite to use as intimidation. It's always humorous to see a 200lb white kid hollering at black man that he is a racist while kicking his car.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IsaacPSmith Oh this is woefully ironic. In accusing other people of ad hominem attacks and insults, you quite literally use your own insults to describe them, calling them "Marxists" and "Socialists," which is not only inaccurate, but clearly carries a negative association with you. As for them being the ones doing it the most, TIK has only addressed my arguments by calling me a troll, a postmodernist, a Marxist, a racist, an anti semite, ect. Meanwhile, TIK gets called out for that, and that's the real insult to you? Put down your bias for half a second and view the world objectively.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bandit6272 Lmao, you're still proving my point. "Put up or shut up," what, to who, you? You've proven yourself to be a liar and unable to operate in any sort of good faith, why would I care what you say? After all, apparently you know that I don't use facts or arguments, despite seeing me using both, but not actually reading through any of my responses. You don't even know what ad hominem means. I have no reason to debate with a person who came out swinging with insults before they even knew the facts. Oh, and of course you don't want some "wall of text" - nuance is beyond you.
And I know you hate the idea of factual information debunking propaganda, but maybe make it a little less obvious? TIK's video is a lie, you know it, he knows it, he even admits his sources prove it. His own sources. If you want to respond to arguments against TIK, might want to read those sources first. If you want to respond to me, then find one of my other responses, of which there are literally hundreds. You have no right to dictate the rules of debate whe you've proven that you don't even follow them. I've proven TIK wrong, but that doesn't even matter, his own sources do so. And no matter how much you desperately whine for my time and attention, you are not owned it. I have no need to engage with a bad-faith moron like you when all the arguments you've made have been debunked time and time again through this comment section. So? Put up or shut up. If you have an argument, kid, make it. And if you don't (which we know you don't) you're just going to ignore the point and refuse to make an argument, right? I can't wait to see how you deflect.
😁
2
-
@bandit6272 I mean, you answered your own question there. You believe a lie, and willingly perpetuate it. Maybe you aren't conscious in it, so you're just ignorant, but its one or the other.
And there you go, changing your story again. What a great case for yourself you're making there, not even remembering your own statements.
And if you admit that you have indeed seen my arguments
then you should know that you are free to go back and address all of the arguments you want... and yet you choose not to. Almost like you're just trying to "mock" and waste time.
You just compared me to a child and said I was "screeching," and yet i'm the one with ad hominem? Do you have a spec of self awareness?
The lies i've pointed out seem to hurt your ideology, which is likely why you are so dead set on crying about them.
Its clear as day, you've made it clear.
I've made my case against people like you time and time again. You aren't owed my time, and apparently you have seen my arguments before, so feel free to find an old one. Until then, you'll only get back what you're giving to me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zerozatan Well that's the problem with the video, it makes false assumptions, bases faulty analysis on those assumptions, and makes arguments based off of those. The very core of the video is worth addressing, false. All arguments that issue thereafter are tainted by those same assumptions. That's what makes addressing those arguments so difficult, because TIK ends up not only making these assumptions within this video, but ends up citing other videos, like his Public vs Private video, which are equally filled with such faulty arguments, which would mean to address this video I would have to go through half his channel, and what's the point of that when I could just point to the fact that TIK says his own sources disagree with him, and encourage those interested to read into them. Anyway, i've never once said that me disagreeing with his viewers counts as disproving him, and i'm not sure where you got that. And since you call yourself a "student of history," then before addressing the first point you give me at the bottom, i'll give you that same advice. Don't take TIK on his word. Hell, don't take anyone on their word, including me. If you believe this video, look through his sources, and see how many actually have to do with history, and how many are just from conservative think tanks or are modern political mannifestos. When you actually get to the historical stuff, you'll find that historians roundly disagree with TIK, and with good reason. I would recommend starting with Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy. Also, another observation - there shouldn't be "another side" here. There's a reason historians have agreed on and presented the nazis as non-socialists, and you can either believe TIK and assume they're in on some conspiracy or victims of propaganda somehow none of them can see past... or assume that they might know what they're talking about. Now, your question.
First off - There are three ways to address this point, all of which I will bring up, and all of which I would be happy to elaborate on in future responses. First, the definition of socialism. Second, the reality of the nazi economy and ideology. And third, the type of "control" executed. They all intersect, so i'll simply go over the basics of each now. First off, socialism is not state control. While socialism could, theoretically, be achieved through the state, the state is not the determining factor, otherwise everything from monarchism to minarchism would be some type of "socialism." You have to remember, socialism is an ideology that was only really formed in the 17th century, and would only be ideologically cemented in the 18th-19th. Government control of labor or production had existed for literally hundreds if not thousands of years, so unless you consider socialism some sort of hyper-ideology that has been here since the advent of civilization, that doesn't check out. Hell, back when socialism was first cementing as an ideology, monarchism was rampant, a system in which the government pretty much had a "god given right" to anything it wanted. Why did those early socialists hate that so much, then? And, if socialism was government control, then how would the libertarian socialist movement exist, and find agreement as well as competition with more statist socialists? Hell, one of the biggest branches of socialism is one based off of direct worker ownership, government need not apply. So what is socialism? Well, simply, socialism is social control of the means of production, social control being various types of representative collective control.
Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey" By Donald Busky.
Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.
"The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study" By Scott Arnold
"What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."
"International Encyclopedia of Political Science" by Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; abd Leonardo Morlino
Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates... cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
The Economics and Politics of Socialism" By Brus Routledge
"This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.
New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition" by Alec Nove
A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
Readers Guide to the Social Sciences." by Jonathan Michie. Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.
"The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought" by Mason Hastings and Adrian Pyper, . Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership.
And these are all recent citations, if you want to go more historical, look into books like "The Philosophy of Poverty," by Proudhon, or "Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx or even Malatesta's "Anarchy."
Remember, when these people say "social control," that is defined as "a form of common ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems." While it can be done through the state, the core tenet of that definition is *common ownership, or ownership of the people as a whole. If those people are not represented, it is not common, thus not social, thus not socialist.
2
-
MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica it's ok dude you can drop the act. Nobody would be this defensive if I wasn't on point. So why did you change accounts? Is it because you got disproven so many times and you want to pretend that isn't the case? You used the exact same quotes and copy pasted insults, and the exact same framing. Its you bud.
In any case, as I've said previously, and you have yet to address - those quotes you mentioned are from, as you pointed out, propaganda speeches. These do not include his definitions, his words in private, or his actual actions. And you, a proven liar, know this. So why do you not include this context? Is it because you would rather not admit to hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti socialism? Is it because you agree with hitler, or want to defend him? What is it, liar?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@auo2365 But I already addressed this - the figures you mention murdered others for specific reasons. To take stalin and trotsky for example, Trotsky was not exiled because he was a communist, or because he was say, a man, or white, or any other random classification. He was exiled because he opposed stalin's specific rule. The thing is, you have to look at the specific reasoning behind each case, the umbrella label "interparty violence" doesn't cut it. The nazis didn't kill socialists because they were some different kinds of socialists, or had different methods or goals (though they did) they killed socialists specifically because the values, the morals, the systems proposed by all branches of socialism directly conflict with the views held by the nazis. The socialists, as a whole, were purged for the same reason that union leaders were.
2
-
@auo2365
But that's the thing - each of those listed purges you showed had a reasoning, those included, and those excluded. In most of the cases, the reasoning was that they threatened the power of the leader, usually by holding a different strain of an ideology, and thus they were purged, while the "loyal" were excluded from the purges. The thing is, hitler's purges have the same pattern, and if you want to see the reasoning, even without looking at his words or later actions, just look on who he purged. He purged the weak and disabled, and campaigned on the state spending too much on them. He purged the gay, trans, ect, and those that supported them, because of supposed degeneracy. He purged the union leaders and their outspoken supporters. He purged the socialists from his own party. Even ignoring that last part, do you see a trend? And now, who didn't he purge? Well, he didn't purge conservative party leadership, in fact they made up his first cabinet and vice-chancellor positions. He only got rid of some later when they explicitly threatened nazi rule. Same with private businessmen, unless they were jewish, gay, leftist, ect, he didn't purge them, in fact he even invited international industrialists to fund his efforts. You see the trend? He purged those he did because of who they were, and it was only the more right leaning folk that he didn't purge until they threatened him.
Socialism is an ideological threat to nazism, just the same as a person being openly gay, or jewish, or pro-union is. Socialists, thus, could not be "excluded" from his purges. He purged the socialists because they were socialists, even if they didn't openly oppose him. The soviets purged other socialists only when they posed a threat. However, they killed capitalists because their very existence was a threat. You see the distinction? I mean, look at the patterns. Hitler purges the groups that leftists historically defend, along with the leftists advocating for their defense, and only attacks rightists or their allies when they cease to be helpful/become hostile.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Davidoff Ah, so you're one of those types that is shown the absurdity of his arguments, and then just decides the person who literally brought them up to you knows less than you just because they pointed out how nonsense his "points" are. I don't think you have thought about this. For example, you say that because a company becomes publicly traded, this means that it is invested in by the public, and that it then has a responsibility to fulfil the desires of its investors. You say that this somehow makes a company less private... but this is literally all companies do, ever. All companies are at the whims of people in the public, that's why they need to advertise and even just create products in the first place. If they want to continue existing, they have a legal responsibility to make a profit, and a responsibility to their customers to make things that do so. Corporations have always had to measure the desires of thousands, even millions of people, that's how business works, and its the most private you can get. Here's your statement, but revised accounting for this fact.
"Well if you think about it, a company that tries to get profit from the public means that people from the public have put their investments into this company, and are now customers of that company. That means that the companies interests are no longer private among themselves, but also have to consider their customer's needs, and there can be thousands of customers investing into this company. In such a case, how could this company be considered private, in the sense that it can act on private interests, if it has a legal obligation to the customers?"
You see how absurd your statement is?
And I didn't say he said, in this particular video, that corporations are socialist. I said he believes it because it has been a consistent assertion of his all throughout his comment section and other videos of his, and you are free to ask him his opinion on this to find out yourself. And no, socialism has nothing to do with corporations, even if they did have actual government connection, which public stocks are not. This just tells me you fundementally don't understand what socialism even is. Like TIK.
I think you need to reevaluate your views, given that you are literally supporting someone who openly revises definitions, which you can hardly defend, and a fact you now admit to openly. I don't think you can defend a single "argument" he made.
2
-
@Davidoff
I'm sorry, but insults don't make up for your lack of argument.
Public or private stocks are not the same as public or private property. While one might be more restricted, and the other is open to the general public, they are both wholly creations of private interests. Pretending otherwise is plainly absurd and follows no economic logic.
Again, you can insult me all you want, but I am in no way seeing a rebuttal from you, in the slightest, which is a shame.
You can claim nothing you said is absurd (backed up only by insults) but the vast majority of people, i'm afraid, prove you wrong. Yes, it is absurd to claim a company isn't private because they trade stocks publicly.
And i'm sorry, are you really that pissed off that i'm right? I didn't say "I uhh well he said in another video and I interpreted it as this but I swear my interpretation is correct because i understand the english language better than anyone else," I pointed out how his definitions make no logical sense, backed up by the basic practice of studying etymology and even just glancing at a modern dictionary. This isn't a case of interpretation, or "my understanding." This is a case of his words openly conflicting with established reality. I am directly telling you what TIK has made clear, and you are denying it because you understand how absurd his redefinitions are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 @MIT Scientifica Oh, hitler gave far more quotes than just three. And after all, no matter how many alts you mae, in the end you always admit that far right mass-murderer Adolf Hitler was an anti-socialist.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
But thank you for admitting you care about nazi propaganda over actual history!
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 @MIT Scientifica I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408
https://www.archives.gov
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
Your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Roberts Fawkes
This is who you are allied with, who you claim stands for freedom and democracy next to you... while outright telling eachother that they're lying to you. That was said in a speech, delivered to the AFotBNP, an american group of far right people. Those are the ones you defend, the ones who would steal freedom out from under you. Remember that whenever you think that the right truly stands for more freedom, or less government. You'd be surprised how wrong that statement is, and always has been. I can only hope that you actually have the self awareness to see it. We know what you're doing. We know what you and your allies want.
And we aren't having any of it. We fought hard for these freedoms, and I refuse to sit by while the right keeps telling the biggest lie imaginable to destroy the freedom generations have died for.
The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, abhor social justice, and advocate for a system in which the strong prosper while the weak are "incentiveized" to work more within the bounds of society in order to succeed.
The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised any and all forms of diversity. National, racial, ideological, it was all swept away in the nationalistic worship of the country.
"Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for
consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal
of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism
The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised multiculturalism and all it brought, by acting as if their society would be overrun and drowned in a sea of "others" and advocating for the supremacy and separation of their culture.
"We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house."
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight."
- Adolf Hitler
Oh, and before you start spouting more buzzwords like "post-modernism," the nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised all form of culture that did not paint them in a good light, or even had no purpose at all.
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized"
-Adolf Hitler
You accuse me of falling into an Orwellian paradox, but buddy... you are one. The culture of republicans has conditioned you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears, and rather to create evidence out of thin air, to lie and shut down and deflect when faced with any sort of criticism or contradiction to your ideology. You proclaim yourself rational and logical without reason, and without purpose, for the sole reason I can only assume is trying to convince yourself. The truth is, you are none of those things. You are beholden to your ideology, not history. You have been conditioned into a cowardly, idiotic blame-deflecting narrative of the right wing collective. You're living in your own Orwellian reality, and no matter what happens, no logic will ever get through to you. You are lost here, and it's sad to watch.
Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
Welcome to the real world. I hope you enjoy it.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" 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... 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.
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alanrobertson9790 Ok, fine then. Let's do it this way.
1. I would disagree here, but your phrasing is a bit different here, and that's worth examining. The "nazis," and the nazi government, are different things. What I mean is that while "the nazis" may have been in control of some industries... that's usually because the private owner of said industry was a nazi, or at least, very willing to work with them. If you mean that the nazi government had a high degree of control over industry as a whole, I would disagree, and say this video does not show that.
2. There is certainly a debate whether there was any sort of centralized "control," which is what we're having, but the workers played literally less part in it than the private owners. Its closer to a form of corporate governance than any form of socialism.
3. And I specifically addressed this point before. All of the examples you give are vastly different in their political and economic systems, and all are varying in how "socialist" they were. Again, an example. Venezuela never claimed to be a finished socialist country, hell, their economic is around 70% private. How does that compare to the mass centralization of say, the USSR? You see the problem? Yes, these places were not socialist (like the nazis) but they were all not socialist for different reasons. The thing was, those places (with some exceptions) at least claim to care about actual socialism, and leftism, while nazism rejected both of those concepts.
4. And this is literally a criticism of one type of socialism. One that yes, I literally have of the people who advocate it. Because no, you really can't achieve worker control through the narrow lens of a single party. But again, a dictatorship is not the only thing that made the nazis so clearly anti-socialist.
5. As for this point, yes, most countries do retain quite a bit of control over their economy in times of war. However... to then assume the nazis specifically would not have attempted a market ideology in times of peace is a bit silly. The USSR, even before WW2, operated within markets. Hell, they even ended up privatizing, they opened up a stock market for foreign trade. Obviously this changed with the advent of the World War, but the idea of a market economy is far from impossible in this case. And I do agree that the nazi economy was extremely weak, and couldn't survive without that pillaging... but that was because the economy did not follow strict ideological bounds. Instead, it was highly opportunistic. Industries would be seized and sold on a whim, elites would be persecuted or courted, workers would be slaughtered en mass or kept as labor. There was no guiding economic system, they did what they thought would work. Of course nazi germany could not have succeded with a market economy in those times of war, but given their connection and willingness to work with many local and foreign industrialists (Koch Sr. and Ford come to mind) its unlikely that the nazis would have operated a wholly anti-business pro-centralization economy. As for your last point here, I agree, that command economy is just a sign of war, not socialism.
So, in the end, where we disagree seems to be in the definitions of control, and the application of the term "socialism.
I have my position laid out, I think.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@laq2 pt1
Look, I get it, you want to pretend to have some sort of superiority in this conversation, but as I was replying to TIK and I have already given him this info, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. If you, on the other hand, wanted me to elaborate all you had to do was ask. Let's go though my examples.
First off, ideological influences/roots. The nazis, and fascists in general, were most influenced by the following figures - Spengler, Evola, and to a smaller extent Darwin and Carl Schmitt. First off, Spengler invented the idea of "Prussian Socialism." It was an ideology he was adamant had nothing to to do with any other socialism's, but he only devised the name from the same root word. This prussian socialism was nationalistic, corporatistic, in favor of private property as long as it benefited the state. Sound familiar? It wasn't quite fascism, it was a sort of proto-fascism, but it was nothing like socialism. Spengler was against labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. Not very much socialism. He, however, did share the same idea that his socialism was an ancient german tradition of sorts, that Marx had stolen. He also wrote extensively on the supposed collapse of western civilization, which heavily influenced the rise of fascism, and personally supported Mussolini. As for Evola, he was also heavily involved with the italian fascist party, considered himself a "super fascist" (I have no idea, his words not mine) but more importantly he was the largely the creator of traditionalism, a social policy that was very similar to the nazi's later sort of german mythos, something he sort of acted as a foreword to. He wasn't as much a fan of the fascist forces as they manifested, he wanted them to be far more reactionary and mystical, but he certainly did count himself among their ranks. As for Darwin, he himself did little to benefit the fascist movement, but Social Darwinism, which was largely pushed by reactionaries at the time, was a cornerstone of Nazi society. They believed in a sort of enforced superiority, eugenics, which the spread of social darwinism had very much popularized. Finally, while Carl Schmitt wasn't as influential as the other figures or ideologies mentioned, his anti-democracy work in the years before the rise of the nazis was somewhat influential in the ranks, as well as useful for radicalizing many other germans. He remained an avid supporter of a new nazi state until he died, sometime in the 80's. While his ideas are somewhat less commonly talked about, regarding the use of democracy and state power you can see at the least he very much echoed nazi sentiments. All of the ideologies I mentioned, and all of the figures (save darwin) were right wing, conservative reactionary figures.
Now - associations. I'll try to keep this a bit quicker. Hitler only came into power due to the effort of Franz von Papen, a conservative figure in the government who saw hitler as a way to take power against the increasing popularity of socialism. While he would later be expelled form the party, he also served as hitler's first vice-chancellor, and helped to populate hitler's first cabinet, many of which would go on to have long careers in the party. One of the first economic advisors for Mussolini was Classical Liberal Alberto de Stefani. Mussolini and Hitler both would spend a large part of their later regimes trying to appeal to the religious conservative crowd, Mussolini most of all, although a previous fascist country had managed far better, the FSA. Speaking of the FSA, their fascist party (even before takeover) The Fatherland Front under Engelbert Dolfuss employed a certain man by the name of ludwig von mises. While he would flee later to american after the FF took full control over the country and Hitler began to reach his influences into the country, Mises still taught the same economics that were so popular under the FF, and would later say that while he wasn't a fascist, he viewed it as a necessary tool in the defense of western civilization, like the Spengler fellow, a sentiment that would be echoed in part by later ideological descendants of Mises, and in a way re-contextualized by figures like Hoppe, who shared many of the same bigotries, disdain for democracy, and desire for "physical removal" of those he deemed unfit to participate in society, from communists to gay people. Hitler himself often found himself allied with conservatives industrialists of the time who would go across the ocean to work with him, most notably Ford, who would write books on jewish people Hitler personally praised and was awarded with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor a non-german could receive, and funnily enough Koch sr. The list goes on, as you can imagine.
As for policies, this one is rather simple - hitler opposed the right to collective bargaining, enriched the ruling classes of his time, and never came close to handing the workers the means of production. For a more in depth look at Hitler's betrayal of the "socialist" title, I recommend James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" for the rise in movements, both in capitalism and socialism, which only sought to take power and did so in betrayal of their principles and ideology.
2
-
@laq2 pt 2
As for rhetorical tactics, hitler was amazing at redefining words. For example, i'll just give you a few quotes here, but you can see how he utterly redefines socialism, labels all previous socialist movements (including pre-marx and anti-marx ones) as "Marxist" to associate it with some sort of jewish plot. I'll let you look over the quotes yourself to see that.
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
"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... 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."
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.""
"1. '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."
Here is also an excerpt from Strasser's "Hitler and I," Strasser being the leader of the left-wing pre-hitler branch of the party, who (like most other of that branch) would later be purged in the Night of the Long Knives.
"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?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be."
I hope that's enough?
2
-
@ericharmon7163 So, let me get this straight. You have no actual rebuttal, not to the fact that hitler's goals and policies don't align with socialists goals or policies, not to the fact that the man's wife was pretty open about his work's goal, not to the fact that the nazis weren't socialists. What is your response? Well, you go off on a tangent using an uncited quote on an unrelated topic, and then appear to think that the nobel prize means something is good or legitimate, despite it constantly being awarded to warmongers and war criminals. You assume I "google" things, all while showing your true colors - you don't like google, not because it's wrong, but because it shows you when you are wrong. Same reason you don't like wikipedia. See, the great things about those sources, is you can see where they get their claims from. You, on the other hand, don't agree with those sites. You only want us to use youtube videos and conspiracy theorists that agree with you. How intellectually honest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I commend your effort in reaching out to him, I really do, but you miss his point somewhat, which is really to be expected. The issue is he thinks that capitalism is statelessness, and socialism is the state. Oh, and he conflates the idea of the state with the idea of "publics" and "collectives," so that he has openly said he considers corporations the state. Therefore, since any group of people is socialist to him (as well as, in his words "organized society" and "hierarchy") socialism must be state control, even if that "state" is a private business. Trying to address his myths with actual argumentation or reality doesn't work on him, because despite his mocking of the "not real socialism" argument, he is more than happy to redefine capitalism or socialism however he pleases. I've also come to realize that nobody actually told him that Hitler was a capitalist, he just has this odd idea of a binary between capitalism and socialism, with no other political or economic systems. Oh, and he thinks that right=less government, left=more. Again, I don't mean to dissuade you from trying to engage with him in good-faith debate, but i've seen his tactics in the past, and it's usually to respond to these kind of comments with vitriol, accusations of anti-semetism, (no, i'm not joking) fascism, marxism, holocaust denial, ect, and then he'll link one of his own videos as a source. Just something to watch out for, if he responds at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@osmosys808 The point of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not to have a literal dictatorship, but to have a group (the proletariat) collectively having absolute control over the economy, so direct democracy. Trust me, I fully agree that giving power to a literal, singular dictator is a terrible idea, but it's not what Marx advocated for. Side note, the author of animal farm didn't even consider the USSR to be socialist. As for a classless society, you certainly have an odd view of individual liberty. A person is allowed to fail, a person can be born disabled with no chance of success, isn't that destroying individual liberty according to you? The "liberty" to succeed is only important when success actually means something, which it wouldn't in said society. Finally, this video perfectly proves that by no normal definition could you consider Hitler a socialist. TIK has to invent this new term, "Hitler's Socialism," and then define socialism so broadly that whatever country you are residing in now, he would consider socialist. He considers the Nordic states socialist, he considers America to be socialist, he openly says that he thinks any system in which a united group controls land and property counts as a state, and that all states are socialism. According to him, you are a socialist. So no, this video doesn't point out that Hitler was a socialist, it points out that the only way to assert he was one is to lie and rewrite history.
2
-
MajorLeague I already did? Why can't you admit that? Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@edwardcarson81 I don't care about the redefinition itself, because it's easy to address. I care about the redefiners, people like you. Conservatives tend to do this all the time, which isn't really helping your case, they pick out the ones that they don't like and accuse them of not being true righties, RINOs, establishment, ect. And really, no offense, but this isn't a conversation about our views, no matter the points of agreement I might have with you. However, let me clue you in to one reason this video pretty clearly redefines history. According to TIK, you would be a socialist.No, I am not joking. He considers the very state a socialist entity, as well as companies, and anyone pushing for them must be a socialist. Hell, he said wanting an "organized society" is a uniquely leftist thing. I would be happy to provides quotes of him saying this, openly. But now do you see the issue?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@phillip3495
I would suggest that you keep your fascistic conspiracies out of view. The notion that historians and academics were infiltrated and overrun with socialists is quite literally one hitler used to gain power, and burn books and research institutions that disagreed with his nonsense "race science." Even if these people lean socialist, which most don't, you need to stop projecting your own denialism onto them. See, there's a reason why historians of all political stripes maintain the simple fact of Hitler and Mussolini's anti-socialism, while the only people who oppose it are right wing think tanks, politicians, and influencers. Historians have been giving an accurate account of the anti-socialist nazis. Now, can you think of a reason why a right leaning individual might want to obscure nazi history, and try to discredit all historians that disagree with them? It's a simple historical fact, long known, checked, and double-checked, that the Fascists, and Nazis, were just more radical members of the anti-socialist collective. Asserting otherwise is absurd, and would likely offend them were they to be around still today. It certainly offends the proud right wingers who still fly their flags. Hitler was not a socialist, nor was Mussolini. Saying they practiced a "tweaked version of socialism" is like saying a nuclear reactor is a "tweaked version of an apple."
Think about what the office of historian actually means. Historians aren't just people that say things that must be taken as fact, they are researchers, that spend years backing up every one of their statements. The right, on the other hand, asserts that the nazis were socialists because a youtuber and a blog told them. We already knows what happens when the most brutal, horrific, and tragic event happens under the watch of your own ideology. You deny it. In any case, your assertions are false. Hitler and Mussolini's far right ideology and ties were well documented before even the war ended and the true extend of their crimes was noted. Only recently, after rightfully being compared to their ideological ancestors, have the right tried to fight back against the well known fact of anti-socialist fascism. There was no need for socialists to attempt to distance themselves for nazis after the nazi crimes were revealed, they were already seen as enemies of opposing political views.
And you can say that what you're saying is true all you want, it doesn't make it so. People have spent lifetimes, their entire careers, philosophically dissecting fascist political documents, speeches, and observing their actions and policies, and they all come to the same conclusion. The nazis weren't socialists, and had nothing in common with the socialist ideology. Your assertion otherwise is, again, not based off facts, but your own ideological defense. You even further prove my point, by doing the same things as nazis, trying to point out marxism in everything you don't like to justify purging it. No, philosophically, fascists and nazis were about as opposed to marxism as one can get. Marxism isn't just "when you like one group and dislike another," your definition of marxism (find a majority of their population, get them pissed, and point them at their enemies as the cause of their disenfranchisement) applies easily to modern conservatives. For example, I could say using your logic: Socialists, pit labor against capital. Nazis, pit race against the races they don't like. Conservatives, pit christianity against islam, citizens against immigrants, patriots against critics, and so on. What you're describing isn't "marxism," it's populist rhetoric. Furthermore, comparing the nazis and socialists even in this way is absurd. How is focusing on an entire different problem, with an entire different reason for considering it a problem, and entirely different methods and solutions, a "switcheroo" in the same framework? Again, you're describing populist rhetoric, not "marxism."
And yet it was the opponents of CRT that called for holocaust denialism to be taught in public schools, rightists who wave the nazi flag, and the right who mirrors fascism in all but name.
2
-
@phillip3495
Mostly because said "fact" has no basis in reality, and is not cited by you, given that it isn't true. If every academic was a socialist, we wouldn't have a right wing president in power, eve again. The problem is, you literally identify anything you don't like as "Marxist influenced ideas." MArx was one of the first to make economics into a science, does that make all economists socialists? You have the same "reasoning" as a flat-earther, "just look it up." You go a step further, by claiming that one of the biggest private companies is "leftist leaning." Stop trying to block reality.
Oh god, the irony. Your entire first paragraph here is "it is known" without a single reference or citation. That is and always has been the only foundation of your argument. In any case, to start off with, Mussolini literally based his ideology off of right wing nationalists and traditionalists at the time, employed classical liberals to manage his economic policy, oh and openly said he was right wing.
2
-
@phillip3495
I'm not, though. I'm not implying that it's impossible, since in some absurd future/alternate world that hypothetically could happen. though of course, it isn't true of today or our actual history in any sense.
I'm pointing out that modern right wingers and historical right wingers share the same rhetoric, that they spread for the same reasons, in defense of the same views and policies.
Your entire assertion is one that hitler proudly shared, and that directly led to his policies on restricting information and burning research and literature that proved him wrong, and you can't help but deflect.
Going off on a tangent about "political bias" just shows me that you can't deal with facts about nazi rhetoric.
Kid, you're a statist. The sooner you accept that, the better. Furthermore, "Socialism/Statism" is absurd for its own reasons, but I didn't come here to bear witness to your absurd, misinformed opinions, I came to debate a subject that you have evidently decided to deflect from in favor of some random moralistic ranting.
You see, then, when the genocide is carried out by a certain right wing/anti-socialist alignement/denomination/flavor
And you just happen to be all of those things
AND you agree with many of the views of the genocidalist regime
Then it is very clear that you would do all in your power to discredit academics and historians that point out this connection, perhaps even using the rhetoric of the regime you're trying to deny to do so, ironically. You would prefer to pretend your argument is objective and that the recipient is the problem, rather than once considering that they aren't convinced... because your argument isn't convincing.
You are, as we speak, taking out all stops to mentally contort your conception of these particular individuals, in order to distance yourself from the genocidal history of those that shared your ideology. As i've proven, socialists already openly pointed out their major disagreements with hitler and fascism long before they revealed the extent of their crimes, whereas denialism of the nazi's views in favor of an ahistorical assertion of their supposed "socialism" is entirely recent in conception.
Your statements apply easily to you, how can you not see that?
2
-
@phillip3495
Thank you for so openly admitting you have not read the historians, and literally saying that the only reason you think they're wrong is because a right wing youtuber told you they were.
You do actually have to read the work of those you consider to be incorrect. You do actually have to know more about them than assertions made by right wingers relating to their work. They didn't ignore any relevant facts, they pointed out objective information that you ideologically want to deny. It is a fact that the basis of nazi ideology is anti-socialism. You deny the historians that show this through painstaking research and peer review, only on the basis that you think they're wrong. The historians discussed here have not ignored the origin story of right wing fascism, or right wing nazi ideology, rather, you've openly ignored both of those things. You don't have to read very much history at all to understand that your argument has basic and fundamental logical errors that entirely void the contents of your assertions. You quite literally can't handle the reality that facts go against your beliefs, so you call said facts irrelevant rather than attempting to rebut them.
Restating a disproven argument doesn't make it any less false. The nazis were in no way, shape, or form, even similar to socialists in practical formation, economic structure, or result, much less "virtually identical." The essential components of fascism are right wing traditionalism and a rejection of the left and socialism in its entirety.
The fact that you didn't actually read any of the sources in question is absolutely essential. The fact that they supported and upheld not only private property, but the ideological and moral assumptions behind it, is essential. The fact that historians wrote books and did hundreds of hours of research exposing the history of fascists and nazis and their resistance to socialism that you carefully omit is essential. You attempt to discredit them without even understanding their statements, simply because they prove you wrong. They are extremely relevant to your discussion due to the fact that they point out concrete facts that you attempt to evade, or remain wholly ignorant of.
2
-
@phillip3495 Let me repeat in a line you can understand - the entire basis of your argument is as follows. "The nazis are socialists. This is what I believe to be true. If anyone says otherwise, they must be ignoring facts. If people like historians use facts to point out the anti-socialism of the nazis, they must be untrustworthy, because they ignore my belief that the nazis were socialists, and thus they aren't using facts at all."
Your entire argument is circular. You say the nazis were socialists, and when someone proves you wrong, you claim they aren't trustworthy because... they don't agree with your assertion on the nazis and socialism. There is no physical way to reach you through logical argumentation, because your argument isn't based in logic. The experts in question didn't ignore, evade, or conceal the history of the far right nazis and fascists - you did. You attempt to discredit them, while openly admitting you have no idea of the facts behind their statements, because they point out that you're wrong in asserting that the far right nazis were socialists. You do this all to escape the reality that you and hitler had far more in common than hitler did with socialists like MLK.
2
-
@phillip3495
You mean statements that i've already rebutted, and assertions you have already been disproven in?
Your "essential characteristics" are nonsense, and we've already been over this so many times, it's absurd. Of course, the world knows of the distinguishing characteristics that put fascism squarely on the right, but you knew that already, you simply deny it because to accurately represent the myriad of differences between far right fascism and leftist socialism would be to tear your own argument apart.
1. Great, fascism defense. First and foremost, the type of ethnonationalism both hitler and mussolini espoused belonged, and still belongs, to the right. Secondly, your assertion on mussolini is incorrect. While in his early campaign days he attempted to appeal to a broader audience by convincing people that he had no desire to implement policies based off of race, this was far from an accurate summation of his views. He was open about his anti-slavic racism, and made antisemetic statements such as asserting that jewish people owned the banks and ran the soviet country. He also said quite openly in 1921 "Fascism was born... out of a profound, perennial need of this our Aryan race," not to mention his race laws in the late 1930s. Racism is a key part of fascism, some fascists just hide it until they're in power.
Calling an argument "retarded" without further explanation is not an argument. You assert that it admits ignorance of the concept of capitalism, though do not explain how this is the case or argue for it. You assert that it throws doubt on one's understanding of political spectrums, though again, you do not attempt to argue that point or provide evidence/reasoning. Your entire argument is "this is wrong because it's stupid. Why is it stupid? because it is."
You have yet to actually refute a single one of my arguments. You have, in the past, listed out the reasons you thought nazism was socialist, and I responded to and rebutted those arguments. You have never responded. You have no argument thus far, and you've tried to make one up for me rather than rebut my actual statements.
And this is why you are wrong. You, again, assert that they are only dissimilar in ways that do not matter. You don't explain how this is, or even argue for it, you just state it and move on. I have responded to this previously, saying that in reality, if fascism and nazism are a green apple, you're trying to call it an "alternative apple flavor" when compared to a nuclear reactor, that in this case, represents socialism. In reality the differences between the ideologies are numerous, near uncountable. What happened is important... and proves you wrong.
Here is another axis of your failure to argue - you argue not based on actual history or definitions, but what you feel things should be classified as. In any case, your argument here is to list a number of ideologies, and claim that they all come from Marx. Not only is this absurdly false, it's a statement refuted by the very video you are commenting under, in any case, let's address them. First off, of your list, marxism, leninism, maoism, and trotskyism are the only ideologies that actually "finds its roots in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto." Communism, democratic socialism, and socialism were already existing movements and ideologies before marx, even, as he made clear in his writings. In fact, several factions of the above ideologies were explicitly criticized by marx, and criticized him in turn. State capitalism is a concept that didn't come from marx and didn't require him. And, as we've been over, fascism and nazism find no roots in marxism, as i've already rebutted your definition of marxism. It's also similarly absurd that you try to list all these concepts under the root term of "statism," not only because the majority of these systems are vastly different in goal and economic policy, but some of them (Marxism) are philosophies and methods of study, and some more (Socialism, Communism) are in many cases explicitly anti-state. So no, they are not all the same, as they do not share essential characteristics, fascism and socialism of course being among the furthest apart of this list. You are disregarding differences, and rather than studying the ideologies honestly, you are attempting to cherry pick superficial similarities in order to make a point. What you're doing is like this: You have three people. One wants to eat at home, two want to eat out. One of the two wants to eat out because he recently got a paycheck, and wants to flex his wealth, and wants to eat somewhere fancy. The other is too tired to cook, and wants to order food to home from a fast food restaurant. You're saying these two are both the same, because neither wants to cook a meal at home. Do you get the picture? In any case, no, not all of the listed ideologies are statist, as we've been over. Not all of them are anti-capitalist, state capitalism obviously included, and fascism/nazism only repudiating libertarian/international capitalism. Again, capitalism isn't just libertarianism. Economic regulation isn't anti-capitalist by default, and the purpose of economic regulation matters more than it's existence. There is no "ect."
And is this how you think "actual thought" works? Name dropping Aristotle and calling arguments you don't agree with "Retarded?" Your entire argument rests on the back of unproven assertions, most of which i've previously addressed, that you have yet to rebut. You just made up an argument rather than address mine, failed to even try to refute your own strawman, and then openly admitted that your arguments come from a place of personal interpretation rather than factual information. Your primitive concepts couldn't even hold themselves together in the context of your own argument, I can see why you're so scared to respond to my arguments. I'm sorry if reality hurts your feelings, but you need to accept it one day. Facts don't care about your feelings, and i'm glad you copied a class on logic, because you should really look into it.
Let me repeat, to be crystal clear - Your entie argument hinges on three things.
1. The application of false accusations of fallacy, unsubstantiated.
2. The repetition of several core assertions with no argumentation or logical reason, unsubstantiated
3. The circular logic of denying facts that don't agree with you because they don't agree with you
I have yet to see a single argument from you that breaks these rules.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joshualittle877
But you haven't, given that you're utterly unwilling to cite a single one of your absurd claims. The people living in germany at the time had no question that Hitler had no ideological ties to socialism, and they knew he represented the far right and the anti-socialists that had first come up with the rhetoric he, and sadly you, continued to use long after their deaths. Hitler wasn't a socialist, his party was one that represented the far right and existed with the explicit goal of opposition to socialism, liberalism, anarchism, communism, and left of center ideologies generally. "National Socialism" is merely a form of conservatism, as orwell said, and as historians and survivors of nazi germany have noted. Hitler literally chanted death to marx and claimed he was part of a jewish conspiracy. Calling the USSR a communist system makes no sense, not even they did that, they never claimed to have achieved communism. Marx didn't hate jewish people even close to as much hitler did, and comparing the two does a disservic to the pure genocidal rage hitler directed at those citizens. Stalin and Hitler differed on far more than you allege, and as usual, your point goes utterly unsupported. Hitler was not a socialist, "hitler's socialism" is an oxymoron, and there is no such thing as "socialism based on race," as that goes against the definition of socialism. Even if one were to try to create a coherent ideology from that phrase however, it would not represent the right wing private economy hitler praised. The very existence of private ownership means he wasn't a socialist, and said private ownership was far from an illusion, but a core part of his ideology. Stop lying.
2
-
@joshualittle877 Hitler and the nazis were very much not socialists. Blocks of text with historical lies doesn't change that
The nazi party was vehemently anti-socialist. You don't know what socialism is. Socialism isn't defined as the abolition of private property and centrally planned/managed economies, but hitler doesn't even fit that definition. They did not believe in those things. Hitler got into power because conservatives wanted him in power to oppose socialism.
The far right nazi party and its leader said nothing like what you asserted, he openly discussed his desire to protect private property and private property interests. He didn't want to "Nationalize people," nor is that at all a coherent economic policy nor an example of socialist thought
He allowed private business to exist because he thought it was proof of the supposed superiority of "his people" and his country, and he bribed, not forced, these private companies to support his right wing anti-socialist interests. They still owned their businesses, and they still profited, more even given that hitler's party had long since shut down any sort of opposition to their private rule in the form of unionism. Companies like those you mention most often worked with the nazis specifically because it profited them the most, not because they were forced at gunpoint to make private profit
Ownership was no illusion,it existed and was in many cases stronger than it had been under the Weimar republic, given the lack of oppositon by unionists or socialists that the nazis had made sure of. If you owned a business making boats, the nazi party would come to you and offer a contract to you and other boat makers for guaranteed profits so long as you made a certain amount of boats, a contract that would then be competed over by private individuals for the goal of profit. Other than that, they didn't tell you how do your business, what kind of boats to make and sell, how many you were to make, who you could sell them to and how you would sell them, and so on. They kept their profits and the vast majority of their autonomy. Not sure why you're trying to present the nazis as pro-gay or something, but the night of the long knives was explicitly an anti-socialist purge.
I'm sorry, they simply weren't socialist. As their ideology evolved they gave up even the pretense of being anything other than the far right anti-socialists they had been seen as for a while now. I'm sorry for the horrors your family went through but that doesn't erase the experiences of holocaust survivors and other victims of nazi germany, and the historians that studied them, all pointing out the anti-socialist nature of nazi germany.
The problem is, you are asserting that the nazis were socialists while literally repeating the very rhetoric and propaganda the nazis used against socialists. No, the education system is not overrun with socialists. And history itself shows us the difference between nazis and socialists, no conspiracy. No, nazi ideology is not socialism based on race. Not only is that oxymoronic, it doesn't reflect the reality of hitler's far right anti-socialist party. You don't know what socialism is and sadly you seem not to know the history of antisemtism either. Marx was antisemetic yes, but the others didn't come from jewish backgrounds, that's literally nazi propaganda. Lenin and Trotsky weren't antisemetic either, Lenin actually spoke out about and outlawed antisemetism. Stalin never tried to purge jewish people, and he too for all his faults relating to his individual bigots he never attempted to push policy with the goal of hurting jewish people or communities. Saying he hated jewish people as much as hitler is simply false. Nazi ideology is not at all socialism, even your imagined "socialism based on race."
The Baath party doesn't have much in common with the nazis at all, and the existence of far right religious extremists that supported other far right extremists (the nazis) is no surprise at all. There's no such thing as nazi with a marxist leaning. I'm saddened that you feel the need to spread such obviously false propaganda to serve the modern day far right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@althist2nd950
Because your assertion at the beginning was that I was unable to provide reasoning, examples, or evidence for my claims, instead just saying "You're wrong," when in reality i've been providing all of those things to anyone that will listen for ages now, and I am still willing to provide them to anyone that can actually engage me in the topic without just resorting to baseless assertions. I put in this thread the exact same amount of evidence as all the people I replied to, and if they were willing to provide evidence to the contrary, I would provide to prove my point. I commented here to engage in rhetoric, like the other people here. This "debate" was already a useless conversation, one between people who would affirm eachother's views without a single reason and hype eachother up into a frenzy of fanaticism. Again, if people want to elevate the conversation i'm all for it, hell, I do it all the time and have several ongoing conversations and debates at that level. But as of now I am only engaging with the energy and rigor I am presented with, so why is it that you're addressing me, and not everyone else? How is what you said at the beginning remotely true?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Aww, I get it, you're a child. I don't much care what HG Wells, had to say about anything, because he was a Eugenicist, which makes it quite ironic that you find yourself agreeing with him now. He also doesn't say anything about socialism, but ok. Big business is antithetical to communism, because it means not only bigger government, but a bigger and more powerful private market, something communists despise. Business gives wealth to the few, not the many. This should be basic politics, but people like you seem not to understand it. The nazis knew they were right wing, they said as much openly and proudly, and worked with the capitalists and conservatives of their time frequently. They are not leftists. Similarly, leftists don't much have to convince anyone that the anzis were right wing "desperately," as again, the nazis made as much known, and pretty darn clearly, which is the best part. I know you despise those that can so easily prove you wrong, but I hate to break it to you... you're wrong. The modern american right wing is absolutely a mental disorder, and thanks for proving it.
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Literally none of that is true, mate. For one, you used insults long before I did, which by your logic, means that I can utterly discount your point. I, however, am objectively correct. Nazism is a right wing ideology, as is fascism. This is an objective fact. Communism is a stateless ideology,how can it be oppressive? Collectivist societies are not socialist by any definition, nor are all collectivist societies leftist, nor were the nazis purely collectivist. I'm impressed, you've somehow managed to be wrong on all fronts! All you've done this whole time is prove that you are basing your assumptions on pure ignorance, and better yet, you yourself are expertly drawing the connection between the fascists and the modern american right wing.
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Oh, just talking to you is an insult to my sanity. At this point i've just taken on the assumption that you must be joking, after all, no one can genuinely be this misinformed. Do you think that asking to spread ideology was somehow a Soviet-exclusive thing? We were there all the while trying to spread our ideology. But no, sorry, they didn't literally give out orders to every communist party in the world. That's not only historically ridiculous, but like most of the things you say, easily proven wrong with a simple google search. Stalin executed communists primarily because they were the ones who knew that he wasn't achieving socialism or leading them towards communism. at all. You seem to be under the assumption that the soviet union being bad... is somehow a new thing? Amazing, the ignorance i'm seeing on display. The Nazis weren't collectivist, because the collective included people they don't like, other nations, disabled people, ect. The nazi party actually had a fair bit of leniency, especially when it came to the actions of private german industry or aryans. If you didn't want to be controlled, just be white. The soviet union had policies pretty much the exact opposite of this, especially in the NEP era. You might want to learn some history. The german far-right conservative nazis were not socialists, and not left wing. They openly despised the left, and said it would lead to the end of civilization... just like modern conservatives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@themerovingian7
"Question"
(proceeds to ask several more than a single question.)
Great. Ok, one at a time, short answers since there's so much.
I spend time here because frankly I'm bored and it gives me an excuse to further research the subject and form arguments while also changing some minds. The left right dichotomy is an accurate system of political classification but is further improved with more metrics. The core differences between right wing ideologies are their applications and justifications for hierarchies. The core differences between left ideologies are their applications and justifications for the opposition of hierarchy. Hitler is far right. Some people on the right are closer to hitler, some people on the right have more in common with the left. So closer, generally. No, i'm not a socialist, not by the strict definition. I ideally support a system of decentralized self ownership. I claim no system or state as my own, but there are movements and individuals I am proud to be influenced by. The USSR was a failed experiment that had potential, but horribly and violently squandered it. Collective is defined as all people, every individual. Public property is state owned, personal is property that a person uses, and does not profit from other's labor on. I own myself just as much as nature owns me. Property means different things to different people.
2
-
2
-
@Undead38055 Why would I provide something neither you or TIK are able to? TIK admits his own sources disagree with him. The few sources that don't aren't from historians, but idealogues. As you said, children respond with insults. Which is why every time i've engaged with TIK, he insults me, and refuses to respond to a single point. I hate to break it to you but both you and TIK fail to meet Hitchen's razor. That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without it. So... go on. Enlighten me on why he is right. I want the whole shebang. Sources, analyze, and reasoning. I want evidence on what points he attempted to make, and why you think they're correct. I don't need negative responses, or being called an idiot because I asked for proper support on your claim. You are asserting something that is frankly absurd. Its your job to prove your assertion - not mine to disprove something you give no evidence for. And i'm sure you'll deflect from this request and try to ask me to write a special little comment just for you on points from a video you've likely not even watched. So - prove he's right, or admit he's wrong. Simple as that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tariqnasneed3857 so. They didn't respect the desires of the community at all then. Like do you not realize that by definition, purging huge parts of the community is against representing the community as a whole? Do you not realize that they didn't only purge the unpopular?
And this is you projecting your misunderstanding of human nature onto others. Humans, for literally our entire existence, have only ever found out success in cooperation. It is that cooperation that even gave us a society to live in, languages and nations and religions and art and music and culture. Without shared interests humanity would never have done all of this. Humanity is not inherently hateful, though you might be
And again, this isn't true. Capitalists realize this, why can't you? Capitalists will actively campaign for things like lower taxes, less regulation, and greater government incentives for business in-country. Capitalists recognize that they share class interests, so they would prefer to help their competition, than hurt themselves and empower their workers/customers further. This is basic economics, how do you not understand this? Sure capitalists compete with eachother - so do their workers. Bone of this discounts the fact that they can, and do, engage in class cooperation. Historically, capitalists have been more than happy to fly under one property owning banner, fighting for rules and regulations that help both them and their opposition. Your statement that capitalists do not engage in class solidarity is utterly untrue. In any case, they wouldn't even need to do this for them to be socialist by your definition - they are still a community, and they still own the means of production. Also, there is no such thing as an, "ethnic german," but you should know that at no point undeletable hitler's rule was he the most popular, and your assertion that the "vast majority" were behind him is untrue. He didn't gain power through a majority, and he kept power by oppressing people. Most people under his rule, that is the people that weren't imprisoned, killed, or on constant fear of either of those things, were not in support of hitler but merely didn't dare to stand up against him, for fear of ending up like the others that did that. The majority of germans, those that weren't just killed, lived lives of silent fear. Please stop believing nazi propaganda.
And again - false. Even the modern royal family has power outside of simply being related to an aristocrat. Not to mention the many they employ to help run their affairs. There is no such thing as a socialism or aristocracy. Please become even slightly economically literate, it isn't that hard and instantly proves your nonsense wrong.
The problem with your definition of socialism is that everything would be socialism, according to you. Capitalism? Just socialism of the rich. Monarchism? Socialism of the monarch. Anarchism? Socialism of the individual. Can you even point out a single Jon socialist state, country, or group that ever existed? The nazis weren't socialists, by definition, and the only way to claim they were is to lie about the definition of socialism and to lie about the nazis themselves.
2
-
2
-
@morganwartman8507
And here you are, doing the exact thing you accuse me of. Child, do you realize that people have time off? That not everyone works every hour of the day, just most of them? I think you're a bit jealous that i've managed to find work, whereas all you can do is lay down in your parent's basement and repeat nazi rhetoric online for some sort of validation. Do you not know how youtube notifications work? Thank you for exposing you have no life, and furthermore, have no respect for the people who work to maintain your slovenly lifestyle, something not even you do. It's odd how you're so willing to do exactly what you accuse me of, all without a single thought of your hypocrisy going through your mind. Oh, and child, as we've been over - i'm not a socialist. Lazy rightists are all the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Pangora2 Again - did you read my response? At all? I would think things like American-made industries, based in america, founded in america, ect would have a choice of whether or not to support the nazis... and yet many did. They offered their services to the regime, of their own will. If they wanted out, they simply to never show up, they were perfectly safe across the ocean. Germany wasn't exporting steel or goods, they were being offered it, especially things like oil, for their backing, payment, and protection. Of course, again, you would realize this if you did even a smidgeon of individual research... but it appears you couldn't even manage that. Wake up, child.
2
-
@fattony638 I would agree with you generally, but would disagree on one quick point:
Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" wasn't meant to be, at least by Marx, what we consider a "dictatorship" today. A dictatorship simply means that a group, political party, or person hold supreme political power. Marx thought that to transition from lower-stage communism to higher-stage communism (he didn't differentiate between socialism and communism, that was done by lenin) that one group should hold supreme political power - the proletariat. Hence, "dictatorship of the proletariat." This doesn't always mean a strong state, in fact Marx said one of the best examples of a DotP in his lifetime was the Paris Commune. However, even under a strong state, it must be a system of the proletariat. If such a system exists with, as you said, people living their whole lives under a system rejecting public accountability, said system couldn't call itself socialist. That's why most socialists wouldn't call the USSR an example of socialism, because no matter the supposed goal, the system was never of the proletariat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dfmrcv862 Well at least you can admit your mistake there, lets see if you can do it elsewhere.
infight
What is far right about their policies? You're joking, right? Extreme nationalism, corportatism, ethnostates, social darwinism, traditonalism, and so on. There's a start.
The nazis were literally extreme nationalists, not just people with some "pride in their nation," stop strawmanning. Also - there is left and right wing nationalism. Left wing is protectionist and liberationist, and right wing is conservative and expansionist. The nazis fell firmly within the right.
...You really don't know much about fascism, huh. Fascism is not an economic ideology. Fascism contained many economic systems, from the austro-fascist Mises economy, to the italian corpoatist economy. However, each example take power away from the people as a whole, and further concentrates it, either in the hands of a corporate-state hybrid, or simply the rich donors of the dictator. Fascism is far right because it has exclusively far right social views, and has no set economic agenda. Why are you trying to shift the goalposts?
2
-
@sonderweg9927 No, I think its plainly obvious i'm grasping the nonsense you're throwing at me... but i've been refuting it this whole time. Because it is false.
"There is no meaningful or functional distinction to be made between fascism and socialism?" How many times has fascism advocated for the rights of women or minorities, how many times have fascists led social movements based around civil rights and equality, how many socialist systems have been extremely conservative, ethno-nationalist, traditionalist, ect. The problem is, you are focusing on one and only one "similarity" and then ignoring all the differences. That's like me saying there's no difference between an army general and a serial killer because they both kill people. And the worst part is, your "point" isn't even true. Fascism doesn't abolish private property, fascism protects the property of those strong enough to dominate for it, while attacking those they feel don't deserve it. Socialism doesn't abolish personal rights in the slightest, in fact most socialists advocate for expanding them. Socialism is not a system where everyone owns nothing, neither is fascism. Socialism is a system where everyone owns everything, fascism is a system where the strong own everything. You're a liar.
The problem you're making is that you're ignoring human nature and the definition of socialism, and amalgamating your made up preconceptions about socialist societies and your false perceptions of human nature into a massive strawman. Socialism, and by extension communism, was literally devised as a way to increase the freedom and autonomy of an individual, by moving their political power beyond government representatives, and directly into the government and workplaces. The community under socialism doesn't need to be a hivemind, in fact it wouldn't work with a hivemind, the point is that every individual owns the product of their own labor directly, not worrying about having to go through a middleman of a boss or CEO that takes the money they make and makes decisions about what they have to do. If one gives people the ability to actually control their production and workplace, as well as their government, there is no need for them to be an "organism," they could easily operate in self interest and be helping people at the same time. Your assertion that a few individuals will operate property in the name of the community is not only unfounded, it goes directly against the purpose of socialism. Fascism, on the other hand, literally has a goal of concentrating the production in the hands of a few people, not based on the desires of the community, but on the supposed superiority of those who rise to the top. These are as different as you can get.
And... no. Because the community is a collection of individuals, giving property to "the people" in any meaningful way wouldn't mean reinstating private property, because private property by necessity restricts the people as a whole from owning pretty much everything. If you give something to the people... you give it to the people. And yes, people are individuals. We've known how this works for a few hundred years now. Your assertion that the property could only ever be given to representatives is again, unfounded and would be fundamentally anti-socialist. And if you think that what the nazis did, by giving property to the rich and powerful who offered help, services, and loyalty to work against the people, is remotely similar then you might be insane.
The thing is, people can see what i'm talking about. That's why for nearly the last century, nobody has attempted to conflate fascism and socialism, because their ideological differences are plain to see. Hell, we can see this from your own argument, the only "similarity" you could find is that they're both basically not free market capitalism, and you should have discovered after reading this that they're both not capitalism in very different ways. Fascism isn't just contempted because it goes against individual freedom and "dignity," it is held under contempt because it is a genocidal ideology that if given the chance would concentrate power in the hands of the 'strong," while quite literally killing most of everyone else off. Socialism is "bad" to the same people because they believe the system is inefficient, or would never work. How is disliking a system because it promotes a planned and state-mandated world wide genocide and removal of workers rights the same as disliking a system because you don't think it would work? The comparison between the two isn't common, and it historically, hasn't been. The only reason people like you exist spouting this nonsense is because there's a new movement of radical right wing historical denialism that seeks to redefine basic political ideologies to take all blame away from the right. Oh, and your comments on the "actions" and "rhetoric" of socialists? ...They already don't behave or talk like that. No socialist promotes the idea of "a future where people own nothing and there so called "needs" are merely met, while they give everything." Literally not one. The only people who carry that definition of socialism are anti-socialists, which means it isn't the socialists who need to change their goals and rhetoric, its you who needs to stop pretending like you understand their goals or rhetoric. You're a liar, plain and simple, and fascism and socialism are nearly as different as can be. By denying that, you are going against history and apologizing for fascism. Any attempt to remove that distinction is a transparent attempt by far rightists to obscure your monstrous, immoral position, and continue to allow for a new rise of fascism.
2
-
@sonderweg9927
Ah, more insults, projection, and already addressed points! Wow, i'm so shocked. Not really though, you've admitted to this all before.
As I already told you, I was operating on your definitions of inhumane when I wrote the first response discussing this. Rather than address those points, you attacked a one-letter typo, and when I pointed out how the points were still based off of your given definition in the following two comments, you ignored that and decided to keep insulting me. You're now somehow pretending that I have never encountered the word inhumane which is... odd, given that I used it in the first paragraph, and operated off of your definition since you first used the term. But again, all you have is insults. We know this.
The problem here is, your base of knowledge... isn't factual. In the slightest. I have time and time again addressed how your responses are not based in fact, in history, or in the material reality of the system you espouse, and every time you get angrier and angrier at me because I refuse to take your rhetoric at face value. This is, after all, what you consider "knowledge" to be - agreeing with you. And when one like me comes along to disprove you, you simply can't handle that. Every single one of your points is based on nothing, and when I point that out, you simply try to insult me by saying I don't understand "facts" that you have done nothing to prove exist when questioned on.
beliefs
And yes. I think that people who work, who actually create and form things, should be those who own the wealth they create. You justify a system of theft in which the only job someone needs to hold to get rich is the job of "owning" something, which is of course a societal construct that adds nothing to the world, and helps in no concrete, material ways. Work might not be the best, but your system still needs it, in fact it needs more work put in than any other system. You would just prefer to offload the work onto others. Therefore, your assertion that wealth can be easily created through the absence of work is false, not only because it has no basis in reality, but because the only wealth that those who own things get is wealth they take from those who actually work. You want an economy or a system with less work? Great, then get rid of capitalism and all of the useless jobs it creates. You want to work less? Thank the socialists that want to give you and everyone else that opportunity.
You also continue to assert that a system in which the vast majority of people do not own their work and are forced to work under someone else, through which they have their own work stolen from them, is somehow "consensual." This is... utterly baffling. How is a system in which you work, or die, any better than any other system in which the same happens? In capitalism, if you don't work and you don't own, you starve. How is this different from being shot for not working in a prison, or a labor camp? The only real difference is that under capitalism, there is no one man to try for murder. The whole system is guilty. Of course, you are unable to provide any sort of reason that institutionalized coercion, theft, and murder are consensual... because they aren't. Are you seriously going to argue that murder is consensual? Knowing the depths of your depravity, I wouldn't doubt it. Your market takes goods from other parts in the world and overloads them on a select few countries, wasting tons of food and supplies every year. You seem to not understand basic economic theory, nor the basic working reality of the system you espouse. Again, i'm not surprised. It is you we're talking about after all.
Ah, and here it is! You finally addressing one of my points! Well, no, that's giving you a bit too much credit. This is you attempting to address one of my points, mentioning it by word and all... but then coming up with an excuse about how it's too hard for you to even try to formulate basic economic theory. No need, however, since I am already far more knowledgeable in this area than you. Money isn't real. The only reason it's accepted is because people are willing to accept it, it's the norm. The world, collectively, owes more money to eachother than money that exists. A dollar is a slip of paper that under any other system, or any other time, means nothing. Again - basic history, basic economics. But for a person who can't even explain the basics of money, humanity, theft, or consent, i'm not surprised you don't know that.
Buddy. Did you forget you chose to disengage hours ago now? One who was actually confident in their ideas would have done so ages ago, before that first attempt to run away, even. But you didn't. Why? Because your ego is tied to you "winning" here. Because you know that if you engage with me further, more of your unchallenged notions will become challenged, and you might start to learn a thing or two. And you can't have that, can you? Just admit it - you need my validation, my approval. You need this victory because without it, you are insecure in your ideas. That's also why you keep responding with nothing but insults, and ignoring every tie I effortlessly destroy your accusations. Because you and I both know that you can't actually address them... I'm right. In any case, I have shown you time and time again. I am not a marxist, clearly, and unlike you, I am not an authoritarian person. I don't believe in the fascistic principles of eternal competition and a system where someone can be powerful just because they own things. Unlike you, I believe in the emancipation of the individual. Unlike you, I care about people's rights, which is why I want to expand them. Unlike you, I care about human wellbeing, which is why I reject your system of murder and fraud. Unlike you, I don't believe in my system as a religion, that cannot be escaped. And unlike you, I understand that murder and theft aren't consensual. All you have done is proven yourself as nearly everything you accuse me of. An authoritarian liar who doesn't understand the history of their own movement, that being, right wing authoritarianism and fascism.
But go ahead kid. Call the anarchist a fascist, with zero proof. We know none exists. That's why you've never given any.
Bye bye.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 That isn't even true, for two reasons. One, it's a reference to Buffalo, NY, which is a place. Two, if they were based off the sauce, I could just say "right, and buffalo sauce is made from real buffalo." You've just made me make the same argument, with more steps. Of course, none of this matters, because everyone knows what I mean. It's a way of dunking on TIK, and the liars that support his historical revisionism. He doesn't spread the truth on anything really, and to claim he does is devaluing the word "truth."
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 You know thar just saying it doesn't make it true, right? What am I saying, of course you don't. I have to wonder if you've even watched the videos, because I have yet to see a person who has that actually agrees with him. Want to know why? Well, let me ask you this. Do you want to have a state, at all? How about companies, do you like any of those? Hey, do you like "organized society?" Well, according to TIK, all of those things makes you a leftist, a socialist, and a fascist apparently. No, I kid you not, he said that any form of advocacy for the state is socialism, corporations are socialist entities, and he painted the left as wanting (his words) an "organized society," which he framed as a bad thing. I would be happy to provide more quotes of his, and links, of him claiming these things. Oh, but it gets better. Not only that, but whenever anyone actually puts in the effort to directly address his claims, timestamps, quotes, and all, he calls them a marxist, a postmodernist, a fascist, a holocaust denier, a racist, an anti-semite, and so on. And then he links one of his own videos as citation as to why he is correct. Do you see the issue with that, perhaps? I should hope so. The issue is that he brushes off all coherent responses as marxist propaganda, all while defining his terms however he pleases. This is why I question if you've watched the video, or even scrolled through his comments. Because no one can, in good faith, claim that he addresses any of the counter arguments given to him. I would agree, revisionism isn't inherently bad, when it's based off of new information. But his argument isn't based off of that, it's based off of him going back in time to use long-dead definitions of words to push his own historical narrative. I couldn't care less about any narratives, i'm not a socialist, and don't care to defend socialism. But i'm also no fan of liars, and ideologue-historians, and TIK regularly puts himself into those two categories.
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 You say that, yet your actions don't really line up with it. If he moved you away from "socialism," I can only now assume that you must be some sort of extremist minarchist/ancap, which isn't a very reliable lens to view history through. I don't much care if you agree with his nonsense, that doesn't actually prove it to be true. His assessment comes from the historical base terms, in a language that isn't really spoken any more, before literally thousands of years of etymological development. Back then, the words "freedom" and "family" were interchangeable. To base the definitions of current words off of those, and worse yet, to insert your definitions into historical writings when that is decidedly not what the writers meant, is utterly ahistorical. The issue is, to define all of these things as states, you have to redefine what it even means to be a state. In a world where the local McDonalds and Boy Scouts are somehow their own states, the meaning of the word is utterly gone. The worst part is though, as i've said, very few of the people he cites actually thought of individuals and states anywhere near this way, which makes his application extremely suspect. So realistically the reasoning isn't there, the evidence isn't there, and the arguments aren't either. There's a reason he boasts about going back that far, it's because going back any less nets you with extremely different definitions. So i'll ask you this, even apart from those arguments - if a state is literally anything that isn't an individual, and statism is also socialist, who was the first socialist?
And if you've done that and not found much of anything, i'm afraid the issue here might be with you. In just the last few days i've seen a few people write down extensive criticisms, approaching from ery different angles, most of which his video does not address. And most of those I have not seen him actually address. I remember the last one he actually did address was filled with more accusations of marxism, propaganda, ect, and seemed more hostile than anything. Of course, he didn't address the rebuttal of that response, but I suppose that doesn't matter. And the issue is that he assumes that these points are addressed in his response, when they really aren't. Some people have even brought up problems with some things like his definitions, to which he linked the videos they had problems with. Does that not seem like at least a bit of a cop-out?
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 You said you moved away from "socialism," and given that TIK calls corporations and the state socialist, and you agreed, I assumed you moved away from those as well.
You clearly have no understanding of what a state is, but you apparently also agree with TIK while somehow moing away from socialism... right into what he would still call socialism. Don't forget, according to him you're still a socialist, that much hasn't changed.
TIK, objectively, does redefine it. And you continue to be complicit in that redefinition. Let's look at the Oxford definition for a corporation. "A large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law." Ok, so what's a company? "A commercial business." So what's a business? "a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade." That is, by definition, private. Your definition doesn't even include most actual states. A corporation is not public, it is private. It has no government, it has rulers, but they are not a government, they are private heads of the company. If anything "made up of small parts that collectively own and control it" is a state, then sorry buddy, as the individual is made of cells they are in fact a state. They are not a state, not even by your definition though. You see, the problem is that you use these exceedingly vague definitions that nobody actually uses, and tie them to words that actually have meaning. For example, a state is "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." There is no "political community" under corporations, nor are they organized by anyone other than the individual owners, nor would they qualify as a nation or a territory. And as I keep telling you, even if TIK uses this definition, other people don't. Him trying to say all socialism is state control because according to him democratic ownership of industry is one type of state control is a leap in logic he never actually substantiates. He's up against the common understanding of these words, and he does not bring adequate argumentation to justify his absurd assertions.
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 Except that's nonsense. A company has no territory, nor any nation. As I said, there is no "political community," nor is there a government, under a company. A company is not a public entity, it is a private entity. A private entity is "...any entity that is not a unit of government, including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, companies, nonprofit organizations or other legal entities or a natural persons." His argument is long debunked, but even worse, it doesn't even make the leap that he does. You see, if we call all those things state control, then clearly some kinds of "state" are very different from others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 That makes no sense. For one, because it's just wrong. Despite what TIK would have you believe, private doesn't just mean individual, it just means non-government owned. As in, not owned by the government you are operating under. On top of that,i'm sorry,"families?" What even is a family in this context? You've just opened up a whole new areas of rules.
That's not a contradiction, that's called nuance. Yes, they are not made up of multiple political communities, because there is no system of governing under a company. There is no diversity of politics under a company, there is the owner, and there is you. There is a difference between ruling and governing. I can rule my own property, as in have total control over what happens with it, even as a singular individual. I cannot govern it, though. They don't "govern" their own "state," they have neither of those things. And taking up physical space does not mean one has territory. All of those spread out office buildings? They are not connected by land, or borders, they are small independent private ventures. That does not constitute territory, or a nation.
Saying "but i'm right and we both know it" when it seems more and more like you know you're wring here isn't a good look.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 The dictionary. It's a great place, you know, for seeing the definitions of words. You should try to consult that when looking at definitions, not dead languages. Let me help you. Private means "belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only." The closest definition to the one I espouse that is currently used is "pertaining to or affecting a particular person or a small group of persons; individual; personal:" And that is obviously flawed, one because it isn't relating to the economic idea of private property, but two because corporations, that have a relatively small amount of "owners," would still be private.
Maybe, just maybe, you should look at modern dictionaries for the modern definitions of words.
Thanks, it actually is quite nuanced.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sslave7815
But they aren't, these are literally definitions put forward by adam smith.
And yeah, that isn't true. There is a fundamental difference between a small market stand and a major, multi-national company. Not just a scale one, but in the very way said enterprises operate, and how profit and property is managed. This is, quite literally, a result of the definition and application of private property changing so much over time.
The concept did very much change, and it was not even widely implemented in early forms, that wouldn't come until very recently. That isn't marxist, again. Furthermore, the distinction isn't just socialist, and it's absurd to say that the type of ownership a factory worker has over profit and the type of ownership an individual has over a toothbrush is the same.
And yeah, no problem, I can understand that, but "hundreds" was the intended message, yeah.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ParentOne1 That doesn't have much to do with war profiteering, nor does it disprove the very real records we have of hitler being fine with war profiteering when it's on his side. Restrictions on trade or punishments are not anti-war profiteering.
When you quite literally invite over foreign industrialists to help with your wartime infrastructure and power, they are participating in war profiteering. And hitler awarded those people. And yes, I am aware that socialism is not discounted by corruption,and that sometimes it is a necessity for countries to trade with others. But it isn't these things that make hitler not a socialist, it's literally everything else combined as well. A national socialist economy is not a socialist one, nor did it aim to be. It aimed to use the power of the upper classes to create an effective war machine.
And this is one of my problems with the video. Somehow, somewhere along the way, TIK has tried to convince people that the only ones saying hitler was not a socialist are thinking he must have been a capitalist. And that is not the case. I'll leave my own opinions towards the systems themselves out of it, but TIK's odd definition that companies are somehow public is utter nonsense, and the idea that nazi germany was socialist is equally so. Even the founders of capitalism saw a necessity of the state and companies, not just for stability, but for capitalism. With that faulty analysis, compared with his feelings towards the supposed socialism of the nazis, the video quickly disproves itself. To paraphrase Orwell, "Evidently, these systems are not socialist, and can only be called Socialist if one gives the word a meaning different from what it would have in any other context. "
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@admontblanc The reason that argument isn't explored is because it isn't true. It isn't considered right wing because it was the most right of far left parties, that isn't even close to true. There was a huge conservative presence in Weimar germany, especially in the military, and one of the biggest parties was the Social Democratic party, which was a centrist capitalist party. This has nothing to do with the overton window either, because it's inherently obvious that the nazis were not socialists, or leftists at all. Why is that? Well one only needs to look at a few things. They associated with conservatives and capitalists over socialists, their ideology was created by open conservatives, Mussolini called fascism right wing while working with classical liberals and Hitler said that the left would lead to the end of civilization while the right would save it, the list goes on. All of these people were right of objective center, and substantially so. Hell, Hitler was put into power by an open conservative. Your entire argument revolves around misunderstanding the political attitudes of weimar germany, and then strawmanning socialists. Fascism is further right than capitalism, perhaps only surpassed by monarchism. Fascism was based off of traditionalism, conservatism, social darwinism, all right wing ideas. Stalin didn't say that fascism was a twin ideology of democratic socialism at all. For one, you're not thinking of stalin, you're thinking of the KPD. Second, they were talking about social democrats, which are not democratic socialists, they wanted states like what we think of sweden today, so capitalist. And finally, they didn't call them a twin ideology, but said that capitalism would eventually turn into fascism because it could not properly resist the rise of fascism. If you want to look at things objectively, you should learn a bit more on the subjects. The nazis walked like horses, screamed like goats, and only called themselves ducks. If you look at history objectively in the slightest, you've find that it's clear cut, fascism is and always has been a far right ideology. Why you would deny this, I don't know.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@UltraKardas Calling me delusional for correcting you is certainly a way to admit defeat. I used more facts than you, champ.
You believe in private property, and praised people like Ford, just like the nazis did. You hate the socialists, though probably not as much as they did.
You say you don't support racism, and yet you openly flaunt your support of nations and systems which have led to millions of deaths, racism, and eugenics in the past and modern day. You also call anarchists nazis. The nazis were deeply conservative, far right anti-socialists. If you count yourself among those labels, then you are as close as you can get to a nazi without admitting it, and a world away from a socialist.
If this was the 1930's, I would be in a camp or dead in a ditch, and you would proudly be towing the nazi line.
2
-
2
-
@UltraKardas
Given that i've disproven your historically, economically, and ideologically incorrect definition of socialism... that isn't true. I hate to break it to you, but not even nazi germany and fascist italy had similar systems, and both were vastly different from the USSR. You really are just completely inept, aren't you? The nazis were fascists, aka far right anti-socialists.
And yes. Because a big state isn't a communal state, in fact, the bigger the state, generally the less communal it is. The community wasn't represented in nazi germany, the community was repressed and thrown in camps.
Mussolini appointed capitalists and conservatives to power in managing his economy, much like Hitler did, because he thought the most efficient economic system was one that merged the power of corporations with the power of the state... corporatism, otherwise known as a third-way right wing ideology. Also, the NEP was literally described as state capitalist by lenin, and involved the mass privatization of land, start of the USSR's international stock market, and a tax reduction. The NEP was the furthest thing from a command economy out there, it was stalin who would do that, by abolishing the NEP.
Fascism is an fundamentally anti-socialist and anti-leftist system, socialism is a system that by definition needs the oversight of the people, and communism is by definition stateless, so again, wrong on all counts. You can try to pretend that fascism, your ideological grandfather, and socialism are somehow the same, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Nazi germany was far more effective at anti-socialism than you could ever be, because their anti-socialism was a fundamental part of their ideology, and they actually put it into practice. As we've been over, they despised "full control" of the economy, despised leftism, despised equality, despised socialism, ect.
Even you cannot keep this lie up, which is why you are willing to admit you are wrong.
You claim the only anti-socialist system is capitalist. Well that isn't true, but even by that metric then, the fascists and nazis weren't socialists, as their biggest ideological allies were international capitalists and industrialists.
If you had a brain that allowed you to be honest in even the slightest amount, you would realize that hitler made abundantly clear his hatred of socialism and leftism, both in rhetoric and policy, and that his intention was never to destroy private property, even his own allies said he "never got rid of the problems of capitalism in germany," and hitler was anything but honest, you nazi-supporting freak.
Socialism, by its very nature, is a system devoid of private property. A system like the nazis, in which the private market and the sate work together, often to eachothers benefit, to crush the people and the left, is as far from socialism as you can get.
You lost the argument, and have been losing it this whole time. Every one of your "Arguments" i've addressed and disproven, while you have yet to even acknowledge mine :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielbowman7226
Oh, i'm not the one saying that his video isn't based in history. He is. He readily admits, again, that every single historian he cites disagrees with his definitions, methodology, and conclusion. You would know this if you watched the video, of course.
How did hitler get to power? Well, thanks to meddling in the democratic process by conservatives, who would go on to be his first second-in-commands and fill up his first cabinet. "socialist policies" didn't get hitler into power... because he didn't have any. Conservatives willingly worked with the nazis, not because they were forced to (the nazis would never have gained any political power without the conservatives) but because you rightists tend to stick together.
And another lie. Again, let me remind you. Mises was the head of a fascist economy. He praised fascism for being a weapon against socialism. He's ideologically closer to fascists than any communist could ever be said to have been.
Fascism is based on a rejection of socialism. It is also based on constant competition, and a strong desire for social darwinism. Just like Mises' ideology.
condiment
You repeated the view. Not stated it was their view... you agreed with it, and presented it as such. Your insults don't change that.
Spencer has quite literally advocated for a social darwinistic system tens of times at this point. You know, the very thing capitalism upholds and socialism seeks to do away with. Spencer is less of a socialist than you, kid, and that's an objective fact. So, why are you lying about neo-nazis, even while your ideological ilk allies with them? Why are you lying about socialism, an ideology you clearly do not understand?
And above all, why is it so hard for you to stop denying the basic, indisputable, and century old fact that fascism and nazism are far right anti-socialists ideologies who constantly ally with the right?
2
-
@danielbowman7226
I'm sure they did pal. After all, that is a totally real thing that a group totally really did... which is why none of the people who say it can ever actually cite why they think that, right?
And again - citation please? There are hundreds of examples of far right fascists working with conservatives to oppose socialism, but I have yet to see a case where conservatives and communists have been able to form any sort of agreement or ideological allegiance. So, you have anything to back up that statement? Guessing not.
Fascism is, objectively, based on a rejection of socialism, all socialism, not just marxist. That's why the fathers of fascist ideology were conservative traditionalists, and the first to follow them were ex-socialists who were fed up with leftism and all it stood for. Fascism is based on the wholesale rejection of all socialist ideals. And yes, i'm sure the fascists did everything they did for the "benefit of the people..." wait, no, they threw the people in death camps.
Oh no, capitalism is theft, murder, and force at its base. Without any of those things, capitalism would not and could not exist. It is the social darwinistic ideas of constant competition, and the strong dominating the weak, that even allow for capitalist systems to exist in the first place.
And again - you were the one who openly stated their position, not as their position, but as your own. If you earnestly didn't mean to do that, just apologize for the poor conveyance of ideas and move on, not too hard.
...That isn't an exception, though? You realize the nazis had signed pacts with half of the developed world at that point, correct? They actually only kept the pacts with the right wingers though, and abandoned the ones with any sort of left leaning or even liberal groups.
Aaaand here it is. See, the problem is, your opinion here is not founded on logic. Of the two groups, fascists and statist leftists, one is objectively more dangerous, and if both were given access to the same time and resources, would case far more damage and deaths. That group would be the fascists. And since the fascists are clearly the most dangerous and despicable ones here... it isn't logic that drives your decision to ally with the fascists, its ideological compatibility. There is no logic behind your decision, and so it has to be your own viewpoint.
2
-
@danielbowman7226 That... is literally a nazi-defending lie. Literally. The communists never had death camps meant solely for the mass execution of racial or class groups, literally never. They had camps where there was hard labor and harsh punishment, yes, but those didn't have nearly the same fatality rate of nazi death camps. The soviets eventually opened up the gulags and let out millions, the nazis didn't leave anyone alive if they could manage
And violence is literally the backbone of capitalism. That's why a "right" to private property needs to be established, because private property can only exist through force. And how does one use "violence to achieve equality?"
training
"Btw under socialism you have to work. And you can't choose where... literal slavery." Citation? Proof? Evidence? Anything? The system you're describing is capitalism, where people are forced to work for any place they can to even put food on the table, if they don't work enough they'll have there only opportunities taken away. Difference is, you aren't provided anything. No food, no medical care, nothing. You're a slave to a system that couldn't care less about you. "Ask a socialist why they hate capitalism, they'll give you a hundred reasons. Ask a capitalist why they hate socialism, and they'll describe capitalism."
I agree, yeah they still exist. And here you are, defending nazism, in the year 2021. People are dumb.
laughable
2
-
@danielbowman7226 "Pol Pot was a communist." Citation? Seems the man was sponsored by the literal CIA to kill communist groups, but I guess to a lib anyone is a communist who you don't like. What does being a communist even mean, to you? is it just anyone you don't like? The nazis killed purposefully, and systematically. The majority of deaths under the soviets were due to poor policy.
And now you're trying to insult me. Ok, so prove me wrong. In nazi death camps, you went to die. You were gassed, shot, buried, left in the woods, you were killed. Soviet Gulags were horrendous places to be, and many tens of thousands died, but no historian will tell you that the soviets had death camps. Because they didn't. If you want to try to find evidence otherwise, be my guest. The mortality rate of soviet gulags was between 5% and 25%, depending on the outside conditions. (famine, weather, ect) The mortality rate of nazi extermination camps was between 75% to 95%. You trying to equate the two is blatant holocaust apologia.
"Under socialism you had to work" Oh i'm sure, and under the fairy princess everyone could fly. The problem is, you don't know the definition of socialism, so you end up describing capitalism.
"Private property doesn't require violence." Ok, so your workers want to have control of their workplace. They do work the tools, after all. In order to stop them, you need to fight Them. In any case of property "defense," it is always the owner that has to instigate violence to "keep" their land. Private property only exists through violence.
And here you are, justifying your same genocidal system all over again. What's new, I guess.
And more ad hominem arguments. Yes buddy, i'm sure socialists just hate personal responsibility, that's why they advocate for... more of it in the workplace, along with more personal control over your production? That's why socialists have historically been the head of labor and civil rights movements, right? Because they "hate" responsibility.
And i'll remind you, again. "Ask a socialist what they hate about capitalism, they'll give you a hundred reasons. Ask a capitalist what they hate about socialism, they'll describe capitalism."
Try to actually address my points next time, dear.
2
-
2
-
@danielbowman7226 Wow. This is like... one of the stupidest things i've ever read, genuinely. And of course it is presented without citation or examples - because its all lies.
So let's take a look, in depth, at your lies, hm? Starting with supposed "similarities."
"A) Dismantle the Capitalism - old system"
The monarchists want to get rid of capitalism too, as do the anarchists, as do the posties, as do the primitivists, and so on. I hate to break it to you, but anti-capitalism isn't an uncommon idea. This proves nothing except that both were against the same thing... which really proves nothing at all, given their different reason for doing so.
"B) create equal society by getting rid of classes or races"
Here's a quote from one of the heads of the nazi party. "Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!"
Does that sound like a group that wants to "create an equal society?" No, it sounds like what the nazis actually thought - that equality was a dangerous myth, and that the strong should always rule the weak. In fact, that was the literal core of nazi ideology, not sure how you missed that or feel at all confident in lying about it. The nazis said that every race was unequal, so the "strong" races must either push out, dominate, or eliminate the "weak" races. The nazis said that every nation was unequal, so the "strong" nations must either push out, dominate, or eliminate the "weak" nations. The nazis said that every person was unequal, so the "strong" people must either push out, dominate, or eliminate the "weak" people. These are pretty damn well known facts.
"C) maximize the power of the state"
Communists want to abolish the state, nazis want to privatize it. This just isn't true.
"D) subjugate the individual the the needs of elusive Collective"
...like capitalism does. like nationalism does. like religion does. I hate to break it to you, but it isn't true, and isn't uncommon. See point one.
The nazis hated equality. They thought that each race was unequal, and each person in that race was equally unequal. In fact, they wanted a society that celebrated this "Fact," one in which the strong are given the opportunity to rule over, subjugate, and purge the weak. The nazis were right wing. They hated equality.
I don't think you know the first thing about nazi ideology.
"property rights" has nothing to do with left vs right, champ, given it was the relative left that first advocated for rights at all to begin with. It's pretty sad how you have to warp history and definitions to even attempt to make your ideological garbage sound coherent.
"worship of the state" doesn't make something left wing. The monarchists, the first dictators of history, were the first labelled right wing ideology. The anarchists, conversely, were one of the first left wing ideologies. Your definitions don't work, and the fascists, according to all available knowledge, were solidly and without question far right.
The most radical elements of the U.S. Right wave around confederate flags and swastikas while calling for another race war, and committing the vast majority of domestic terror. That is the U.S. right, and the number of radicals who either join or sympathize with those modern fascists is growing. The minarchists, the "an"caps? They're the vast minority, and even they will readily agree that they will side with the fascists against the left if need be. Its funny, you say these groups have minimum contact points... and yet history shows that they are brothers in ideology, divided by only one thing - fluid or rigid hierarchy. Hell, in this very post you state a line that the nazis would agree with, and thankfully is not reflected in reality. The right has always wanted hierarchy, be it changing with a competitive economy, or rigid, with eugenics, fascists, and corportatism. Fascism is and always has been a far right ideology, and your willingness to so clearly lie about the nazis when they plainly and openly said the exact opposite of what you assert is... frankly sad.
2
-
2
-
@danielbowman7226
If i've not debunked anything, and only called you names, then why are you not able to actually respond to my points directly? Twice i've responded to you, and two times you've ignored it. And we all know why - its because you don't like your propaganda getting called out.
"Collectivist" is a meaningless buzzword that encompasses all modern ideologies. However, you knew this, just like how you know the next lie you tell is false. "They both seek equality." No. They don't. We've been over this two times prior, but the nazis despised equality, and worshiped hierarchy in all areas of humanity. The the nazis hated equality more than you, they thought it was unnatural and restrictive, and their entire system was built off of the protection of hierarchy. I have showed you this, with evidence, three times now. And you've never been able to respond.
Different principles, different goals, different methods. The nazis even admit they aren't socialists, modern neo-nazis march proudly with the right, but you don't like these facts being pointed out, do you? Capitalism isn't meritocratic or individualistic, but you knew that already. That's why capitalists always work with fascists in the end.
You assert that it requires a hivemind to work somehow which is, again, absurd. The vast majority of socialist thinkers, from Proudhon to Marx were individualists and anti-statists, and yet you, centuries later, feel you have a license to revise what they actually believed.
I've proved you wrong, on all of your claims, and you have not been able to respond a single time. How is working in one's own self interest hivemind altruism? Or do you not understand what you're even talking about?
And that's a line even capitalists agree on. Which of course, proves my point - capitalists are far closer to fascists than either are to socialists. Both capitalists and fascists hate the idea of equality, of humans not living their life to work, and of leftism as a whole.
So, are you going to respond to facts already?
2
-
2
-
@danielbowman7226
aaaand more lies. Sad. You say i debunked nothing, but there are a number of responses right above you in this thread that go unresponded to, responses that tell a different story.
You remember that quote I gave you earlier? The one saying, from a top nazi official, that the nazis must reject the idea of any sort of equality, equality of individuals, equality of political control, equality of races and equality of nations? Well, you'll notice they didn't say "except for germans" at the end. In fact, the speech was a call for germans to reject equality. So no, the nazis were against equality, not just between germans and everyone else, but germans as individuals should not be equal to eachother.
You say "same with communists," and then point out how they're different. Of course, you didn't at all portray the nazis how they actually existed, but even so you clearly point out a fundamental difference in ideology and methods. Strange.
So, no. The nazis despised equality in all forms. All the time.
What's so hard to understand about your point? Well, nothing, its quite simple. Problem is, its a lie.
Ah, and more holocaust denial. The nazis threw hundreds of thousands of "ethnic germans" into camps, for holding the wrong opinions, for being too old, too weak, for being disabled or gay. The only ones that thrived in a nazi society were strong, able-bodied white straight men. Does that at all sound like "comrades on race?" I didn't think so.
And of course, you then try to assert that nazi society, a society based on inequality and hierarchy, that openly encouraged competition, backstabbing, and constant ideological dominance... was like a hivemind. Because you wanted to prove me wrong, in me saying you couldn't get any more wrong.
And here, again, you poitn out how even you can't strawman the ideologies enough to be the same. But I doubt you'll admit that. After all, people like you are a lot closer to fascists than any socialist could ever claim to be.
There you go, repeating nazi propaganda again. Nothing new, but its still always sad to see, someone who claims to oppose fascism like yourself, but in reality only opposes their enemies, and labels them fascists instead. I do, however, want to point out how funny it is that you're calling social democracy, a capitalist ideology, "the same" as fascism.
And here we go again. "They were even called the socialist workers party." Yes? And? So? Why should I trust them on that? They party exited before hitler joined and hitler's ideology existed, the party had distinct factions, was purged and restructured several times, nearly had interparty civil wars. Does that sound like a party that cared about strictly sticking to its name? Does it sound like a party that kept the same ideology since its inception? Hitler openly said that he didn't listen to any definition of socialism that exists before or during his time, and that his definition was a word that promoted hierarchy and rejected equality, that protected private property and competition, and that thought the left would lead to the end of civilization.
Thankfully, you can at least admit the nazis have blood on their hands. Sadly, you can't admit what the nazis actually were, and why that blood was there. And sadder still, you continue to deny the highest death toll of any ideology of all... the one you support.
You defending fascists ideas and minimizing the crimes of fascist nations, all while trying to devalue the word "nazi" by applying it to the historical enemies and victims of the nazi regime is not only sad, its disgusting. Please educate yourself. Hell, you're following in their footsteps right now, by calling me (a random person who simply knows more history than you) a socialist, despite the fact that i'm not one. The nazis did the same... only difference is, they ended those conversations by putting the socialists in camps.
Wake up. Provide evidence. Walk away from defending the ideas that led to fascism. You've not cited a single argument yet. I'm not surprised.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tsaoh5572 It depends what you mean by "roots in."
Do you mean that it took some inspiration from it? That they took certain aspects or rhetoric from it? Sure, obviously they took a lot of the type of rhetoric they used from the socialists, and indeed some economic policy, though it was often warped beyond recognition. But they also took the same amounts of inspiration from capitalism, from corporatism, and even monarchism. To say they had their roots in socialism exclusively, or even primarily, ignores that. Their real roots really came from the rise of the revolutionary right in the forms of traditionalism and social darwinism, both of which were conerstones of their ideology. While they did end up converting quite a few socialists of the time, things like this are well explained in Burnham's Manegerial Revolution. In short, a lot of both capitalistic and socialistic organizations were already leaning towards fascism, and the start of an organized fascist movement is what pushed many of these people over the edge. A sort of horseshoe theory.
So in short, I agree that they certainly took some inspiration and ideas from the socialists, but to say that they came from socialism, when in fact it was a counter-socialist movement that birthed them, just doesn't make much sense.
But over all, thank you for being civ
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yeabuddy1610 I'm sorry, but this is what we call a "lie" and "factually incorrect." I would be happy to link to you cases of TIK saying that socialism must inherently be anti-semetic, but your excuses for him are just sad. Socialism literally only cares about two groups, the proletariat and bourgeoisie. To divide further based on personal bigotry has nothing to do with socialism. He also, of course, says that Marxism is inherently anti-semetic and racist, and seems to be a bit trigger happy in calling all of his critics Marxist. Of course, the conspiracy that somehow academia is marxist is a funny one, given that yu just completely said "Keynesian Marxist" and expected me to be able to trust your judgement any further. Of course many historians, writers, scientists, mathematicians ect are not perfectly trained in Economics, but I hate to break it to you, they probably still know more on the subject than TIK. Of course he spends a good deal of time talking only on the modern extremists that tend to agree with him, like Hayek, rather than the most influential and comprehensive sources that tend to do the opposite. He's all too willing to take a few of their observations and divorce them from the conclusions those observations must reach in proper contexts. And Again, i'd be happy to prove you wrong and tear down your idol on the marxist bit, so you can stop lying. Collective control, as we've been over, is not state control. Of course, you most likely agree with TIK that a local McDonalds is a state, so why exactly should I trust you over basic economic definitions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yeabuddy1610 Jesus you're a contradictory person. Ok, first off, do you really think that literally no socialist had ever touched on class relation before? They advocated for collective ownership of the means of production, yet never once addressed the difference between the power of a collective, and the power of the private owner? No, it was still a popular socialist position at the time to go into class politics, Marx just cemented it in a new way, and used materialist dialectics to explain them. Of course you and TIK will repeat the same mantra over and over, "socialism predates marxism," ect, but you never actually speak on the ideology of pre-marx socialists. This is the problem I keep noticing, you proclaim that TIK refutes points, but you never once consider that those refutations may have been addressed and rebutted, or might just be plain false or misleading. And again, I have to plead that you actually educate yourself on these matters. For one, for the love of God, "Marxism" is not an economic system, it is a method of historical analysis. Marxist economics don't describe any one system, and don't necessitate state control, hence communism being stateless. A capitalist economic system and a socialist economic system are not closer to eachother just because some Libertarians don't like them both.
1
-
@yeabuddy1610 Yeah, that's kind of the point. That you guys are programmed to say "Marx didn't found socialism, socialism is not Marxism, there can be non-Marxist socialists" which is true, Cornel West is a good modern day example, but you actually need to know a bit about the history of socialism to make those examples. Owen was a Utopian Socialist, so he didn't care at all about the process, so much as he planned an end society. That's kind of the point, most non-Utopian socialists did deal in class, and the Utopian socialists only didn't because they didn't care about analysis generally, even though it was often still a factor of their ideology.
And jesus christ, have you even ever read marx? Is all of your understanding of his work gotten from TIK? Let me clue you in on something - again, marxism is not an economic system, it's a method of historical analysis. Movements by marxists have not always led to state control, but that says nothing about marxism as an ideology. Not only are you wrong on the communist manifesto (the shortest and least important of Marx's works) but it appears you don't even know how Marx defined socialism. You know Marx said that socialist systems would be highly decentralized if not downright stateless, right? Or, again, did you learn everything you know about Marx from TPUSA and TIK? You're telling me to "read Marx" but the only point of evidence you produced is a mis-reading from an old edition of his shortest and least illuminating work. Come on, read Critique of the Gotha Program, or The German Ideology, or something longer than a pamphlet. And we've been over this champ, Austrian capitalism is far from the only type. Keynes was a full on capitalist.
1
-
@yeabuddy1610 Not really, as usual, but good job declaring that anyway?
And good for you, capital is probably one of his longer works, but not the ones in which he really gives much up about his own plans for the future, and how that would happen.And it's primarily about history, though economic factors of course play somewhat of a role in analysis, as they should.
And... really? Come on, seriously? Is this what TIK lets you get away with believing? I'm going to drop a video here that explains this better than I could, but two basic corrections:
1. This is from an old version of the Manifesto, after the events of the Paris Commune he created a footnote, in which he described that these measures were no longer necessary.
2. What he is describing here is not socialism, nor communism. It was his idea of a transition period between capitalism and socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4&vl=en
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yeabuddy1610 Well yes it is, sure, but that's more important to understanding how marx would come to his later conclusions, not necessarily what said conclusions and even criticisms would be. But I don't mean to dissuade at all from reading the volumes.
1. Considering that, again, he not only would later go back on those words but in fact would not even use them to describe socialism in the first place, I think that's important to not. However, he did actually specify that there would be a collective control, that's what the DoP means.
2. Well, that's the thing. That's part of M*L* ideology, Marxism-Leninism, not just Marxism. Marx saw socialism as a sort of lower-phase communism, which was where Lenin got the idea, in which there was no state, but there would still be money, and the remnants of class. This would, indeed, be ruled over by the absolute power of the collective ruling class, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. However, Marx thought this should be done in a decentralized manner, and Lenin thought that to even get to socialism, one must first put in place a statist transition from capitalism to socialism, that being his NEP policy. In short, while MArx did describe the DoP, he didn't actually think that was a part of socialism or communism, he thought it would predate both of them.
And thank you, the video is pretty good at explaining how a lot of the misconceptions relating to Marx's more statist ideas came into the public consciousness, and it is far from a full overview, but it does a decent enough job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica ah, and there you go again. Quoting propaganda speeches and acting like that's all hitler said and wanted, like he put his words to practice, and like he defined socialism as the same thing you do.
Of course, you leave out his quotes on him saying he believes private property is the most efficient method of production, that he aligns with the right, that the left and equality will cause an end of civilization, that he had no plan to implement many of the policies he sold to the public, how he defined socialism (every time he said it) as nationalism, ect. Because you admitting these things, and showing everything hitler said, his actual actions, his inspirations, ect, would prove you wrong instantly. That's why liars like you have to cherry pick from elections leeches and propaganda pamphlet. The whole story proves you wrong.
Hitler had no favorable or positive views on socialism. He was a far right fascist, an anti socialist who did his best to refine the word to appeal to more people.
1
-
MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica it's ok dude you can drop the act. Nobody would be this defensive if I wasn't on point. So why did you change accounts? Is it because you got disproven so many times and you want to pretend that isn't the case? You used the exact same quotes and copy pasted insults, and the exact same framing. Its you bud.
In any case, as I've said previously, and you have yet to address - those quotes you mentioned are from, as you pointed out, propaganda speeches. These do not include his definitions, his words in private, or his actual actions. And you, a proven liar, know this. So why do you not include this context? Is it because you would rather not admit to hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti socialism? Is it because you agree with hitler, or want to defend him? What is it, liar?
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong.
So let's add some context, shall we?
Quotes from Hitler -
Quotes regarding the nazis -
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
"1. '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, even 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.
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica aaaand more copy pasted insults and responses that do nothing to disprove the authenticity of hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti-socialism.
How many times do I have to repeat that in context, the quotes you gave do nothing even close to showing some form of pro-socialism, but are propaganda speeches in which hitler readily agrees that his usage of the word "socialism" is a stand in for nationalism, and has nothing to do with the actual ideology of socialism.
The quotes you have provided prove exactly this, that his speeches were filled with propaganda, rewritten definitions, and overall, were indicative of his far right anti-socialist ideology, that you most likely share with him. You are free to insult me in any manner you so wish, but with every insult and every further response in which you refuse to substantially address my points, you only admit further that I am, as we both know, objectively correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Oh, hitler gave far more quotes than just three. And after all, no matter how many alts you mae, in the end you always admit that far right mass-murderer Adolf Hitler was an anti-socialist.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
But thank you for admitting you care about nazi propaganda over actual history!
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 @MIT Scientifica I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408
https://www.archives.gov
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
So your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IsaacPSmith oh, and there's another ad hominem attack from you, an attack on the character of your opponent. And, better yet, it's one that betrays your own ignorance in the subject. You know Marxism isn't an economic theory, right? The problem here is that hitler was not a Socialist. Obviously he was not a Capitalist, just as obviously as he is not a Socialist, but you seem unwilling to admit that. This debate does hinge on defining Socialism and Capitalism, the issue there being that TIK refuses to use the well known or original definitions, and constantly commits semantic fallacy in his goal to rewrite said definitions. Clearly you yourself are not well educated on the subject, because you compare Marxism to Capitalism. No, a better comparison would be Capitalism to fascism, or Marxism to Hegelianism. Those terms are at least in the same category.
1
-
@DrCruel Are you kidding? Orwell actually wrote a book about working with leftists, killing fascists in Spain, who were trying to kill him and his comrades. I thought you had read Homage to Catalonia. How could you have, and still make this assertion with a straight face?
Do the Leftists "accept" him now? They never stopped. Of course among right wing conservative fascist circles, he's still a traitor - but when talking about him to the public, they simply decry that everything they don't like is actually orwellian. The left, on the other hand, criticizes him for things like homophobia, yet largely hold him up as an important figure to be remembered and respected in leftist history. Remember that it was members of the mainstream Right who were allies of their National Socialist and Italian fascist allies and partners at the beginning of the Second World War. They have been involved in a number of genocides since, which they either brag about or deny based on the audience. Thus "doublethink." Why would their attitude about Orwell be any different?
As to the 2+2=5 reference, it had much to do with the Bolshevik Five Year Plans and the National Socialist counter of Four Year plans. The Bolsheviks then countered, saying that they had achieved their own Five Year Plans in four years and that, in Bolshevik Russia, "two years of work plus two years of work plus soviet workers equals the worth of five years." This was despite rather obvious evidence that these "plans" hadn't met their goals even after five years, and that the majority of Russians living under the Bolshevik boot were hungry, poor and miserable, but that's propaganda for you. Needless to say, anyone disagreeing with the Bolshevik authorities at the time were heavily "dissuaded" from doing so - the very act of dissent was illegal, and carried a lengthy weight to it, that would result in prison, camps, or a KGB agent following you home.
Mind, I don't want to draw too fine a distinction between the horrors of the National Socialists and Bolsheviks, they were both totalitarian idiots, although the Nazis were indeed arguably worse. I rather agree with Burnham, who argued that they were versions of the same form of government, which he called "managerialism" and what is pretty soundly in no way equivalent to what we call socialism today. You really should read his Managerial Revolution - it's a very good book, and actually reading it (not just saying "Well he basically meant socialism even though he specifically said these ideologies were directly opposed to socialism") proves you wrong. When quoting author, you might want to actually quote them, not just ignore the whole point of their piece so you can redefine more words. After all,to quote one of your other sources, these movements "...reject and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it does so in the name of Socialism." As in, they aren't socialists, and you've fallen for their newspeak.
So much for insults, deflections and tom-foolery. Ya well, like I said, you're quite good at ignoring evidence.
1
-
@DrCruel Orwell did go to Spain to fight the Fascists, who were backed by the far-right conservative National Socialists. He ended up running for his life from Republicans who were backed by Bolsheviks. The only way that you can somehow interpret this as the book being anti-socialist would either be an admittance of your gross ignorance or your complete lack of scruples. Which is it?
Note also that the Spanish Civil War ends with the far right National Socialists and Bolshevik socialists as temporary allies. Many Right Wing factions did the same, in fact the only reason hitler ever took power was the actions of conservatives, mainstream and otherwise. Even General Franco distanced himself from the National Socialists after 1939, and yet they kept up with the support of conservatives and capitalists for their entire life. Just thought I'd remind you of that.
Orwell was a socialist for his entire life, something you have not yet provided proof against, just more of your newspeak. While at first he viewed the Bolsheviks as possible socialists adherents, this abruptly ended after the Bolshevik alliance with the National Socialists. Thereafter he professed to be a "democratic socialist" and held to ideas that socialistsactually believed in, unlike the soviets. The USSR by this time had been revealed to be something that neither Orwell, nor I, nor any other decent human being could hold an allegiance to. What socialism is today is an opposition to the many forms of fascism - as revealed by the sort of violent, racist hypocrites and thieves as were responsible for the criminal violence in Portland, (the police) and the murders of blacks in Seattle, (still police) and the robbery of stores run by ethnic minorities in Chicago, (little thing called asset forfeiture) all in the name of "fighting crime." (read: black people) Orwell saw as much, in his own day, in the government of Clement Attlee. It is why George Orwell died as a depressed and broken man. He alludes to this at the end of 1984 - even though he knows Big Brother manegerialism will betray and show itself distant from the socialism he desired, and shatter his dreams of freedom and eventually kill him, he still believed in it.
It's in the book. Go see it for yourself.
And get a life beyond posting in this thread weeks later.
1
-
@DrCruel The answer is that The National Socialists, of course as you have known this whole time, were not socialists. In particular, during most of my life I had to endure fascists such as yourself waxing poetic about the great benefits of living in a regime like the America Empire. Orwell was similarly appalled when a minority of socialists backed the alliance between the Bolshevik socialists and the National Socialists of 1939, because he saw their inherent conservatism. I again remind you that - Orwell never became ostracized from the mainstream Left, despite your fascistic insistence that he did.
Orwell truly wanted to be a socialist, and stood for the ideals that actual socialists stand for. Because Orwell was sincerely a champion of the common man, his views were in line with the socialists, and not the right wing fasicsts, who intend to enslave the common man. This realization eventually drives all honest people, such as George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens, away from the right. It also helps to demonstrate how important hypocrisy, deceit and enforced conformity are to the modern right..
The Bolshevik Empire was as abhorrent as the National Socialist regime in the 1930s. Again I remind, overwhelming majority of socialists actually abhorred the Nazi Bolshevik socialist alliance, and had given up on the Bolsheviks for the most part. Similarly barbaric regimes like the Bolivarians of Venezuela have been shown to be more capitalist than socialist. This is what the socialists prove they oppose. That is who they are. That right are keen to deny their prior support for such regimes well after the fact is what Orwell meant by "doublethink."
There are literally criminal gangs in the US, robbing stores for their personal profit while claiming they act in the name of "criminal justice." This is despite the fact that they have often killed black people in such incidents. Some have even been claiming that federal crackdowns are a proper part of such "Law and Order" actions. Your support for such characters is entirely in line with the old fascist attitude - any sort of dissent is cracked down upon, police and federal authority can do whatever they want, and resistance to the police or anyone else is " anti-american domestic terrorism." I might add that robbery and looting in the pursuit of defending the police makes as much sense as arson does in the pursuit of getting rid of fire departments.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/us/police-sexual-assaults-maryland-scope/index.html
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-right-wing-extremists-killed-38-people-in-2019-far-surpassing-all
https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/31/21276013/police-targeted-journalists-covering-george-floyd-protests
https://www.ajc.com/news/fbi-finds-evidence-antifa-involvement-national-unrest/qVI3U9wb8Q6u1QEvVsJ7AJ/
"Antifa," or whatever your newspeak term is for, "the baddies," did not kill two black people and wound two other black teens in CHAZ, nor were they responsible for the numerous robberies and rapes that took place there. They were not responsible for the orgy of violence in Portland, nor the mass police force in Chicago, nor the assault and violence in so many other cities in the US, as proven by the FBI. Many of the protesters, and the cops in fact, were capitalists. These federal agents do not distinguish among the ethnicity of the people they rob or kill - in this way they can be distinguished from other criminal fascist gangs, like the National Socialists, who do - but they most certainly do rob and kill people, and are proud of it. This literally is what the american police stands for. This is likewise why the Proud Boys, Nazis, Identity Evropa, and racist criminal gangs like the police are essentially different versions of the same fascist nastiness.
You're certainly welcome to claim victory and crawl off whenever you like. Or stay. I find you to be a useful example of what I'm talking about. You openly support the same policies that led to the regimes you call socialist. You're welcome.
1
-
@DrCruel Of course right wing regimes are "socialist," depending on circumstance. They are "leftist" when it comes to seizing power from another political group and "socialist" when trying to preserve the power they have stolen or coerced by force. Not sure how this demonstrates that the National Socialists or the Bolshevik socialists were at all the same, as the nazis weren't socialist - or how, as the police reports I cited claimed, demonstrates that allowing people to engage in protest or direct action necessarily promotes socialism. In fact, National Socialists and their conservative pals all over the globe both promoted property rights and capital ownership exclusively for members of their socialist Party elite - the very characteristic which proves they were both not socialist regimes.
Likewise, this is the first time I've ever heard of the Bolivarians of Venezuela characterized as "socialist." Didn't you previously claim you supported what I was trying to do, or did your forget?
Robbery and looting by the police promotes the police. That is why, when the police engage in crime, they are never arrested and charged with crimes BY THE POLICE, the overwhelming number of which do engage in crime (although it is sadly legal to do so.) When the "security forces" of the US government make a business of killing black teens, they prevented the few non-corrupt police from reaching the scene of the crimes and got rid of the evidence.
But, of course you would trust the police there. That's what fascists do best, right? Trust figures of authority beyond reason, because it justifies their eternal desire to punish those they hate?
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/10/14/brady-lists-police-officers-dishonest-corrupt-still-testify-investigation-database/2233386001/
Might I also ask for clarification regarding your "Whataboutism?" Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable for police to have a federally protected system in which they rob and rape people because some people you don't like have been arrested for robbing and raping people?
BLM, a movement and a slogan was most not certainly responsible for the incidents I cited. There is no "they" to have claimed responsibility for the protests, or to have lent support to the violence and looting. Did you read my cites? How else am I to characterize the idea of the far right, "Black Lives Splatter?"
You're the one who suggested I leave. I'm not afraid of what you have to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 I mean you're basically just saying hitler was a socialist, but then saying your point of calling him one still works because no self-avowed socialist state is socialist. And like... yeah? Kind of? Orwell would agree, he said that both the USSR and the Nazis weren't socialists. However, they were "not socialists" for different reasons. Stalin was not a socialist because, while he (supposedly) wanted socialism, he kept putting it off and reforming the economy to get them back on their feet, at the same time moving further away from the goal. The nazis, on the other hand, objectively didn't want socialism. (no, not even for their race, or anti-marx socialism) They wanted a system that bent both the market and the state to their will, emboldening the worst of both. Stalin didn't have communism, but whatever. While they do both dislike people and funneled them into adversity... what country hasn't? Seriously. In the cold war, we did the same to the USSR and their allies as the germans did to jewish people and the USSR did to the rich, in terms of directed hate and propaganda. And again, the average person doesn't know that much about history, to be honest.
And I have to ask this - if every socialist is socialist in name only (which just isn't true) then how can you say hitler was a socialist? Especially with all the differences between his ideology and socialism.
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 So your amazing point is that socialists don't know what they want, despise clearly pushing for the antithesis of what you're proposing, so you just get to prescribe their "actual" beliefs to them. Ok, so you want a dictator, right? What's that, you say you don't? Well clearly you don't understand what your ideology requires, which is a dictatorship, to enforce property rights and keep the workers in line. You see the issue? You're strawmanning an entire ideology, openly, with no consideration for what they actually say. Your silly comparison with fascism is just you saying "well my purposefully fascistic strawman of socialism seems a lot like fascism... hm seems familiar what a coincidence." No, socialism is not necessarily dictatorial, nor is it based on state ownership. Capital has no way of reasserting ownership in a system where it is not supported. Your idea that all things have to be brought through the state is equally ridiculous, such a system might not even have a state.
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 Not a communist, child.Oh I get it, you're trying to sound like an idiot on purpose. That makes sense. Socialism is not state ownership, and never has been. Deal with it. I know you love speaking about the wonders of liberalism, but you try to bring up Thatcher to show it. You know, paramilitary death squad Thatcher, ruined the economy thatcher. Socialism doesn't require any sort of dictatorship, individual or no. That "meme" you're talking about exists in an entirely capitalist country, which utterly disproves your point. You are strawmanning, you admit to it openly, but even you can't see it. That's your fault here mate, not mine.
Nope. Both are referring to types of socialism. It seems you really aren't educated on this matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bandit6272 And, just as I thought. No points from you, just deflection.
Apparently you've been able to see my prior arguments, and yet you don't want to look for proof.
I literally included an example of you lying in the response. Jesus.
You are a liar because, well first and foremost, you support TIK's historical lie. However, specifically, you're a liar because you claim that you've seen me arguing for a while and "know" that my arguments contain no proof... and yet you admit to never having read through a single one of my arguments. Which one of those statements of yours is a lie?
And in these next few lines we see your actual reason for engaging with me. Because, without proof, you assume me to be a socialist, and my argument to be from an ideological perspective... because yours is.
God, its sad.
And of course, that was your intent. Never to inform, but to sling insults and run away. Sad.
1
-
1
-
@bandit6272 Aww, you're getting genuinely mad. Yes, you perpetuate a lie, and i've told you it time and time again. And why are you acting like you being ignorant is some sort of master point? I literally pointed out the possibility of that in the first line of my last response, can you read?
And again, apparently you've seen my arguments all over. Why can't you just go back and find them? They're already there, there's no point in me filling up some other chain if you can just go back and find them. But no, you'd rather hurl insults and deflect, hm.
Your last few comments have had zero facts, zero arguments, and you have not once addressed the reality that at any point you could go and find the hundreds of arguments i've presented in this very comment section. Why is that? Why don't you want to engage in argumentation?
You've admitted i've been debating here for a while, hell, you used it as a deflectionary insult. So why are you lying about that now?
Put up or shut up, i'm waiting for a factual response to one of the many hundreds of comments i've left under this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bandit6272 Um... what? You're literally commenting under a video that tries to disprove all of commonly and uncontroversial accepted history. It isn't my claim here, its TIK's that you're supporting.
And I would hardly call writing hundreds of words down to disprove people smarter than you "lazy." In fact, it seems you've already scrolled past those arguments, after all, i've forgotten where many of them are, and you know right where they are. So respond to them
But of course, you just want to "mock," don't you? Its sad, really.
I know, you're still failing to respond to a single one of my arguments, despite making fun of me for how many I made.
Go ahead, start your count! This is fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zerozatan The problem is, the video is four hours of bad argument after bad argument, and disproving every incorrect argument with one comment would keep me here writing for a few days at least. If you want to bring up a point you think TIK makes well, and have me make my argument against it, I would be happy to, but it would be difficult to address the entire contents of a large video like this in a simple youtube comment. I can prove TIK is a liar, or at least seriously uninformed and willing to stay that way, but I do that by addressing the arguments people pose in favor of him. And its kind of hard to address every single problem in one response. So, if you want to hear my points, feel free to give me an argument or two to address, i'll address them, and then you can either counter or give me more arguments to address, and I would be happy to do so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zerozatan So no, socialism is not state control. And I think given the general oppression, suppression, or outright extermination efforts by the nazis, we can safely say that the collective was not represented. I mean, look at some of the nazis policies, they outlawed collective bargaining by creating one big union, that had no actual say against the government or their bosses. And that brings us to the next two points, what was actually happening in the nazi economy, and why? Well, first off, the nazi ideology isn't one based around economics in the slightest. Of course, they had economic policy, but you notice upon studying nazi policy in rhetoric that it was not consistent in the slightest. They would appeal to business one second, and kill a business owner the next. They would call private enterprise the most efficient mode of production one second, and then put out a pamphlet saying they want to nationalize everything the next. They did whatever they thought would gain mass appeal, first and foremost, and then whatever they thought would best equip them for the war. The nazi ideology was one built around nationalism, bigotry, and violence, not economic theory or calculation. Hell, hitler himself said "'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions." upon defining his ideology. He defined socialism... as nationalism. Now, I notice how you said "indirectly," and that's a lot closer to what we were looking at in the nazi economy. The truth is, full ongoing direct control by the nazis was rare. There was no party line when it came to economics, so often those jobs were delegated to others, usually other rich or powerful people that were sympathetic to the nazi party. In other words, according to the social-darwinist attitude of the nazis, the strong ruled, both in government and business. That's something I never really understand about those who argue that the nazis had strict control over their economy. The nazi ideology is about power, life and death, the strong surviving above all others. Why would they then put in place rigid economic policy that didn't allow for any of that darwinistic attitude? In any case, the goings-on of the nazis economies largely consisted of the nazis allowing power structures and struggles to remain as long as they did not go against the party. Both the chemicals used to gass millions of people, as well as many of the camps they were to be killed in, were competed and bid over for.
In short; Socialism is not just state control, but even so the nazis were not always ideologically inclined towards state control, nor did they actually run a rigid state planned economy.
As I said, I would be happy to elaborate on any of these points, answer your criticisms or comments, or give additional quotes, citations, information, ect. Most of the information I just gave you can be found in the books i've mentioned already, but if you want more references or quotes, all you need to do is ask. Or, feel free to ask me another question, and move this forwards.
(also, worth stating: the nazis weren't capitalists either, don't get me wrong.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@julianpetkov8320 You mean i continue calling you out on your nonsense? I keep educating you, and you keep trying to deflect and insult you. The fact that you have so blatant misunderstandings of the words "state," "corporation," and "public," all without once doing anything close to citing your nonsense. I have no reason to engage with a person like you, who when called out, simply repeats their nonsense with tons of insults sprinkled in because they can't think of anything else. Clearly, you are not worth the effort it would take to deprogram you, as it seems the only actual facts inside your head are ones which are categorically false, which, when countered, you can do nothing but cry and scream against my Truth. You have proved time and time again to be a liar.
1
-
@julianpetkov8320 A third time of what? Proving you wrong? Well yes, I do that easily. And again, you simply provide zero citation nor any sort of explanation for your nonsensical ramblings. You also fail to provide your conspiratorial definitions of corporations, states, secretaries, presidents, and the "British corporation." this is, after all, because you have no definition, nor any facts. Why are you a liar?
You can't explain why you're supposedly right, because you are unable to cite any of your "facts," and unable to deal with my arguments when I easily prove you wrong! Hence you are going to whine and cry like a little baby, and commit to personal attacks like every ignoramus on the internet. Like you literally just did, right now, proving yourself wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858
...again. I hate to break it to you, but basic government programs, and basic wartime programs, don't mean much more than that the nazis were statists. I mean you said it yourself, the same programs the nazis implemented are largely implemented worldwide, even in capitalist nations. Also, you're still not accurately representing the actual actions of the nazis, but I don't think I can stop you from doing that at this point. Mainly because most of the policies you name don't actually accurately reflect the nazi ideology, but also because comparing the modern US to a fascist state in full power with any sort of supposal of good faith is... not a good idea. The nazis didn't want socialism, pretty plainly, and the policies you're talking about don't make a place socialist, even if they accurately represented the nazis, which they don't.
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 aaand another word salad that proves and conveys less than nothing. "Also, there *are no capitalist nations." I'm sorry, citation? Or are you one of those types that doesn't understand that capitalism is not just libertarian capitalism? You do realize that the history of capitalism started out with not just statists, but monarchists, right? The idea of capitalism being anti-state is new, only arose in the mid 20th century. Learn your own history. You think that just because the market isn't unimpeded in all areas, it isn't capitalist? Well i'm sorry, but by this logic, Adam Smith wasn't a capitalist. And yes. I am aware of the fact that nationalization isn't socialism. Nationalization of private businesses has been a policy for centuries, and I hate to break it to you, not all socialists want it, and most who call for it aren't socialists. Just because its a statist policy doesn't make it socialist. And I get it, you somehow think "collectivism" is a coherent political concept, and that it somehow goes against human individuality, which is of course incorrect and absurd.. You could have just told me you've never seriously studied politics, your on these topics ignorance shows as much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@douglasbroccone3144 you can insult me all you want. It only shows how you can only argue through insults.
Just because you don't think that a system is possible, does not mean it has a distinct goal. And whole the communists absolutely desired collective control, the nazis bad no such desire. The fact that you don't understand what a collective is, well it's sad, but not surprising unfortunately. I don't think you understand what either the communists or the far right anti socialist nazis actually wanted, but again not surprising. though you should know, claiming there is no difference actively emboldens modern nazis.
Hitler "promised" programs found in modern social democratic (capitalist) countries, while laughing at the notion of actually carrying through with those empty promises with his party officials. just because you want to take the nazis on their word does not mean anyone aspiring to be a historian should also limit themselves to that kind of sad ignorance. Yes, I'm sorry, the mass privatization and corporatist system of the nazis was not what you claim it to be.
So... You lied.
Europe was consumed by a mass anti communist movement that people like you would have reality and happily paid into.
And of course, only after your type are correctly linked to this ideology, do you try to spread lies.
Communists and what you call "racist socialists" (otherwise known as the nazis, one of the most anti socialist regimes in existence, nice newspeak there) are, by definition, further apart than the Nazis and their capitalist sponsors.
Communism, by definition, rejects racism, while capitalism encourages it.
Its funny, the nazis say the same. What can I say, you two complete eachother. Racism has existed under capitalism for centuries, child, because your ideology is based on social darwinism and is built on slavery.
Next time, don't debate someone who can so easily prove you wrong. Its embarrassing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica ah, and there you go again. Quoting propaganda speeches and acting like that's all hitler said and wanted, like he put his words to practice, and like he defined socialism as the same thing you do.
Of course, you leave out his quotes on him saying he believes private property is the most efficient method of production, that he aligns with the right, that the left and equality will cause an end of civilization, that he had no plan to implement many of the policies he sold to the public, how he defined socialism (every time he said it) as nationalism, ect. Because you admitting these things, and showing everything hitler said, his actual actions, his inspirations, ect, would prove you wrong instantly. That's why liars like you have to cherry pick from elections leeches and propaganda pamphlet. The whole story proves you wrong.
Hitler had no favorable or positive views on socialism. He was a far right fascist, an anti socialist who did his best to refine the word to appeal to more people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 Look, I know you're most likely some sort of troll, but when your best evidence is "well I think I remember my grandparents telling me something," you've admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. The nazis were the definition of a far-right regime. That's pretty apparent, no grandparents needed, just historians. They tend to be more reliable anyway.
I find it funny that you, like hitler himself, accuse all those you disagree with of being a part of some socialist conspiratorial plot. Its almost like you're trying to prove my point.
"Left wing liberal" is an oxymoron, not that you'd know that, but no according to all basic and objective measures biden is a conservative.
Your lack of any sort of rebuttal or counter argument is noted, and is not at all found surprising.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 @MadManRob1 And yet its you who this whole time has preferred to sling insults than bring up a single fact.
This isn't a matter of opinion, kid. It is a matter of basic historical accuracy, objective fact, a lie or a truth. And you, by refusing to adhered to critical thinking, factual information, or any argument besides anecdote or insult, prove yourself a liar. And you continue to do so now.
I, unlike you, have no affinity for far-right anti-socialist n@zi ideology or the people who founded it, but not once have I believed your hero was a capitalist. This just proves to me that you can't read.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, its a story. And that is the only "evidence" you've been willing or even able to give. This proves to me and everyone watching that you know your lies are indefensible. I don't care about your "opinion," it is an objective fact, proven by plainly available historical and contemporary evidence, that the n@zis were nothing close to socialists, unlike what your propaganda masters would claim.
I know facts will never change your mind, trust me i'm well aware, and I have no desire to let a liar like you go feeling at all confident in their lies.
So sure, run away if you want. I can't stop you.
And I for sure have no respect for someone who would compare the pursuit of truth with a spoiled child.
Run away, kid. You've already proven me right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 You didn't, though. I can plainly look at the nazis and see their far right inspiration, far right policies, far right language, and their far right descendants.
You get triggered because you know that i'm objectively correct, and you haven't presented any facts otherwise.
It is a fact that the nazis weren't socialists, or anywhere even close to left of center. If you had looked at any evidence, you would know this.
Critical thinking is a tool of the left, yes, because it is based in objective fact and reasoning, which the right despises.
Anyone using a tiny amount of logic (critical thinking) can see that the nazis were far right anti-socialists who hold many of the same opinions as their modern far-right anti-socialist counterparts. Calling them "commie wannabes" is a nonsense lie backed up by zero factual information, which is why you haven't actually presented any of your evidence yet.
1
-
@MadManRob1 I understand that you've attempted to assert that logic is synonymous with feelings, yes, but as you've provided no evidence for it, it is easily dismissed. The definition of critical thinking is "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action." So of course, something the right is terrible at.
And of course, you can look at any book, or even any modern event, and see that the nazis were clearly far right anti-socialists, likely like yourself which is why you try to distance them so desperately. They hated socialists, and hated communists even more. This is a basic fact that is plain for all to see.
It is glaringly obvious that they were and are right wing. For one, you realize the original rightists were anti-capitalist, right? Monarchists? Ring a bell? Hitler disliked capitalism because he thought it wasn't right wing enough. He despised the left, and socialists, for supposedly infiltrating his culture and capitalism and "turning" it away from his own far right ideology. He never "took control of every means of production," in fact he readily sold back governmental assets from the weimar days into private control. And, as we've been over, government control is never and has never been socialism.
I understand you right wing types have trouble with facts, mainly because you see objective information and your own feelings as one in the same, but please do try to keep up, because you've been proven wrong quite a few times already.
And here is the way all right wingers cope with their own lack of argumentative or intellectual skill - childish insults that a preschooler would cringe at. You have fun with that, i'll be over here enjoying understanding objective history, and unlike you, not aligning with the far-right nazis :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight well, given my permission wasn't gained or even asked for, regarding my inclusion in the video, I can't claim to be much a fan of your obsession with me, TIK. Don't get me wrong, the irony of you doing everything possible to avoid open and honest debate with historians is funny, but at this point I do hope you know it isn't the best to have someone in a video they didn't consent to. And God, looking through the comments you've lent your support to, it's obvious you would prefer to mislead your audience and whip them into a frenzy than dare to admit the truth to them. I can at least fine solace j. The fact that no matter how many comments you heart that use insults and conspiracies as sole points, nobody will ever believe your innacurate rewriting of history. Rather, the truth will always be taught. And have fun with your power now - you only prove my point. I would recommend removing me from the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alixritter9851 I have provided more than enough evidence but I guess that's never enough
and this is just... incorrect. First off, you're misrepresenting the positions of both parties involved here. You're also comparing the moderate american right with the far right nazis, of course they will have different policies. So let's make this more accurate. And finally, you're taking one subsection of the modern moderate side of the american right and assuming its the whole thing. Many modern conservatives don't hold these views, and you just wrote them out of the picture.
The American Right: We support gun control and state repression when minorities start arming themselves (see Reagan)
Nazis: Only white people should even be able to arm themselves, and we will always support gun control and state repression when minorities start arming themselves
American Right: The state should force people I like to give birth
Nazis: The state should force people I like to give birth and remove that ability for people I don't like
American Right: If you say anything bad about patriotism, nationalism, or America, or in any way attempt to burn the flag or disrespect the country, I will attempt to rewrite history or throw you in jail
Nazis: If you say anything bad about patriotism, nationalism, or nazi germany, or in any way attempt to burn the flag or disrespect the country, I will attempt to rewrite history or throw you in jail, and probably kill you
American Right: Only the rich deserve healthcare, and the poor and weak are a drain on our economy.
American Far Right: The white people should be guaranteed care, and the poor, weak, and minorities/immigrants are a drain on our economy.
Nazis: The white people should be guaranteed care, for everyone else we'll privatize the healthcare industry, and the poor, weak, and minorities/immigrants are a drain on our economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alixritter9851 except mussolini happily went above and beyond to deal with the conservatives, he put them in power, he followed their policies, and most of his base were radicalized conservatives that thought the old monarch wasn't doing enough to push reactionary right wing ideology. The socialists, on the other hand, he executed. Hitler was the same, he was only put in power because of conservatives, his ideology was inspired by conservatives, and conservatives made up his first cabinet and vice chancellorship. The leftists and socialists? He executed.
Mussolini was unabashedly right wing, and he himself said fascism was an ideology of the right, that utterly rejected the left and the moderate in every sense of the word.
Hitler's mission was to return society "to traditional means," whatever the hell that meant.
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 we literally have a Capitalist economy. This is an objective fact and if you can't admit to the most basic definitions of socialism, fascism, or capitalism (the system we live under) then you are a liar and very likely a sympathizer to actually fascist ideals, all while ignoring basic economic definitions and objective history.
You cannot be both a fascist and a socialist, as fascism is far right, and socialism is far left. Neither of those systems, however, describes our current system of neoliberal capitalism. The leaders you hate? They were all capitalists, and you pretending otherwise by pointing out the failures of Capitalism is ironic. They believe in markets, free trade, whatever.
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 @The LGND Rivz and yet another pro-right wing extremism long debunked talking point. We live in a capitalist economy, where the private sector holds the vast majority of all economic or social power in this country. The existence of a public sector does nothing to disprove this fact, in fact capitalist economies have coexisted with the public sector since the inception of Capitalism. and no, of course you cannot be a socialist and a fascist at the same time. Socialists are leftists who call for the means of production to be socially owned, with or without the state. Fascism is a far right ideology that promotes tradition, hierarchy, inequality, and anti leftism. Not all authoritarian ideologies are the same, and not all socialism is authoritarian. Again, you don't understand economics, politics, and history, and I have proven this.
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 But... it quite literally is, even your phrasing of the issue practically admits this. Suppression and subsidization implies that there is independent private business that needs to be subsidized or repressed, and thus of course private property existed. I'm sorry, but none of that disqualifies the fact that the system you're describing is capitalism. Having a central bank that distributes currency and regulation? That has existed in literally every capitalist country to date, and capitalists love that system. You know who doesn't? Socialists. You are literally calling historical capitalism "fascism and socialism" (a blatant contradiction) because you can't admit that capitalism is failing. Socialists advocate for social ownership of the means of production, which is not present in this system. Fascists don't own the means of production through the state. They aren't the same, they're antithetical. Fascism is a far right ideology that in no way wants social ownership of the means of production. AS WE HAVE BEEN OVER. You continue to assert things without an evidence, over and over, because you know you are incorrect. It is an OBJECTIVE FACT that fascism is a form of far-right anti-socialist ideology. Fascists know this, anti-fascists know this, but you fascist sympathizers try to ignore it. Grow up. That's all there is to say - you are wrong, and i've proved it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 Again, you are ignoring the OBJECTIVE FACT that the Reichstag Fire Decree did nothing to abolish private property, and that point 14 was never implemented, and hitler despised it. Unlike you, I can actually provide proof:
From Strasser's "Hitler and I."
"‘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?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@auo2365 Ok but just making an assertion, saying " we should agree on this" though you provide no proof for it, and moving on, does nothing. So let me give this to you in the most barebones way possible. The nazis were not socialists. They weren't just "some other type" of socialists, they weren't "racial socialists," they weren't socialists at all. There is a very good reason this fact is near universally accepted by historians, and the only ones attempting to attack it are right wing political pundits and economists who don't like to be lumped in with far right political groups like the nazis. The more in depth you look, at both the definition of socialism and the nazi party, the more and more apparent it is that calling the nazis socialistic at all is a dreadful mistake. See, the problem is, you're just calling random regimes socialist, and saying that those who attempt to correct you have "bad arguments" or that they should just agree with you, without you actually providing any reasoning.
The nazis weren't capitalists. The nazis weren't socialists. The nazis didn't have "all state control," nor did they want that, nor would that be socialism. Nobody is calling the nazis capitalists, they're just rightfully pointing out that they weren't socialists. You can't just make a statement and then back down from it by saying its just you judgment, this is history, a study of fact, and what you're saying doesn't line up with the facts. This is why I recommend people actually do some research themselves instead of believing admitted far right youtubers instead of like, actual historians who are well known for being good at their jobs. Just a quick thought for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rajpeanut why are you so annoyed by me pointing out the fact that it would be lazier and more intellectually dishonest of me to make a video? TIK only makes videos because he would prefer to look like he's "owning" his opponents, rather than actually effectively disproving them. I spent weeks replying specifically because I have so many arguments, and please get it right, it has been far more than weeks. TIK, on the other hand, has done nothing but respond with insults and even conspiracy theories about me for going on months now. And you have responded to none of my arguments, reinforcing how correct I am. What is your obsession with a video?? I mean, I know you want me to make one because you're lazy and want TIK to make another response so you can run away and call me "disproven" without either of you addressing my arguments, but why a video?? All I would be doing is reading out words I've already said to TIK, that he has refused to respond to. You're only telling me to make a video because you have no arguments against the historical objective fact that the Nazis weren't socialists. And if you'd like to address my points, feel free to make a response video, lazy :)
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408
https://www.archives.gov
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
So your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Awsometime If you haven't seen me giving sources, you're most likely lying. Have you actually... checked his sources? The vast amount of historical sources utterly disagree with his claim that somehow the nazis were socialist. His other sources are cherry picked and highly ideological and do nothing to prove his point. He fails to explain how capitalist, a system build on collective self interest, is individualist. He fails to explain why state interference is anti-capitalist, ignoring the very first capitalists, and thus cannot disprove the existence of state capitalism. He gives no concrete justification of socialism being state control, because it isn't, socialism can exist without a state. No socialist has ever defined it that way, and TIK knows that. The only people who do define it that way are the extreme right and those ignorant enough to take their words for it. This video literally goes on and on about how marxism wasn't the only type of socialism, and your evidence is just saying "marx and lenin said x?" That isn't even true, Marx wasn't really a hardcore statist and didn't want to sacrifice individuality for state control, he wanted worker control. The problem is, you're just saying "everyone knows x" without providing proof, because you know you can't prove it. You're the only one shifting goalposts here, and it really does show. Hey, here's two things to consider - one, if the people you're talking about (socialists, of which I am not one) don't use your definitions or call for things according to your definition, your definition is bad. Two, people can be wrong. "everyone knew" that the earth was flat a couple thousand years ago, doesn't make it right. But please, keep saying "Socialism is state control" and then somehow calling me an idiot. It's a bit funny, maybe address reality next time.
1
-
1
-
@manniefresh3425 No, you just don't like my framing of capitalism, you haven't even rebutted it. And yes, there are many forms of socialism, but they don't vary in terms of private property usage, but in how collective ownership of that property is gained. That's how it's always been defined. It can be done through government, directly by a government representative of the people, by the workers themselves, by communities, on and on and on. You don't even need a state for socialism. The key isn't "governing power," it's collective ownership. Private ownership and collective ownership are incompatible, so if private ownership exists (and indeed, is praised) on cannot call that system socialist.
1
-
Awsometime And now you're missing the point. I know i'm repeating myself, but listen to what you quoted. All of those solutions have one thing in common, at least - collective control. It can be done with a state, without a state, through the state, in spite of the state, in competition, in perfect equality, on and on and on. But it's still collective control. And Hitler still never wanted that.
If he was a "different kind of socialist," what aspect of his ideology did he share only with the other socialists? Not state control, clearly, so what?
1
-
Awsometime So you concede that he's wrong, then. After all, you're implying that he knows more than historians that have studied this for their entire lives, they by default have the authority in this situation. The reason they know hitler wasn't a socialist and TIK asserts otherwise is simply because TIK has objectively redefined socialism along lines that no socialist considers themselves. So it seems he values his opinion over socialists, nazis, and historians that professionally study both. Of course they're cherry picked, that's why you say there was "so much evidence to the contrary," because TIK redefined the terms and then picked out whatever bits of history he thinks he can use to push this narrative. When you come to a different definition of socialism than socialists, a different understanding of history than historians, and a different conclusion than the one that exists in reality, then he must be cherry picking.
And i'm sorry, but that's just false. Like most of this, it's also asserted without evidence. Things like nationalism, religion, and according to TIK "organized society" is collectivist, and you can absolutely be individualistic within societies stricken by those.
=Yes, cherry picking. Because, I hate to fill you in, capitalism did not exist in ancient greece. (yes i've watched his public v private video, and I heavily disagree with the conclusion of it.) And if you have to go back before the creation of the english language to try to prove something about said language, you've failed. Hell, I can play that game. Have you ever called your parents or siblings part of your "family?" Well, I'm sorry bud, but it seems you were actually calling them your personal servants, according to the latin famulus and famulita. And in fact, everyone who has ever praised "family values" must then be pro-slavery. What's that you say? The word's meaning has changed, and many of those writers didn't have this definition in mind? Strange.
Of course capitalists predate the term, but not by long. Also, Marx wasn't the first to use capitalism, or even use capitalism derogatorily, that would be Proudhon. As well as that, the term "state capitalism" wasn't used by Marx, it most likely originated with Bakunin, Engels used it a few times, but it was really popularized by Lenin's NEP policy. Of course, you would call anything to do with the state "socialism" without any proof, and rather than argue that case, you just put in parenthesis (i'm right.)
Right, Marx was a hardcore statist. That's why he said we shouldn't sacrifice individuality because of private property, why he wanted a stateless society, why he said every person should own a gun,there should be no taxes, ect, ect. The fact that you think, again, the guy who wanted no state was a statist is a bit silly. And furthermore, of course when pressed on your propaganda, you frame me as a marxist (i'm not) "defending totalitarianism" for daring to tell you the truth. What you're doing is conflating his methods with his goals. If we look only at the methods of other groups, like say, the Sons of Liberty, we find in fact they were extremely violent, censored political opponents, destroyed millions in property, and after the war in fact seized and redistributed some property. Yet, they paved the way for modern Libertarianism. Because a revolution will always be violent. So let's try this again, with actually applicable quotes.
(quotes posted in follow up reply, as the comment was too large.)
It is also of course worth noting the nature of your quotes. As in, the first is in reference to a direct democracy, hence the proletariat as a whole to take power which also relates to your second quote, in which Marx in fact (as you can see from the phrasing of the first sentence) is predicting the natural progress of a transition to socialism. Again, conflating what he thought would happen vs what his goal was. Should I do something like quote Sherman saying "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." and cite the numerous innocent lives lost, women rp*ed, and towns burnt in the civil war, and thus conclude that the act of freeing slaves is in fact totalitarian?
But of course, you haven't thought about much of any of this. Your two quotes came from Marx's least personal and least comprehensive work, which you attempt to project on top of his entire ideology. Of course the truth is insane to you, you probably found these quotes from watching TIK and haven't read a word past the Communist Manifesto, and that might even be a stretch.
Ah, of course. One of those. Well, while neither you or I can verify that, but given your "attitude" towards these topics at large I think we both know at best you came into this looking for arguments against marxists and socialists.
Ok, i'm sorry, that still isn't a good excuse. For one, obviously, not everyone has watched this video. The vast majority of people don't use the definitions posed in this video. If you were to ask the average person if a company was a private entity or not, I think we both know how that poll would go. And, as we've been over, many of the quotes both he and you pose are highly misleading. But sure, the issue is clearly with me here.
Well at least you know definitions can change. That's good, might want to take that into consideration with your previous statements. And I say it's bad because, well, let's take you. I assume you're a capitalist, I could be wrong, but let's go with that assumption. So let's say I define capitalism. Let's go further back than ancient greek, let's go to PIE, and we find the root of "capital" (kaput) means "head," as in head of an organization. Therefore, capitalism must mean that you're the head of something. So, one might say Monarchism is a close relative of this, right? But of course, you, as a capitalist, might say "What? No, it's (x definition)" To which I would say "Ah! It seems you're trying to redefine terms in order to weasel out of the blame of the dark ages!" And if you question what capitalist philosopher or economist has actually followed this definition, I can point out people like Hoppe and Hayek's view on monarchism, or cherry pick some quote from Smith in which he says something favoring the powerful and use that to justify that conclusion. Hell, now that i'm thinking about it, since "capital" now means "head," that means all hierarchical systems are capitalist. So dictators, monarchs, emperors, CEOs all of them capitalists. And if you ret to bring up that i've made the definition of capitalism so wide and meaningless that now actual self-proclaimed capitalists don't identify with it, while warring factions that disagree on nearly everything are under the same category... well I'll link you a two hour video in which I do more of what I talked about above? You see the issue?
Let me put it bluntly - socialists do not want what TIK says they want. Most people, including the founders of socialism, did not use the definitions that TIK uses. He is calling not only the nazis socialist, but nearly every country on the earth. It's an association fallacy, pure and simple.
And right now, I notice that you... haven't. I mean seriously, this post went all over the place, but it didn't once address socialism supposedly just being state control of the economy. It's collective control of the MoP. Of course you assert it's state control, but you don't actually prove it. You know marx was heavily against things like monarchies and feudalism, right? Those had a hell of a lot of state control. And a point you may have forgotten from this video, one that doesn't matter that much as you're already wrong, but marx didn't invent socialism. His ideas didn't start with him. There has always, and will always, be anti-marx socialists and communists. Some of those founding socialists didn't even want a state. So how can socialism just be state control? Hitler wasn't a socialist not because he was anti-marx, but because he rejected the ideas that all of the warring sub-ideologies of socialism had accepted as a foundation to work from.
1
-
Awsometime "Thus two facts are here revealed. First the productive forces appear as a world for themselves, quite independent of and divorced from the individuals, alongside the individuals: the reason for this is that the individuals, whose forces they are, exist split up and in opposition to one another, whilst, on the other hand, these forces are only real forces in the intercourse and association of these individuals.
...
Thus, on the one hand, we have a totality of productive forces, which have, as it were, taken on a material form and are for the individuals no longer the forces of the individuals but of private property, and hence of the individuals only insofar as they are owners of private property themselves. Never, in any earlier period, have the productive forces taken on a form so indifferent to the intercourse of individuals as individuals, because their intercourse itself was formerly a restricted one. On the other hand, standing over against these productive forces, we have the majority of the individuals from whom these forces have been wrested away, and who, robbed thus of all real life-content, have become abstract individuals, but who are, however, only by this fact put into a position to enter into relation with one another as individuals."
“Thus the old view, in which the human being appears as the aim of production, regardless of his limited national, religious, political character, seems to be very lofty when contrasted to the modern world, where production appears as the aim of mankind and wealth as the aim of production. In fact, however, when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity's own nature? The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics - and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds – this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying-out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end.”
"This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now."
“Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships, not on the "pure" individual in the sense of the ideologists. But in the course of historical evolution, and precisely through the inevitable fact that within the division of labour social relationships take on an independent existence, there appears a division within the life of each individual, insofar as it is personal and insofar as it is determined by some branch of labour and the conditions pertaining to it. ([…]) In the estate (and even more in the tribe) this is as yet concealed: for instance, a nobleman always remains a nobleman, a commoner always a commoner, apart from his other relationships, a quality inseparable from his individuality. The division between the personal and the class individual, the accidental nature of the conditions of life for the individual, appears only with the emergence of the class, which is itself a product of the bourgeoisie. This accidental character is only engendered and developed by competition and the struggle of individuals among themselves. Thus, in imagination, individuals seem freer under the dominance of the bourgeoisie than before, because their conditions of life seem accidental; in reality, of course, they are less free, because they are more subjected to the violence of things.”
“Individuals always proceeded, and always proceed, from themselves. Their relations are the relations of their real life-process. How does it happen that their relations assume an independent existence over against them? and that the forces of their own life become superior to them?
In short: division of labour, the level of which depends on the development of the productive power at any particular time.”
“This subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a class has taken shape, which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class."
...and so on and so forth. You know you'd think that the idea that the most well-known communist in history doesn't want a state is something of common sense, considering the very definition of communism, (moneyless, stateless, classless, post-scarcity) but I suppose somehow these crazy marxists have gone back in time rewritten the very words of Marx! Darn, we'll get them next time.
https://libcom.org/library/marx-theoretician-anarchism
https://libcom.org/library/marx-individualist-communist-excerpts-individual-karl-marx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Raptor Jet Why don't we take some actual citation and quotes from the man that put your propaganda and nazi apologia into context -
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
"1. '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, even 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.
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
1
-
Raptor Jet Why don't we take some actual citation and quotes from the man that put your propaganda and nazi apologia into context -
"1. '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, even 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.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
1
-
Raptor Jet Oh my gosh this is so easy. I give you citation, directly from him, that proves you wrong. You then accuse me of having an "unoriginal copy paste post" which is especially ironic considering that is literally all you've done. And I hate to break it to you, but that wasn't some random person disassociating hitler with actual socialism - that was hitler himself happily disavowing it. I just did credibly and legitimately dispute your cherry picked and out of context "citations" of Hitler’s positive and favorable comments on his own ideology, which he happily distanced from actual socialism or leftism. That's the best part about my quotes, they didn't need to be "unearthed" by anyone, they were said, loud and proud, by hitler. Your biased historians and cherry picked "evidence" can't hold a candle to the actual best WW2 historians who unanimously agree that hitler was not a socialist. I have a job, I have a life, and honestly its fun to see you project your own poor condition onto me. Its just a hobby to so effortlessly prove morons like you wrong, but you're excused in thinking I do so professionally. And now the whole internet sees that when confronted with facts and logic... all you can do is sit and cry about how right I am. Simply amazing :)
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica it's ok dude you can drop the act. Nobody would be this defensive if I wasn't on point. So why did you change accounts? Is it because you got disproven so many times and you want to pretend that isn't the case? You used the exact same quotes and copy pasted insults, and the exact same framing. Its you bud.
In any case, as I've said previously, and you have yet to address - those quotes you mentioned are from, as you pointed out, propaganda speeches. These do not include his definitions, his words in private, or his actual actions. And you, a proven liar, know this. So why do you not include this context? Is it because you would rather not admit to hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti socialism? Is it because you agree with hitler, or want to defend him? What is it, liar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408
https://www.archives.gov
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
So your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
I am known on youtube now for effortlessly debunking notorious ignorant people like you I guess, yes, thank you. At least you admit you only have insults, never facts.
So I must ask, does it make you feel good to know that you are objectively incorrect, and know that you have zero proof for any of your claims? Do you enjoy the fact that your nonsense actively emboldens actual nazis?
Now the facts: the nazi government did not have control of the economy, and government control is not socialism
1. You mean they had private backers on private industries? Wow, what a shocker! You don't seem to realize that most of these business cooperated with the nazis voluntarily, for the sake of their own profit. The nazis had little power to enforce their rule on german businesses, and little will to do so
2. The nazis... did no such thing, as you well know. In fact, they let individual private business owners do this.
3. And again, false. They actually let companies compete for the right to fill nazi quotas, they were not forced, and were not decided.
The best part of course is, none of these things are socialist, as socialism is system of social (collective) control. The second best part is that none of the things you stated were true. So, based on those three key non-socialistic and false elements of the Nazi government, and my corrections, we can see that the Nazi Government was not socialist, as you have continually admitted.
. "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
"'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251).
"Fascism, by contrast [to conservatism, liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16).
"Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. " (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
1
-
Would you like me to copy paste one of my many arguments in? I really do have many, i've been doing this a while. The use of my pithy statements is to begin a discourse, my goal is not to come in with a massive paragraph on first contact with random people. I know you hate the fact that we so easily prove both you and TIK wrong, and that the very thing you accuse us of doing (insults and meaningless statements) you and TIK readily and easily do, but you really must understand that I could not care less what you think. Looking through the comment section, it's easy to see both of us engaging in much longer form argumentation. So i'll ask you again, do you want me to copy paste one of my previous arguments? I'd be happy to, to prove your generalizations wrong. Would you like to ask fro clarification on specific issues, so I can give my reasoning? Or will you keep screaming into the comment section about how annoyed you are at us, and how often we manage to disprove your nonsense? It's your choice, really. I'll be waiting.
1
-
1
-
@Davidoff
Ah, amazing! Another response utterly lacking in content, proof, citation, or reason. Instead, you fill this response, again, with unfounded assertions and silly insults that prove your lack of intellectual honesty.
Have I ever worked a "real job?" Yes, actually, i've been working since I was 13. I hate to break it to you, however, but only one of us has actually been citing facts from what you call "common sense," and it has been me.
And that vast majority is in real life. You know, not the extremist, self-admitted ahistorical revisionist echo chamber that is TIK's comment section. I'm sorry that the vast majority of people understand english better than you propagandists, but really, you shouldn't be surprised. A private company that trades stocks among the public is still private, by definition. Even you call it a "private company that trades stocks." I hate to break it to you, but all companies, in part, are directly linked to "the public." The public is, after all, the customers they have to appeal to. A consumer is simply an investor with less stakes, less reward, less cost. A Consumer buys a product expecting something they want out of it, exchanging their money for their desires, and an investor does the same. The interests of the investors and the consumers are not "completely different," they both want something out of the company, one just wants a product, the other wants profit, both of which are entirely linked. A successful business does not need to "balance" the needs of consumers and invertors, as people usually invest based on things like... consumer satisfaction.
And of course corporations with government ties are not socialist, which is why your only counter to this fact is unfounded assertions. Socialism is, and I quote, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." But you can't even keep a simple train of thought here. For example, you ask "who decides who is proletariat?" Which... is nonsense. Proletariat is an economic term referring to people who make a living by working, not by owning. A factory worker that rents a place for themselves to live is proletariat. A factory owner and their landlord are not. See the difference? Socialism does not even need a state to exist, so no, the statement "socialism the proletariat is the state" is complete, unfounded nonsense. If the proletariat was the state, then why did so many socialists speak out against the state? Why did they hate authoritarian monarchists? Furthermore, do you understand even the most basic socialist views of class? Socialism is not, and has never been, simply "State control of the economy." And corporations with state interference aren't even controlled by the state, so literally every link in your chain of "logic" falls through. This isn't that hard to comprehend.
You assert that "someone has to "decide" who counts as a prole" (which isn't true, its an objective classification, this is basic stuff) and then you say that "under socialism, the proletariat is the state" (which again isn't true, as socialism is defined as community/collective control, and if the state does not represent that collective, it cannot claim to be socialist. Furthermore, the goal of socialism is to abolish those class distinctions not just replace one ruling class with another) You then say that socialism is "State control of the economy." (which again isn't true, both because socialists have been anti-state historically, and because of reasons already discussed.) You then further assert that this means that any corporations that have government influence is run by the proletariat. (which isn't true because "government influence" could be as little as simple regulation, could be done by thoroughly non-socialist governments, and again, corporations are by definition private entities, them being regulated by a state, or working with a state, does not change that.)
You see how literally every leap in logic you made is unsupported? A single one of my corrections would have utterly disproved you, but I went the extra mile.
The thing that disappoints me the most is that I know no matter how much I correct you, how long I write my responses attempting to make up for your lack of substance, to educate you... i know you're not going to listen. I have easily debunked you in literally every claim you made and what is your response? "Have you even worked a real job?" It's sad, really.
I feel conned out of my time which could have been better served debating someone who knows what they're talking about.
1
-
@Davidoff I'm sorry, "redefined terms?" You do realize that you look up "socialism definition," and literally the first result is the definition I cited to you, yes? How lazy are you that you don't even check my quotes? Jesus this is sad. I tried to start of simple for you and you couldn't even handle that.
And it's ok, you can admit you don't have the basic economic education to keep up in this conversation. It is also funny how you rail socialist countries for "rewriting history" when that's all you've done, this whole time. No, a consumer and investor are two sides of the same coin. An investor also "pays their money in exchange for a product or service," that product or service being profit. A customer also "loans money to a business in exchange for future return on their investment," that return being the product they are buying. You quite literally proved me right without even realizing it. Those goals aren't different at all. People want something from a company, so they pay. And I hate to break it to you, but this isn't the only time you do this. "If another company sells a similar product/service for less, the consumer will buy from that competitor instead" Are you telling me that an investor wouldn't invest in a similar, but more profitable or efficient business? Do you understand that most investors invest based on things like customer satisfaction and profit, both of which are directly tied to the customer? Do you understand basic economics?
And god, this is sad. I show you the definition of socialism, and you start trying to pick it apart as if it was just a random explanation of socialist practices, showing that you are not only ignorant on socialist policy and history, but also on the definition itself. "Well you’re going to have to tell that to all the socialist countries in the world and how they all ‘got it wrong’ about socialism" Please, I invite you to list some of these "socialist" countries, as well as your reasoning as to how they are socialist. In any case, who is the "community as a whole?" Um... the community. As a whole. It is literally in the very words you're saying. If the population of this country is 10, then the community as a whole is those 10 people. Pretty. Simple. Does that sound like a state to you? Do you think the state always effectively represents the entirety of their citizenry? Also - "What agency creates laws that forces the owners of production to surrender their capital to the workers, if not the state?" The defense of the modern state is the only reason that 'private property' exists in the first place, remove one and the other wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. And again, jesus, you are kind of proving my point. I'm sorry, but CEOs and other various owning figures make far more than they work for. They could work all day every day forever, and it still would not justify their salaries. Those who do the most work, have been the most productive, and suffer the most risk are always the actual workers, not the owners. Being proletariat doesn't mean "someone who works hard," the fuck are you talking about? Again, proletariat is an objective economic term. Those who own things for their money are not proletariat, those who work without ownership are. Who decides? Well, the difference is clear cut. I love how you call class disparity "junk," "anecdotes," and "rhetoric instead of science," and yet do not provide a speck of evidence for a single one of those claims. I'm sorry that class disparity is a real and tangible force in the world that has influenced a huge amount of human history and can be tangibly seen in the modern day, and i'm sorry you have no facts to disprove that, only your rage at being wrong.
And again - baseless conspiracy theories. Where are socialists trying to "hijack the government?" I've only seen one group try to, for example, take over the capital, and it sure as heck wasn't socialists. And of course socialists hated the monarchists, and yes, some self proclaimed socialists then went on to be dictators... under an entirely different economic system. You see the problem? You're saying all state ownership is socialist, and then when it is pointed out that socialism actually has a long history of anti-state and anti-authoritarian movements and ideologies, then you just say "but this one socialist did this!" I'm sorry, but that isn't an argument. But please, continue to justify your authoritarian outlook on life, believing it to be the only way to see the world. It's pretty amusing.
And again, how does "CEOs, VPs, and directors" fit the qualification of being proletariat? They get their money by owning something, be it a company, or other human beings in the form of employers. That's why the majority of CEO's riches tend to be in stocks, because they're profiting from their (and other's) companies as a whole, not the person's individual work. If a CEO vanished tomorrow, a company would chug on. If all the low wage workers on their payroll vanished? Then the company would fail. So yes, the definition of proletariat is pretty clear cut, and i'm sorry you don't understand that. It has been objectively defined, over and over again, even to you. You just don't like that those who own aren't included in a group meant to defined those who do not own. In any case, the Kulaks. What happened to them was an atrocity, yes, but they weren't just a group of random farmers. They were a group that purposefully withheld crops from the government that had funded them, and when the government came asking for what it had paid for, the Kulaks quite literally burned down their fields, kicking off a famine that would kill thousands, at the least. Not quite the "contributing farmers" you frame them as, hm? And by god, how did I know you would bring up Venezuela! Venezuela, the country every brainwashed right winger calls socialist... and also a country that proudly boasts a 70% private economy. And thank you for rightfully pointing out that economic sanctions against them are a huge contributor to their modern economic turmoil. The US is quite literally one of the biggest oil purchasers, and their allies and them make up the majority of the market. Tell me, who exactly are they supposed to sell... to? And how is this behavior justified by the USA? Finally, I do hope you realize the hilarious problem in asking me for an example of a state... that is stateless.
All you've done is doubled down on disproven nonsense, as I have to provide fact after fact to even keep you on track with the conversation. I tell you basic economic facts, about groups from CEOs to investors, and your only response is to dive deeper into your rabbit hole of unfounded assertions. How ignorant to the facts can you be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's hilariously wrong. For one, because this video is literally lies and propaganda for the purpose of getting people to believe in utter nonsense. What does that tell you about your own ideology? Fascism,and the nazis, are not just right of communists but right of center, and by alot. Now let'smake this response a bit more accurate.
"Hitler wasn't a Socialist, and since Socialism is nowhere near right of center, the Right has to lie to perpetuate their claims that Hitler was a product of the Left, which is a blatant LIE. Capitalism, while not perfect, has led to more people being fed and lifted out of poverty with the added issue of the hundreds of millions dead and having to be supplemented by other systems...but again, the Right (Fascists & Capitalists) have to lie about this as well. Capitalism & Fascism benefits the people at the top, but punishes everyone else. Capitalism & Fascism always leads to mass poverty & misery. The Capitalist & Fascist elites (overlords) know this, but in order to get people to accept their ideology, they LIE about their ideology. Then you get the people who buy into it and believe it, and regurgitate the propaganda, and are thus puppets (useful idiots & tools). Fascism is is terrible, and capitalism isn't much better Many nations have tried it, and they ALWAYS fail. But again, the Right has to LIE and brainwash...so the clam then becomes..."if only we did capitalism more, we would do it better" rant. As always, its a LIE."
That fits together a little too well to be honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Roberts Fawkes You realize that you proved me correct, right? You literally admitted that the only way to call mussolini left wing is to rewrite the meaning of the word, and also to call capitalist ideologies like social democracy the same thing as socialism. You are literally complicit in fascist lies, and you are politically closer to fascism than any marxist could ever be. Dude, you literally just proved you didn't bother to learn the definition of any words or terms you used in that sentence. Any. For one, your left-right dichotomy is false, the left and right are not at all defined by their acceptance or hatred of government. This is easily shown in cases like anarchism, which as a philosphy was formed by Proudhon and Kropotkin. Look those names up for me real quick. Yeah, didn't seem very right wing, right? A self labeled socialist and a self labeled anarcho-communist. And I know, I know, you'll say anarcho communism is an oxymoron, despite the fact that communism is defined as a stateless, classless, and moneyless society in which the people directly control all industry through direct democracy. You can say that system is impossible, but the simple fact is that doesn't matter as to what the word means. For further evidence, the original meanings of left and right were determined at a National Assembly in france, where the conservative right (monarchs, nobles) sat on the right, while the French Republicans and Anarchists sat of the left. You can see this even today, the right claims to be small government, but in terms of military and police spending they are fine with larger government. So your initial logic is false, the left wing is not government control, and thus we must look elsewhere to define fascism. Here's a good start. (you also forgot that fascists don't want to regulate industry, and generally don't. They prefer to regulate people instead, something the left dislike smore than conservatives.)
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
Your definition of fascism, also, is minimalist. By that definition, many capitalist regimes would be fascist, yes? That's why I just posted a link to a more accurate definition, written by a survivor of fascist itally. So let's look at your other points.
- Exalts race above the individual? Yes. It's called tribalism and the left uses it all the time. It's also called intersectionality.
It isn't, though. That's a strawman argument, the left does not put race above the individual, they put race as a factor of the individual. Whereas the far right generally loves to bring up things like nationality and race much before yourself. Don't forget the words of MLK, a socialist - "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr."
- Stands for a centralized government? Yes. They want the government to control healthcare, private business, and the economy. Which covers economic regimentation.
Except for two things. For one, that isn't extreme regulation by any sense at all. That regulation exists in places like Denmark, which are free market capitalist and have a higher degree of economic freedom than the US. For second, not all leftists are the same. The vast majority do not want to control the entire economy or all private business, they want mild reform. You forgot that bit.
- Social Regimentation? Yes. You mean if I disagree with you I'm a Bigot, Racist, Sexist, Homophobe? There is no room for freedom of thought on the left. You are either with us, or you're a nazi, which coincidentally means we can punch you. or you're a race traitor/uncle tom if you're black
Literally no, dude. That's another strawman created by right wing conservatives who get mad when their bigotry is called out. All of those words have meanings, and the fact that you refuse to deal in them is very telling. You use this as a shield, to deflect from the fact that there are bigots on the right. Also... that's literally the opposite of social regimentation. That's called free speech. If i wanted to, I could call you anything I wanted. That's free speech, the opposite of social regimentation, and the left defends free speech as well as uses it. You seem to have a problem with that.
- Forcible Suppression of Opposition? Yes. Beating people in riots, shouting down speakers at colleges, spitting on people, all you have to do is watch a video of a conservative giving a speech on campus and you will see them getting suppressed.
Again, incorrect on all counts. Shouting at people is not forceful, and most leftists don't do it. I have been to college lectures given by conservative,s they are all quite. You're following a sensationalist narrative that you don't want to break out of. Now at the same time, the right wing has committed 75% of all terror in the past decade, and is currently supporting the police officers that have explicitly attacking peaceful protesters, and even killed unrelated people. That is ideological censorship with the full backing of the state. That is fascism.
You say you're a free market conservative who doesn't support the government, but you just admitted you only fail to support it when it doesn't agree with you. You love power, the power of the military, the power of police, until it's turned against you. And we're getting to that point, because you all decided to enable an idiot who loves big government and get him into office. Mate, I want less government then you and even I see how silly you're being.
Also, - "Like I'd love to have socialized medicine because at least I vote for my healthcare policies, rather than some mega-corporation that can charge thousands of dollars for medicine that costs pennies. If anything, stronger police and military and things like voter ID's give the government more control"
That sentiment is shared by the majority of the populace. You are literally so out of touch you think what you just said was absurd. Jesus.
So based off the definition that isn't even accurate, you made up things that don't actually fit, and then called it "radical left" because you strawmanned arguments and didn't understand the very words you were using. That's a problem. I don't care about your other political opinions, because you've already lied. So let's try this again this time, and with evidence.
Say it with me - fascism is right wing.
Because mate, what about that is leftist? You seem to think that if it doesn't subscribe fully to your reductionist perfect world version of conservatism, then it isn't right wing. You realize the right wing existed before the constitution, and will continue to exist in places where the constitution isn't, right? What you just described is still something right wing people do, but you refuse to admit that because you've well and truly bought into your own bs, you've taken your own supply. That, what you jsut told me, was right wing. You can deny it all you want, but according to every definition, that was right wing. Right wing does not mean "no/less state," in fact right wing government were the original totalitarians, and leftists the original anti-statists. Hell, libertarianism is a leftist term. Or rather, was, until it was stolen.
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”
The history you believe is a lie. Hell, the right wing website that first promoted this myth, Mises.org, is named after a man who praised fascism and worked, voluntarily, in constructing a fascist economy.Your ideology is painted with blood and held together with an iron first, and while you claim to stand for freedom, and who knows you may even believe it, your political allies abuse you, and use you for their totalitarian gains.
The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable."
- Far-Right British National Party.
1
-
1
-
@Roberts Fawkes One, there being "different forms" of socialism does not mean that everything you dislike is a form of socialism. There are multiple forms of capitalism, and many economists that disagree on what capitalism even is, but few would call north korea capitalist. You see the issue? So what, Marx took some things from Hegel. So did many other philosophers, none of which had anything to do with fascism. And, indeed, marx also took from Smith. Does that make Adam Smith a fascist? Again, all of your "points" relate to the past. So what if Gentile used to idolize marx, he created an ideology that would be the foremost hater of socialism for the next century, and rejected leftism, marxism, and socialism in their entirety. Also, you're getting off point so I won't indulge you much further, but how much do you actually even know about the world Marx advocated for?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanrobertson9790 I'm sorry, what TIK are you referring to? Certainly not the one whose video we are commenting under, because he readily admits that his own historical and defititional sources do not agree with him. I, on the other hand, am happy to cite professional historical sources which do actually come to the correct conclusion, that the Nazis were in no form socialist. And you're far closer than some others are, but let me ask you this - what the hell belonged to the workers in nazi germany? Nothing. Everything belonged to the private owners working with the state, while the workers themselves had even less control over the products of their work than under a pure capitalist system. This video does not in any way, shape, or form "show that german industry was controlled by the state," especially given that the creator of this video considers any group outside of a family as its own state. In other words - your argument, even by your logic, falls flat, proving once again that TIK is full of ahistorical nonsense.
1
-
@alanrobertson9790 It seems that you're trying to go the simple route of saying, "well, if TIK "addresses" an argument, it can be dismissed." I hate to break it to you, but TIK simply pointing out his own flaws does only that. His argument has immense flaws. The conclusions of the actual historians he cites are not matters of opinions, but the conclusions that the evidence they wrote about and found suggest - that the nazis were in no way socialists. And, again, another flop of an argument. So let's just nip this next one in the bud - if a state, no matter which state, does not match the definition of a word commonly ascribed to it... then that word does not describe it. Simple. Literally all of the examples you gave of "socialist" states (USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba) have had vastly different political systems, economies, market systems, ect. And yes, none of them have at all conformed to the definition of socialism. And yeah, that's the end of it. Socialism does not and has not existed in those places, especially given some of them, like China and Venezuela, can only be called socialist by someone woefully uneducated in basic economics. Oh, and here's an amazing example of doublethink. So which is it, is socialism a utopia that can't be achieved, or a dystopia that has been achieved many times? You try to have it both ways in only a few lines and yet can't seem to even see the contradiction you're creating. Also, what do you mean "against people's self interest?" You realize that human self interest doesn't stop at the individual, right? In any case, your next argument doesn't logically follow. No, the nazis were not socialist, but literally all of the places and regimes you mentioned were not socialist, all for different reasons. To say that the nazis were the same type of "not socialist," is stupid, considering I could say the same of any anti-socialist group. To give an example, say, the USSR was not socialist because the people were not properly (or at all) represented in the strong state that controlled labor relations. They claimed to be working towards what socialism actually is, though. The nazis, on the other hand, didn't even claim that last bit. The "socialism" they wanted fit no prior or later definitions of socialism. You see the problem? Them not being socialist doesn't mean they're actually socialist, jesus. In any case, I would disagree that places in which workers have control have existed, they have, but if they've never existed that hurts your argument by proving that socialism hasn't be put in place, yes? And I mean, again, you're not helping your case here. "Maybe the closest we have are unions. (things socialists actually really like) Funny thing that the nazis (Who you somehow still think are socialists) completely got rid of those.
As for the "private owners" bit, again, I said that the private owners and state worked together. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, and the state allowed open competition and flexible working conditions and production in many areas. It is a myth
that the state had "full control," nor did it ever do so in the interest of any but the rich or politically powerful.
defer
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica Stop evading the original question with your circular attempt at distracting from the original fact that you can’t disprove the authenticity of Hitler’s favorable and positive statements on far-right anti-Socialism. It is uncontroversial fact they are authentic as per the is indisputable evidence provided by the most credible speeches, definitions, and experts i provided to you. You keep deflecting from both my correction on the missing context from your quotes, and the additional quotes I provided that quite clearly prove you wrong instantly. I agree, the National Archives are accurate, the problem is, your quotes are missing the surrounding context and definitions. Which makes you someone who wants to twist the facts of the National Archives (which readily hold proof of hitler's far-right anti-socialism) into your own ahistorical ideological zealotry. So why do you continue to defend your anti-socialist ally hitler? And why do you pretend to be a new person?
but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong.
So let's add some context, shall we?
Quotes from Hitler -
Quotes regarding the nazis -
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
"1. '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, even 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.
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica again you have conceded in your previous posts that the supportive , positive , favorable and praising statements on far-right anti-socialist ideology by Hitler are authentic as proof via the the original 122 Hitler speeches that are housed in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408. Website - Archives.gov
Phone: 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272.
And if you need more quotes, more history, more context... i'd be happy to provide.
You have admitted to this time and time again, that hitler was not a socialist, and that the statements you give are without context. When context is added, the full story is revealed. All you have is cherry picked words from a mass murdering propagandist. I have experts, actions, and context. You know you're a liar, and that hitler was less of a socialist than you. Thank you for admitting that :)
but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong.
So let's add some context, shall we?
Quotes from Hitler -
Quotes regarding the nazis -
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
"1. '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, even 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.
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
1
-
1
-
@saddamisthe691 False, in every way! First off, every fascist in history, at least the most prominent and notable ones, have recognized their position on the right. Hitler for example, is famously known as saying "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." Hitler also defined socialism as a pro-property, patriotic, and religious system, which is what he was referencing in your quote. Mussolini similarly said "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" So, you're either uneducated or a liar. Furthermore, libertarianism is statist, anarchism is left wing (which is why all anarchism is anti-capitalist) and "anarcho capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, and is even recognized as such by its founder, Rothbard saying "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." You're a liar.
1
-
@saddamisthe691 Your first quote does nothing to disprove that he was a right winger, as of course he was, he denied liberalism and upheld the state, he was an authoritarian rightist, simply put. And once again, you seem to have a simple issue with understanding that other people do not use the same definitions as you. After all, you quote mussolini saying that he defines socialism as corporatism, despite corporatism being an ideology that is right wing, and upholds private property and denies a state of collective ownership. But make no mistake, Mussolini was no fan of what could actually be called socialism. "After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251). "The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 253). And hitler himself did openly say it, that he despised the left and instead turned to the right, as he felt the left would inevitably lead to bolshevism and thus the complete destruction of civilization. Unless you are arguing that right wing socialists exist, he was not a socialist, nor a marxist. Mussolini, similarly, rejected all of socialism, and decided instead that a redefinition of the term was in order. And i'm afraid it was you who took the Rothbard quote out of context, as he was explaining, in a piece titled "Are Libertarians Anarchists?" that no, right wing capitalists could not be considered anarchists, even for the very reason that the historical and traditional definition of anarchism is anti-capitalist. "anarcho" capitalism is a contradiction of terms for this reason, which is why Rothbard proposed the title "nonarchism" for his ideology. And sure, let's look at hitler, the man that led a regime that gave privatization its name, the man who created the GLF, a privatized union, the man you cannot help but lie about. "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
1
-
@saddamisthe691
And yet again you've confused etymology for definitions, corporatism has the same meaning in italian that it does in english, and just like in english, the word corporation comes from words meaning guilds, syndicates, groups, ect. It is still, however, a right wing economic system. And you again say I took the rothbard quote out of context, but the longer quote (“We must turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines… we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists… we must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.”) literally proves my point just the same. Simply put, the "union" was literally run by private backers and existed to outlaw the right to collective bargaining, and give more power to the business owners, not those that a union traditionally represents, thus, it was a private union. And yes, the businesses were willing to work with the nazis for their own profit, that does not make them any less private, in fact literally every private economy in the world has examples of government contracts for private business, which that same private sector usually completes for its own profit. You call a private system not private simply because the privatization happens within the context of a relationship with a state, and this is simply false. The private businesses helped the nazis, and thus allied with the nazis, based off of their own profit motive, saying this system was not private means you are calling all trade deals not private because one party will always ally with another. The state giving business benefits is, again, another basic fact of exchange, and it does nothing to address, much less disprove, the private economy in question. Also, never called the nazis capitalists, they simply weren't socialists. The state, however, did not retain ownership in the vast majority of cases, actually the state usually gave over ownership to private business. Saying they had "no free market" is simply false.
1
-
@saddamisthe691
privatization is, quite literally, a government program. All privatization occurs when a state privatized a business, as in, made a government run or government owned piece of property into a piece of private business. This property that was privatized was usually left over public property from the Weimar years, as in, before the nazis took power. Private does not mean unhindered, as all capitalism is based on hindrances, however small. If a business is privatized and joins to work together with a state, it is still a private business, that was privatized. Worker councils were not "set up," councils of business owners were created to make deals with the private market, and contracts with guaranteed profit to those that helped the war effort. Privately.
1
-
@saddamisthe691
First off, the word you want to use here is "you're." Second off, i'm not redefining anything, i'm telling you a truth you don't want to hear and backing it up with facts. Privatization is defined as "the transfer of a business, industry, or service from public to private ownership and control." The GLF was a private union, in that is was controlled and owned by private individuals, to the detriment of the workers. While the nazi government did create contracts to incentivize companies to help them, they were allowed to refuse, and not everything they made directly helped the nazis, nor the nazi military. Private business collaborating with the state is still private, monopolies are still private, even if you don't like them. He allowed them to compete, and in fact, they competed far more as he provided concrete incentives for them to compete over. Privatization is literally a word used to describe a government policy of turning public property into private property, corporatism in Mussolini's sense is referring to actual corporations, not guilds or syndicates, as his actual economy was based on corporations and the state collaborating. None of this is redefinition, simply definitions you don't like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NostalgicGamerRickOShay
Jesus fuck, you have no idea what you're talking about. No, the political spectrum in question is objective, you just seek to deny it because it speaks to a truth you don't want getting out there. On the American spectrum, Fascism/Nazism are 100% right wing, with communism, anarchism, and socialism being 100% left wing. Fascism and Nazism have no rational place on the left, and no rational person would place them there. Trying to make up random propaganda doesn't change that fact. Fascism is right wing, like it's offshoot, nazism. They are the opposites of communism.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar.
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself.
A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. "
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily.
Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch.
The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it!
Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical.
German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view.
Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx.
Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NostalgicGamerRickOShay
Yeah, that isn't true though. See, the thing is, what you call the "American political spectrum" is no such thing. What you're referencing are pieces of propaganda that the right puts out to deny their foundation in authoritarianism. In reality, the "French political spectrum" is what you call the objective one. The American political spectrum as you reference it makes zero sense, and puts forms of socialism on the right and capitalism on the left. The "french" (objective) one is based on adherence to hierarchy. By even the American spectrum, Mussolini was not on the left, and certainly was not a leftist,(a concrete ideology, not just a position) He was a far right fascists, and admitted so openly. Also, you try to deflect again from the fact that Mussolini and Hitler didn't just oppose the socialist parties themselves, but the socialists within them, their allies, and nearby/sympathetic ideologies, all while allying with the right. Fascists aren't socialists, not sure how you got the opposite into your head. Mussolini was talking about opposing and rejecting the ideology of socialism and its members.
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily.
Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism
The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
This quote:
“National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1]
In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact.
Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out:
"Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. "
He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought.
Sources:
[1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159.
[2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica.
Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind.
The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis.
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie.
Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history.
Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.
Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption."
As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word.
Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it.
His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title.
The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gagi333
But i'm not, and you're proving that explicitly. Agreeing with a fanatic's video over the reality that their sources show does make you a fanatic, just like I pointed out. You pretty explicitly do appeal to authority, ignoring arguments someone makes against your agenda and recommending they watch a video they evidently already did, given their rebuttals of it, and your inability to rebut those points reinforces that. You pretty explicitly do put people in political corners, you automatically assert that anyone who disagrees with you or this fanatic's views is somehow a socialist, and yeah i'd say that's a pretty wild assumption to just make right off the bat. They don't put themselves in these corners, that's pretty much entirely the actions of you and TIK. No, most people disagreeing with this video aren't socialists, that's just something TIK says to make others more ready to ignore the arguments of others who more readily disprove him. I mean hell, this whole rant of yours proves your projection in your worldview. TIK, his video, and his audience spend most of their time saying how bad socialism is and how amazing capitalism is, rather than actually making historical arguments. I mean hell, that's the majority of his video and comment section, how do you not see that? You don't need to believe in pure unfettered capitalism to be a fanatic for it. No, I live in reality, and thus i've noticed that your statements don't at all line up with it. You could not be more wrong in all of your statements, and you know it. Why would I take your "advice," after everything else you've been wrong on? I've made a point you can't refute or even seemingly address, i've countered your wrong and laughable assumptions and you've been unable to prove any of my statements incorrect. No, I haven't made exclusively wrong and laughable assumptions, you're thinking of TIK. So stop wasting my time, go outside, grow up, and figure out that you couldn't be more wrong. There is no further point to engaging with you until after that.
1
-
@randomuser5609 In american school systems? Yes, I would say so. If anything here it's ironically the opposite, the mindset of proper education is being somewhat oppressed by some groups of conservatives,who want to go back to abstinence-only Sex-Ed and teaching creationism,though thankfully that faction is small.
I cannot argue for other countries either, but yeah, that's the case here.
I think that if that view is historically accurate, it should be taught,but I think if an equally historically accurate side is available they should be taught and contrasted as well.
I think that the facts should be shown unadulterated. If those facts favor one "side," than so be it, but they tend not to.
I think that if such views fit into historical discussions, then perhaps, but none of that really matters. If it's a debate about modern politics, or historical subjects, if both topics are equally true, they should both be presented, equally.
I don't think giving people a certain perspective on history or a certain lean in terms of understanding that history is a bad thing, as long as it's done in adherence to the facts, and done in away to make children support them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR You realize you just proved me right, correct? For one, both major parties supported gold standards, and the dems today support bank bailouts.
But speaking of bailouts, your lincoln quote fits perfectly. Not only did he put in place many restrictions, welfare reforms, (the biggest in our history before FDR) and public spending, but he advocated in an actual fair system that allowed people to be able to work their way up. The dems similarly give bailouts to the rich, and guess what? They want a fair system where people can actually work their way up. The dems suck on many,*many* things, but they're not the republicans, that seem to support an unfair system skewed for the upper classes. You also forget i said leftmost party, left of the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR Are you joking? He was literally a socialist. He was well known, outspokenly so, for being a socialist. He wanted reconstruction to end because he didn't like the south. I don't know what else to say here, you're just denying history at this point with literally zero evidence.
"he endlessly promoted utopian reforms such as socialism, vegetarianism, agrarianism, feminism, and temperance while hiring the best talent he could find."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley
https://archive.org/details/horacegreeleysne00tuch
Horace, again, was objectively a utopian socialist. He justified his hatred for slavery as a hatred of the very systems that created it,that being capitalism. He called for literal socialism, alongside other progressive reforms.It's telling you could link nothing,because even you know at this point you're rewriting history.
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR Mate, this is just more nonsense from you, utterly unsubstantiated.
What you seem to forget is that while Dana was a socialist, he was in favor of the republicans. However, by the time he had become writing the opinions you espouse... he had been writing for the Sun, and had become a democrat. Not your best point there.
Yes, quite the socialists he was. Before he became a dem.
You also seem woefully unaware of the point of the parties. For one, he wasn't a liberal republican, he was a radical republican, different factions. The liberal republicans received support for the dems, because unlike the radicals, they were in favor of putting off the abolition of slavery, or creating a compromise of abolition, as in not instantly but a longer and more stable process. Not only is your analysis of Greeley's beliefs incorrect, as is your definition of socialism.
The book I linked, like it or not, has evidence. I would be happy to link you more, but it seems your entire worldview is centered on you being correct, and denying history to do so. Hell, you call the author a socialist, presumably only because they disagree with you and want to teach history that you don't want to acknowledge. The point of the book is to teach history, the point of your argument is to warp and obscure history. I just provided you proof of him being a utopian socialists (as well as many other socialists in the republican party, then and later) and your response was "No." He lost his election because he wanted to abolish slavery right then and there, which was an unpopular idea at the time. I don't care how "troubling" you find history, it's true.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/horace-greeley-and-other-pioneers-of-american-socialism/oclc/788815
https://books.google.com/books?id=SF0rWO4y-JYC&pg=PT184#v=onepage&q&f=false
Horace pretty clearly didn't have the support from most dems, because as you proved, the dems were the right wing and conservative party at the time. He quite literally was a radical republican, and wanted instant abolition. Do you think that idea was favorable among the right wing conservative democrats?
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR Exactly. They were two military leaders who were personally invited to help within the union. Of course they were military leaders, but they proliferated their views in america, and at the same time were openly accepted by republican leadership. Would the republicans do that today, I wonder?
So, Dana started out a republican (and a socialist) and became a conservative as he became a democrat
Greeley was a staunch abolitionist who had support within the readical republican faction, and quite literally wrote for and created the first republican paper, so of course he had their support. Republicans did have other goals at the time, like the expansion of welfare and government regulation as well as major spending on public services, as well as being entirely liberal for the time in a social sense, with Lincoln even calling the act of freeing slaves a liberal one. It was not founded as a conservative party at all, in fact some of the first republicans came from a disbanded commune somewhat nearby, it was founded as a counter to the conservative act of owning slaves, and the pro-business libertarianism of the southern robber barons.
1
-
@IL NGR Wow you can't keep a straight point can you. You literally just said Horace wasn't supported by the republicans, and now you call him a leader of the republican party? Stay consistent, mate. It's also very interesting that those people, at the time, were considered politically liberal abolitionists, and was founded by many of the founders of the conservative party, countering your idea of a conservative republican founding. And your own source both answers your questions and proves you wrong. They wanted to end reconstruction because they felt it was an overreach and no longer necessary, though they supported the original efforts.
Horace was best known for being a radical republican, though he was a nominee for the liberal republicans, simply because he was anti-grant, as he thought he was corrupt.
And yes, are you surprised? Lincoln had racist views as well. This was the 1800s, racism and white supremacy were the norm, the concept of equal rights was still over a century away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR Your statements, again, show your ignorance. Horace disagreed with the liberal republicans on many issues, but it's not because he was for a "smaller government" as much as he was for not making the advancements that grant proposed, which would by proxy lead to a "bigger government." As well as that, but you know "bigger government" doesn't mean socialism, right? Hell, some of the first socialists in the world didn't even want a government, period. I added those other things to show he was more socially liberal, not that he was a socialist, but that book about him proves that he did indeed fit that category of socialist.
That quote does not at all prove that, it proves he was against unearned money and scheming in private buisness.
Greeley was a pre-marx utopian socialist, but your analysis of him, as well as your analysis of socialism, is wholly flawed. Also, "anarcho corporatist" is an oxymoron, completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR "More research?" You dismissed an actual work of a historian as some sort of socialist propaganda, and then quoted wikipedia articles out of context. That is not research. That is denial and cherry picking.
What you seem not to realize is the contradictions in your argument. You claim that the republicans were founded on a mantle of conservatism, and yet by actually doing research you find that the republicans,and especially the liberal and radical republicans, were far more leftwing than the democrats at the time. After all, their goals were "the destruction of slavery and second the destruction of Confederate nationalism. "As the act of slavery was then considered a conservative institution, both by republican leadership like lincoln, and by the populace generally.The dems, on the other hand, supported their entire ideology on the ideas of conservative nationalism, and the idea that the government was overreaching into their lives and land. ". Northern Democrats were in serious opposition to Southern Democrats on the issue of slavery; Northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas, believed in Popular Sovereignty—letting the people of the territories vote on slavery. The Southern Democrats (known as "Conservative Democrats"), reflecting the views of the late John C. Calhoun, insisted slavery was national."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Republican_Party_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#1828%E2%80%9361
Greeley outspokenly hated the democrats, and largely lost because of the critically low support he got from them in the elections.
"Poor results for the Democrats in those states that had elections for other offices in September and October presaged defeat for Greeley, and so it proved.""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley
Greeley was a one issue man during the civil war. He was against slavery. He was still in favor of many of the other policies republicans were for, and spoke for them on quite a few issues. Greeley was a Radical Republican, that’s who he agreed with more.
He was a socialist, as I already proved to you, but you seem completely unwilling to even realize what socialism means, largely because of your own bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley
https://archive.org/details/horacegreeleysne00tuch
https://www.worldcat.org/title/horace-greeley-and-other-pioneers-of-american-socialism/oclc/788815
https://books.google.com/books?id=SF0rWO4y-JYC&pg=PT184#v=onepage&q&f=false
By doing actual research your argument is deemed completely invalid
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IL NGR No, it's nothing to do with the "european" form of conservatism, it's do do with what conservatism actually, you know, objectively means. There was nothing nationalist about america's founding as a nation, we in fact tried to avoid such sentiments.
But that's your nonsense version of conservatism , which doesn't actually translate into what the term has always meant, and been used to mean.
When he said he was conservative, that may very well be what he was referencing, but you must also not forget that by now there already was the association between left = liberal and right = conservative.
This party, thus, was not conserving anything but the union, and was moving forward liberally with the abolition of slavery.
Obviously the platform has moved on as time has changed, but it has largely migrated places, from being the leftmost party to the rightmost party.
America tried to be that, and continually failed, until now, where we realized we can just pretend it's the case and move on.
Not only is that not true, but it seems the modern conservatives don't quite agree with you there.
In any other society it would be called one, because liberal as americans use it is utter nonsense and politically devoid of life and meaning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radagast7200 I think you had a misspelling problem there, the n@zis were not socialists, is what you meant. I know in your paranoid mind you want every fact you don't like to have come from some kind of ideologically inclined conspiracy or mass hypocrisy, but that simply is not the case. There is no trick, no falsehood, no ideological scheme. There is only the single fact that the n@zis were not, and never were, socialists. Of course the n@zis were right wing, they were pretty much as right wing as you can be, not counting hardcore social darwinists or religious monarchists, ironically both groups the n@zis took from. This is a fact that all historians agree upon, only denied by ahistorical extremists. Heck, no matter the political position, even rational right wing historians are happy to tell you the truth: the n@zis were not socialists. Hardly some "socialist trick." I don't think you understand much of anything, honestly. Well, perhaps you unconsciously understand that if you were to stop laughing, if you were to listen to the historical arguments or even read an actual historian, you'd know how objectively wrong you are. You know you can't change a historian's mind - because you're wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericharmon7163
Citation isn't name dropping someone you think agrees with you, especially when you don't even know what you're talking about with invoking said person, such as you invoking the socialist protesters that China killed... while trying to say socialism is bad. You have yet to provide any citation, and both me and you know it. Child, you don't know what the word postmodernism means, you don't know what socialism is, and you don't understand basic history. "TIK cites every source?" Actually, every historical source TIK cites agrees that the nazis were by no definition socialist. That's the difference - you took him on his word, instead of reading the sources directly. The nazis are right wing, by definition. How does that "not add up?" Socialism doesn't come from Germany, but even if it did, that point is nonsense, as Germany had been filled with anti-socialists for years. You didn't research anything yourself, which is why you repeat back TIK's talking points without ever understanding them. And yes, I hate to break it to you, the biggest consumer product economy in the world, one of the countries with the highest amounts of billionaires, is not socialist. the only people who claim that China is socialist, despite them being one of the biggest participants in capitalism today, is the chinese government and the conservatives stupid enough to believe them. China is state capitalist, private enterprise which is helped and guided by a state which supports it, so said private enterprise profits far more. State ownership is not the definition of socialism, and China does not have a system of state ownership. You don't understand even basic economic terminology. I find it funny how your definition of socialism makes all modern and historical nations socialist. I find it even funnier that you think Venezuela is socialist, despite their 70% private economy.
1
-
@ericharmon7163 Let's see what the historians that TIK cites actually say.
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
"According to Roger Griffin, fascism can be defined as a revolutionary species of political modernism originating in the early twentieth century whose mission is to combat the allegedly degenerative forces of contemporary history (decadence) by bringing about an alternative modernity and temporality (a ‘new order’ and a ‘new era’) based on the rebirth, or palingenesis, of the nation. Fascists conceive the nation as an organism shaped by historic, cultural, and in some cases, ethnic and hereditary factors, a mythic construct incompatible with liberal, conservative, and communist theories of society. The health of this organism they see undermined as much by the principles of institutional and cultural pluralism, individualism, and globalized consumerism promoted by liberalism as by the global regime of social justice and human equality identified by socialism in theory as the ultimate goal of history, or by the conservative defense of 'tradition' (Anton Shekhovtsov "Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir" ‘Fascism and the Far Right Series’ p. xxi-xxii).
"'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251).
"Fascism, by contrast [to conservatism, liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16).
"This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
and so on.
1
-
@ericharmon7163
You appear to have neglected to read my post, child. All of his historical sources, even the ones written by conservatives, capitalists, ect, agree that the nazis were not socialists. The sources he has that claim otherwise are not historical, but from right wing think tanks with a vested interest in distancing themselves from the right wing nazis. He isn't being objective, he's denying reality with extremely flimsy basis, and it's painful to watch. According to the historians, to the history itself, and to the words and actions of the nazis contrasted with the words and actions of socialists like Marx, it is apparent that the nazis could not be considered socialists in any way. And i'm sorry that you want to deny the entire basis of classification we're using, but it doesn't work that way. Yes, the political spectrum is not a single line, but that single line is a part of it, and ideologies are indeed left or right wing. Communism is left wing. Anarchism is left wing. Nazi ideology is right wing. And again, you haven't actually read my posts, have you? China isn't socialist, since the 80s they have been an entirely state capitalist system, that uses the state to guarantee profit for the majority private economy. Private property, banks supplying capital, and foreign capitalist help are antithetical to socialism in all cases. You sound just like TIK, thinking you're smarter than historians when you don't even understand the argument you're making. Because you can't get out of the way of your own biased worldview.
1
-
1
-
@Boy10Dio Mate, you use terms that literally contradict themselves interchangeably. do you not see the issue with that, or do you not know what the words you are saying actually mean? All of your "evidence" is anecdotal, it's ideological, and it doesn't actually even make internal sense.
You can make up whatever dumbass boogeyman group you want, but that group doesn't actually translate into real life. But sure, let's look at your actual claims.
I would just call you an idiot for this one, because it's blatantly false.
And literally no one alive would say "i don't want fathers back in the housholds," but the other things you are proposing are literally the things taking them out.
The self admitted socialists and marxists actually agree with you on the father bit, but you couldn't be bothered to deal with that yourself. The only victim class is one under capitalism.
And yes, this group of people that I can not verify even exist totally identified themselves as the one thing you don't like.
And this is just further proof that this is something you made up. First off, we know who actually ran the plantations, and they were conservatives, so it seems that you've managed to associate yourself with that group, brilliant. But more importantly... why would a marxist or socialist care if you're a democrat or not? They don't like the democrats at all, because they say they're just republicans painted blue that serve the interests of corporate elite and sabotage the left, same as the republicans. And you do realize the republican party is 93% white, and that trump was literally sued for discriminatory practices, right? Hell mate, if we're treating anecdote like evidence, I can tell you all about the time I was trying to have an online chat with a trump supporter, and after saying I had noticed how race relations seemed to be getting worse, with my experiences, he proceeded to spam me with racial slurs and racist assumptions ofr literally hours. OR that time I called out a trump supporter online for saying sexist things, to which he called me a tr*nny, said i should kill myself, and sent me graphic photos of gore. Those are the people you are allied with, no?
This isn't the last time you'll make this mistake, but you know that liberal and socialist are terms that cannot be applied to the same person, right? They are opposites, even, you yourself would most likely be a liberal by any proper definition. In any case, every time I have heard someone say that they were "censored for providing good arguments which go against the norm," nearly all of the time it's because they lost an argument and told a dude to hang himself, and then got pissed off when whatever platform didn't want to deal witrh their shit. I mean really now, you're blaming the actions of massive corporations on... socialists? Why not blame capitalism, where you have no rights in those systems as a result of it.
If by telling people to explore them you mean calling everyone you don't like somehow a nazi, marxist, and liberal, then I can see why you get some backlash, because none of that makes a lick of sense.
And there you go calling random people nazi apologists, which is funnily enough, something Jordan Peterson has tried to do, by attempting to validate race science, agreeing in the importance of a national mythology, and even trying to explain away hitler's intentions as anything other than genocidal by nature. But please, keep both assuming someone is a socialist and a nazi for calling you out on citing a man that has not only been wrong, but dangerously wrong, in other areas. And i'm sorry, petty insult fights aren't what the nazi party did at their zenith, what they did was label anyone who disagreed with them politically and enemies of the state, kidnapped people (usually protesters or political dissidents) of the street under the pretense of suspected "terrorism" (thought crimes) and had a populace that was largely complicit in it. Seem familiar?
And your russia example isn't the greatest, for a few reasons. One, define socialism for me. Let's see how off base you get. Two, saying something exists online is not evidence, and as I can not verify it, it isn't a good example either. Asserting that it came to violence or something is something you have not yet proved. And finally, do you even know what socialists actually want?
I would agree, nazi activity does't start at gassing jewish people, but it also has already been found where it started, and for the answers on that would recommend reading "Ur-Fascism," by Umberto Eco. It's a short essay, you can easily find PDF's online. In it, the author (Who survived fascist italy) explains that movements of fascism, of nazism, always start in similar ways. They are right wing, they are ultra nationalistic, they are obsessed with the identity of the ingroup, they worship hierarchy, they despise academia and media, and so on. Essentially, by reading the essay, you get a comprehensive guide to the mind of a trump supporter, except it wa written years before he even ran.
And again, misusing the term liberal, which is to be expected, but I cannot verify your supposedly perfect arguments, so count me as skeptical.
And I love when conservatives bring this up, it shows how out of touch they are with reality.
1. The person that said that runs a charity, not an international movement. Most people who shout the slogan or pick up signs or go to protests don't even know who she is.
2. For that matter, how can the words of one person transalte to all? Why does calling for less police burtality mean marxism? Why can only marxists support it? And in the charity, are you seriously suggesting everyone they hire or employ must be a marxist? It's silly.
3. The KKK did something very similar, as did older conservatives, call things like the civil rights movement or interracial relationships communist. History is one big circle, apparently.
1
-
@Boy10Dio I did address that, in a very long post you seem to be ignoring. Every racist, and I mean every single one, i've ever dealt with is on the political right.I have no doubt one can exist on the left, but I have yet to meet them. Every time i've been shut down in conversation, blocked, ignored, or spammed, and even once beat up in real life, it's been because of an intolerant individual on the political right. Lefties don't call me slurs. Lefties don't beat me up. Lefties don't shut me down. I disagree with some leftists far more than I disagree with some republicans, but they still treat me with respect. You gave me anecdotal evidence you now seem afraid to substantiate, which i'm sure makes sense to you. You know, for being on the front of both the abolition and civil rights movements, you seem to be under the impression that socialists are racist. Perhaps it's a sign of deflection? Projection? Denial?
The funny thing is, I have addressed this, over and over again. But you won't admit it, because that means you'd have to take a good, honest look at yourself in a mirror, and question the validity of your ideas. And I hate to admit it mate, but no matter how much you hate dems, they aren't socialists. Policies pushed by socialists in American history that come to mind are abolition of slavery, free speech, civil and equal rights for minorities and women, a two day weekend, 8 hour work day, and so on. But again, of course you'll attempt to deny this. Mate, there are police in the country right now that are abducting innocent protesters, not reading them their rights, and treating them like non-citizens. There are police beating journalists, mothers, and Marine Veterans alike. There are police that have shot out peoples eyes, broken their skulls, shattered their bones, cut them and shoved them, and even in some cases killed them. Being told to shut up online is not censorship. The police that the republicans and political right are attempting to embolden and give more power to are actually censoring people, actually violating your first amendment rights, actually acting like the brownshirts in the rise of nazi germany. This isn't some dude online blocking you, or even a corporation deleting your comment, this is full scale censorship and fascist power expansion. And it's being done on your side, all while you're ignoring the Constitution and complaining that other people dare use their free speech to criticize the false ideas you put forward, and the malicious narratives you are trying to spread. It's to be expected, honestly.
"You can't have capitalism without racism. It's impossible today for a white person to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism. And if you find a person without racism... usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is socialism."
- Malcolm X.
"Something is wrong with the economic system of our nation. Something is wrong with capitalism. Maybe America must move towards a Democratic Socialism. We must develop programs that will drive the nation towards the realization of the need for a guaranteed annual income."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
"We think you are strangely and disastrously remiss in the discharge of your official and imperative duty with regard to the emancipating provisions of the new Confiscation Act. Those provisions were designed to fight Slavery with Liberty. They prescribe that men loyal to the Union, and willing to shed their blood in her behalf, shall no longer be held, with the Nations consent, in bondage to persistent, malignant traitors, who for twenty years have been plotting and for sixteen months have been fighting to divide and destroy our country. Why these traitors should be treated with tenderness by you, to the prejudice of the dearest rights of loyal men, We cannot conceive."
- Horace Greeley
1
-
1
-
@JesusFriedChrist I hate to clue you in, but this is all nonsense i've already disproven. If you want to spread your brainwashing, do it to someone less educated on the subject. Ad hominem attacks don't work here. Nobody cares about your new buzzwords, nor do they care about you calling everyone you disagree with a marxist. Hitler did the same. The philosophical underpinnings of the ideology of whatever the hell a "Woke Tumblr Marxist" is has nothing to do with hitler, even this video admits as such. Your definitions of left Vs right is absurd. By your definition, i'm left wing. The thing is, you say "if collectivism is left wing, and individualism is right wing..." i'll stop you right there, it isn't. The first ideology to even be called right wing was Monarchism, a heavily anti-individual ideology. And what was the left doing at the same time? Well, constructing anarchism! Anarchism is still a leftist, anti-capitalist ideology, and it has been since the beginning. Left vs right is not based on collectivism vs individualism not in the slightest, or else many left wingers would be right wing and vice versa. Also, communism is a stateless society, so according to you it would be right wing, right? Libertarianism used to describe left wingers as well, so... You see how fast your "logic" falls apart?
Your entire statement is based on a bizarre hypothetical you offer up with no explanation. "If right wing is individual..." It isn't, and you provide no proof that it is, whereas i've provided proof to the contrary.
Hitler's idol was Mussolini. And you would be right that he, and Gentile, used to be socialists. However, that by itself is useless. Is Sowell a Marxist? Was Kropotkin a Monarchist? Is TIK a socialist? No, origins mean next to nothing. Fascism was never ment to be an expansion of socialism, it was meant to be a rejection of it. Socialism is not authoritarian by design. Fascism is not collectivist, because it does not care about the collective, only the ingroup. Socialism is the exact opposite of oligarchical. And we've already been over authoritarian/totalitarian.
I always love when people include this little thing at the bottom, where they try to act intellectually superior, assuming that I won't respond and prove them wrong. Would you like me to show you what they actually said? How they were seen even back then? How you are objectively correct? You're here calling me a pawn, all while ignoring the very things you're telling me to search. And who is "they?" Is it jewish people? Jesus. Anyways, some quotes.
"[Fascism] preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century"
- Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
- Adolf Hitler
"" 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... 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."
- Adolf Hitler
""Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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
"We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
- Adolf Hitler
"'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the J*w 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.
"
- Adolf Hitler.
""For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
- George Orwell
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip I know, i'm literally in the comment section of that video as well, which is why I made the reference to him making videos on the subject. And of course, in his videos he doesn't, he still tries to maintain at least a veneer of professionalism, at least in there. However, given that he's called nearly everything on earth socialism, and seems to conflate that a lot with fascism, it is a potential issue. That, and he called youtube fascist. Oh, yeah, and devaluing a term for insulting banter isn't a good thing. It's odd, I know in concept he doesn't like how those terms are thrown around, but he seems fine himself with throwing around tons of them, and sometimes worse terms.
1
-
@StarlasAiko don't entirely disagree with most of your points, but I do disagree with your conclusion, and i'll address the last segment specifically.
Socialism does pre-date marx, that is correct, but not exactly in the way you make mention of. For one, while The Republic did contain socialist ideals of a sort, it was far from a full socialist piece, and more an inspiration. On top of that, you then make a common conflation, which is marxism and socialism. It isn't too important, but marxism is not an economic or social system, it's a method of historical understanding through materialist dialectics. Marxism wouldn't tell you how to build a world, and indeed it's influenced plenty of non-socialists. As well as that, I will contest that "national socialism" is socialism at all. The thing is, while socialism does predate, and even can go against marxism, it still had common ideas. Ideas that fascism, or national socialism, never picked up on. Your "unifying definition" shows this better than I could have, in order to count the two as the same thing one has to make an excessively vague definition. "Socialism is the practice of social engineering in the pursuit of an ideological Utopia through defining which needs to be destroyed without regard for costs and sacrifices." That just isn't true. Are, say, anarchists now socialists? What about socialists that preach acceptance, reform, or non-violence? And what is so utopian about the idea that a worker could democratically control their workplace, we have it already, albeit in individual businesses and not a national system. On top of that, fascism doesn't want a utopia. It wants a constant struggle, to assert its supremacy in all forms. Socialism is egalitarian, promotes equality, doesn't want a utopia, but wants progress. Fascism seeks to regress, and literally thinks that the "irrational" idea of equality will lead to the end of humanity. How can those be compared?
Fascism is not collectivism, the two are not wholly synonymous. All ideology forms collectives. Religion is collectivist, is that now fascism as well? You can have individualist socialism. In short, while I agree with many of your above statements about left vs right (though I disagree with how you define them) and the ganging meanings of words, I don't see how your conclusion can logically follow from what you say above. Anyway, thank you for the nuance, and I hope to hear what you have to say on what i've brought up here, if you have any clarifications, rebuttals, objections, ect. Have a good one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
...but, they did? The people who resisted the democratic order to put hitler in power were conservatives, the people who ran the economies of both the italian and austrian fascists were open capitalists, and hitler's regime was funded by foreign capitalist industrialists. The few socialists that fell for hitler's rhetoric had no idea what he'd actually do in office, and when they found out, either abandoned the party or abandoned socialism. Because, in the end, the principles of a socialist and the principles of hitler were directly countered. Because in principle, in execution, and in fact, hitler's principles were anti socialist, regardless of what anyone called anyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 Your "schooling" is open revisionism, though. Sorry for that fact.
And I hope you realize how disgusting you are by implying that a jewish moderate capitalist politician (bernie) is at all comparable to hitler. Also, bernie fans tend to be against "vote blue no matter who," and I don't think you understand that hitler wasn't elected democratically.
Lenin and Stalin may have been authoritarian dictators, but they weren't fascists.
But at least you can admit that the nazis were open, far right fasicsts.
Yes, mussolini did used to belong to a socialist party. And then he disagreed with the socialist party because of his open nationalist and anti-socialist sentiments, and when he got into power he appointed classical liberals to run the economy and outlawed the socialist party he used to belong to, all while openly writing that his ideology was far right and rejected socialism and marxism in all forms.
And yes, as you point out, the spanish civil war happened precisely because progressives, anarchists, and leftists have a fundamental difference in ideology with eachother.
The cultural revolution under Mao was again, authoritarian, but not fascist. One could argue modern day china is similar to fascism, but this only happened later, and the left in china protested it, and was then silenced.
You can keep going, and I can keep correcting you. Every one of your examples has been false, proved my points, or is presented on evidence.
You're showing your own ignorance, child. Your historical revisionism will not work on me.
1
-
@elijahrivera2858
Well, i'm using lines against you precisely because you didn't provide any evidence, data, or historical arguments for your assertions. And you proudly continue that with this latest statement. Authoritarianism is as old as civilization, it predates fascism by centuries. Educate yourself.
I think I understand fascism a hell of a lot better than the guy comparing bernie to hitler.
You used bernie, despite the fact that he is a jewish man who lost family in the holocaust, simply because you have no understanding of modern politics.
Again. Your assertions are provided wholly without evidence. Fascist policies are right wing policies. Every known fascist has wholly rejected socialism, a fact you seem to ignore. Just because you don't like a policy doesn't make it socialist, child. I know you want to excuse the actions of fascist dictators and the far right ideology behind them, but you should at least try to use facts when doing so, or else you just prove me right.
But if you want to live in your own fantasy land, than go ahead. Just know that you lied, never cited a thing, and presented yourself as a literal child who didn't even know which "your" to use in your way to losing the debate. you can admit you're wrong now, your words have done as much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 And how am I a liar, champ? That's a lot of information to admit what I just told you - the conservatives conspired with the nazis to upend the democratic process.
Hitler never won a fair election.
"The conservative elite were the old ruling class and new business class in Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s they became increasingly frustrated with the Weimar Republic’s continuing economic and political instability, their lack of real power and the rise of communism. They believed that a return to authoritarian rule was the only stable future for Germany which would protect their power and money.
The first move towards this desired authoritarian rule was Hindenburg’s increasing use of Article 48. Between 1925-1931 Article 48 was used a total of 16 times. In 1931 alone this rose to 42 uses, in comparison to only 35 Reichstag laws being passed in the same year. In 1932, Article 48 was used 58 times.
The conservative elite’s second move towards authoritarian rule was helping the Nazi Party to gain power. The conservative elite and the Nazi Party had a common enemy – the political left.
As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right, the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite.
Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice.
As Hitler’s votes dwindled in the November 1932 elections, the conservative elite knew that if they wanted to use Hitler and the Nazis to destroy the political left, they had to act quickly to get Hitler appointed as chancellor.
Von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg (President Hindenburg’s son) met secretly and backed Hitler to become chancellor. A group of important industrialists, including Hjalmar Schacht and Gustav Krupp, also wrote outlining their support of Hitler to President Hindenburg.
The support of these figures was vital in Hindenburg’s decision to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Once elected, the conservative elite soon realised that they had miscalculated Hitler and his intentions."
You are such a liar.
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 But... that literally isn't true. He mocked the policy specifically because he never intended to pass it, and he never did. Which marks yet another lie on your long and growing list of lies. He didn't pass socialist policies, that's the counter. Also, no, abolishing private property is not "literally socialism and communism." That would make monarchists socialists, which is completely absurd. I'm not trolling, i'm telling you the truth. Taxing, regulation, and private property aren't what makes a place socialist or capitalist, champ. The fascists were far right, and your refusal to admit this fact just proves you're some kind of troll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@illusionclassicrock6742 Ohhh, point 13? You mean the one he never implemented, and admitted to his party officials in private that he had no intention of implementing?
"
In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books):
https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’
‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’
At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism.
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme.
‘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?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’
Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": https://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php
"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 Supposedly "free" market capitalism is anti-individualist. But yes, capitalism is right wing. Those who argue against capitalism tend to argue against the state, as capitalism is impossible without an authoritarian state, but then again you should know that. And right wing states, by far, have been the most deadly, genocidal, and overall desctructive of any state, in all of time. And you don't seem to realize that modern right wingers are authoritarians, just like they've always been. Modern capitalism is right wing, and wants to be authoritarian. That's pretty basic stuff.
State capitalism is less leftist than you. Which is to say, its rightist, 100%
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 Well yeah, I agree, you are a holocaust denier. If you don't understand how that's the case, then i'm sorry, but you're not smart enough to read your own words. Really not my problem.
And here you are, literally saying that the fascist powers on the side of the spanish civil war were better than the anarchist powers. In other words - literally supporting fascism.
All you rightists do is infight. I'm sorry that you and the nazis agree on so much and seem happy when eachother are in power (because modern nazis still support the right.)
Oh, and sorry, how do anarchists and nazis agree on so much?
What do I agree with the nazis on?
I'm not far right, traditionalist, corporatist, nationalist, hierarchical, anything the nazis are. You seem prone to all of those things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 But again - that isn't true and i've already proved it. You know this, so why do you keep deflecting back to nazi propaganda of yours i've already disproven?
The Reichtag fire degree of 1933 did not eliminate private property or trade, in fact there was constant trade and comprtition even between nazi-loyal companies. All the decree did was remove the right to private property, which meant the government could take it if it wanted. However, the government chose not to in most cases.
Nazi point 14 was not only never established, there was never even a plan to establish it, and Hitler condemned the point with his own party chiefs.
Removing a right to private property does not mean removing private property. I can, say, remove your right to healthcare (like in the US) that doesn't mean that you can't just get healthcare, it just means it isn't guaranteed. The nazis still privatized hundreds of businesses and kept competition going. There was even a bidding war over who would get to build nazi concertation camps, and the company that manufactured the gas used in the holocaust is still around today, un-nationalized.
All of your and TIK's arguments were destroyed, not only by me, but by his own sources. Cry harder.
https://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-trilogy-Richard-Evans/dp/0140911677
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 Ok, but that in literally no way abolishes private property, nor does it make it "impossible" to own property. The government, right now, has the ability to buy your land from you. And yet, you still own it, do you not?
Again, the fact is that the removal of private property rights did almost nothing to the existence of private property or trade as a whole, as both existed and even flourished in cases under the nazis. Fixing prices, removing any "right" to private property, those have nothing to do with socialism or fascism, in fact both exist under capitalism. Also, socialism and fascism are incompatible, as has been provento you before.
Hitler and the nazis werenot socialists, this is a fact you deny only because you agree with the nazis.
Of course I saw that, and funnily enough, I already fact checked him - unlike you. I agree, your counter argument is eliminated by all of TIK's sources... which he admits disagree with him and prove you wrong :)
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858
If you think the existence of taxes means that you don't own anything you buy, then you clearly don't understand the concept or ownership or private property, and also do not understand the basis of capitalism, which has never been incompatible with taxation. In other words, i'm sorry to have to break this to you yet again, you're making up definitions for things you don't understand to try to rewrite history because of how clearly history proves you wrong.
The elimination of private property never happened, again, there was still open trade and competition in between even nazi-friendly businesses. Trade unions were abolished and their leaders killed. I'm sorry, but these are all objective, basic facts.
I know you didn't actually read any of TIK's sources because they all plainly point out that Hitler was quite fond of giving government property back to nazi-friendly industrialists and letting them compete with eachother for the sake of "efficiency."
And as we've been over, socialism and fascism are incompatible, and what you're describing is not either of them. They had a market. That is pretty damn basic stuff, and it is sad you don't understand it.
Your ignorance proves that you really are a fan of the nazis. If you ran away from leftism because you can't handle historical facts, that's your fault. Stop being ideological, start being objective.
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 I'm sorry, but Keynesians are literally right wing, they're capitalists. This is the problem, you just lump everyone you disagree with onto the "left" and refuse to listen to facts on what that term actually means.
And i'm sorry, but that doesn't prove... any of that? Even assuming that those numbers are at all accurate, that doesn't ake the government fascist for just... existing. Jesus, as we've been over, fascism is not just authoritatianism.
The supporters of anti-establishment causes the vast majority of the time are left wing. The educated, the scientists, the historians, the left wing actually listens to what they have to say instead of doing what you are, which is dismissing them because you don't agree with the facts they tell you. I mean, one of the cores of nazi ideology is literally a rejection of academia... like you're doing. Grass roots media? Usually leftists. Those who don't want an oppressive government or market? leftists. You really don't know what you are talking about.
They quite literally are, and you're too ideologically blind to see it.
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858
"No taxation without representation" pretty clearly doesn't just mean "no taxation" dude. Which is why the first capitalists and those that influenced them were not only fine with taxation, but encouraged it... with representation.
I am objective, and you'll notice unlike you, I cited sources. All you do is go back to repeating the same old assertions over and over without providing any proof, examples, anything. The nazis abolished trade unions and allowed for open competition in business. These are the facts in TIK's sources, sorry you haven't read any of them. And as we've been over, you don't know what the definition of socialism is.
And this part is objectively false. Take ford, for example. He never backed the soviets. He literally opened up businesses on soviet land in an effort to convince the citizens that socialism was a failure. He waged an ideological war against leftism, and openly endorsed the nazis. Having private property, not just private property rights but private property at all instead of socially owned property, discounts any regime from being socialist. The nazis weren't socialism, and they didn't want socialism.
and I LITERALLY REBUTTED THIS YESTERDAY. The reichtag fire degree in 1933 only ever got rid of the right to private property, but did nothing to impact those who already had it. Again - there is no right to healthcare in america, and yet people get healthcare. There was no right to private property in nazi germany, and yet it existed, plentifully. We went over this already, and you seem to not remember that I already proved you wrong on this front. Why are you such a supporter of modern nazis?
argumentation
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahrivera2858 I'm sorry, but I already refuted this "point" days ago. Taking away the right to private property, in no way, abolishes private property. Again, we in the US have no right to healthcare, and yet doctors exist, and exist in excess. Private property existed in nazi germany, and in fact, the nazi regime on numerous occasions spoke out in favor of different rich industrialists and the supposed "efficiency" of private property. So you are just overwhelmingly wrong and don't understand the Reichtag fire degree of 1933 or the concept of free trade or private property. I entertained your arguments and am not convinced that the nazis or Hitler were socialists. They were far right anti-Socialists. This is, as I have proven, an objective fact.
Also, child, there's more than capitalism and socialism, I have never called the nazis capitalists... they're further right than capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drain_Life_Archive I'm sorry the facts hurt you so much, but it has been well known since even before hitler's war that his party was far right, anti socialist, and deeply traditionalist and conservative. There is quite literally a century worth of evidence for this, and yet none to the contrary. Funny, that. This is pretty basic stuff. As for doing your own research, I would really recommend trying that, I used to politically agree with children like you... And then I did my own research. At the very least, you should watch TIKs video, most importantly the part where he admits all of his historical sources disagreed with his conclusion. After that, maybe you should read the sources yourself and, like so many before you, realize that maybe when the vast, vast majority of historians say the same thing for nearly a century... It just might be true.
So go ahead, ask him to ban me. I think we all know his words hold no credence and to silence the truth would only be digging him a deeper grave. In all honesty, the ones he would do best to silence would be his own supporters. They're so hilariously confident in his lies that TIK just feel embarrassed when people like you are so easily disproven. TIK is, objectively, incorrect, and I guess you're just going to have to live with that.
1
-
1
-
@valenrn8657 And yet more lies.
The democratic socialists of america is, quite literally, a counter-party to the democrats specifically because so many feel that the democrats bend only to capitalist interests. And of course you'll try to assert china is anything but corportatist. Funny.
The "race neutrality test" ignores any and all systemic or historical concerns, and thus, is not neutral in the slightest. Things like the George Floyd protests happened specifically because the democrats bend to right wing views on policing all too often, which is why there are many more "Floyds" in more right wing states.
There is, of course, no stereotyping against white people according to critical race theory, nor does the existence of "model minorities" address this in the slightest.
Racial socialism, by definition, cannot exist, and the entire right wing is by definition racist as it constantly fails the race neutrality test.
And I really couldn't care less what nazi apologists and racists like yourself have to say :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 In reality, when faced with undeniable evidence, the only ones who go "well that's just your opinion!" are those with no facts to their name.
So yes, I am more than happy to continue to call you out for lying, and for being a happy spreader of propaganda.
I am afraid that you seem to be mistaken. You consider yourself open minded, not because you actually listen to all facts equally, but because you were so "open-minded" that you let unproven propaganda slip right in.
I am more open minded, because unlike you I don't just listen to spoon fed right wing propaganda, I have actually researched, and come to the objective conclusion.
You don't have to ask a flat earther about their "side of the debate" to realize that the earth isn't flat.
Now why don't you go back to supporting your pro-nazi conspiracy theories elsewhere, and leave history to those that actually mananged to educate themselves and learn a truth you refuse to admit to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 The nazi plan was quite literally an attempt to "colonize" europe. They felt they didn't have enough space, enough resources, to expand, as they thought they were owed.
in fact, much nationalist and fascist sentimentality rose out of post-imperialism europe, with the nations left behind deciding that they deserved a chance to exploit others as the nationalists before them had done.
I'm sorry that you don't understand basic historical connection, but hopefully the realization that the nazis quite agreed with the brits, the french, the italians, ect on colonization and imperialism ought to tell you something of their policies, hm?
1
-
@MadManRob1 Most colonization is genocidal. hitler just wanted to "colonize" europe, the "Developed world."
Its funny, you say things like "he wanted back lands that he thought belonged to him," but don't realize how easily this can be substituted for literally every other nationalist right wing imperialist at the time, most of which you proudly support.
The very act of him expanding the borders, wiping people out and trying to "replace" them with germans was an act of imperialist colonization.
Taking land in europe doesn't make it not colonization, just because the people being colonized were white, champ but way to let the mask slip.
And I don't think you realize that he explicitly learned from the imperialism of france and england, especially the eugenics side of both of those movements, in culture and in genetics. Again, you excuse the crimes of other right wing nationalists, but not hitler. We all know where your sympathies lie, fash.
So yeah, the nazis were proven to be a bunch of nationalist, right wing imperialists, just like yourself. Stop lying. And maybe, next time, stop being so openly pro-hitler?
1
-
@MadManRob1 the british empire was happy to enact genocidal racism, but then again i'm sure you'll deny that. As I said, the only difference between you and a nazi are the countries you defend and the genocides you deny.
Typical right wing fasicsts, can't argue so denies genocides and excuses the nazis, like you've done this whole time.
The nazis were anti-socialist, far right fascist imperialists, as being a nazi/fascist is incompatible with being a leftist, this is correct.
In every comment you make, you excuse the crimes of the nazis, and make up lies to exonerate your far right ideological allies, so yes will correctly point out your pro-hitler views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 The author literally proves me right though, you just seem incapable of reading, which knowing you is no real surprise i must confess. And yes, he objectively proves that they were right wing, but you pro-hitler supporters want to call them left wing.
Everything you said about italy is, sorry, objectively false, and the actual historian you cite proves this.
I have pointed out how even the passages you cite directly prove my point, and i've never gone against it, because unlike you i don't selectively accept facts, something you admit to doing without any more reasoning than your cultish views.
Sucks to be you, hitler supporter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 I'm sorry, you can't claim to be "centered in your politics" and also a defender of far right imperialism and nationalism. Actions are louder than words, fash.
That's why you only ever call out the left, and refuse to say a single bad thing about the far right, the nazis.
The nazis indeed were far right colonialists, and you defending their policies by trying to divorce them from the nazis actions just proves that you understand how despicable those actions are. Their actions were, quite literally, common for all imperialists, but you only seem willing to call it out when you feel you can blame lefitsts
And yes, your favorites did commit racial genocide, no matter how often you try to deny it, which seems to be constant.
And what do you mean, when do you do the praising?
You're openly a "royalist," and deny the genocides of countries you like.
Don't need to wait for long.
You accuse me of being a socialist only because you know i'm right. You don't even know what the word socialist or marxist means.
You really are a hitler-supporting child aren't you, that's why you are simply incapable of addressing a single one of my points, instead you devolve into childish insults and ahistorical assertions.
So thank you for proving my point yet again.
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 Yeah, see, that's the problem. You ignore the far right despite praising them, and only call out the left because your allegiance is wholly with the far right.
The majority of totalitarians, historically, have been far right. Far right groups across the globe have insane amounts of power, and those who don't are trying to get it. You are a holocaust denier.
Nazis and fascists are, objectively, anti-socialist rightwingers, just like you
because you act exactly the same as them, just swap around the countries and genocides.
You are so goddamn obsessed with defending your heroes, the fascists, it is quite sad.
Nazis used fascist imperialist colonialist expansion, and they despised socialism more than you do.
so why don't you stop lying and admit your allegiance to the far right, champ, as if you haven't already.
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1
Exactly, you detest left wing politics, just like the nazis, and you detest "socialist fools," which the nazis put to death en masse, a policy i'm sure you are a fan of.
You have said constant good things about far right anti-socialist fascists.
And Imperialism has never been centered, it has always been far right, but that's a fact I don't think you realize.
Fascist, right wing border expansion is all imperialism, champ. You should know this.
You are an imperialist, a far right defender and supporter, and you admit to this. And you can try to slip out of those facts all you want, but your actions speak far louder than your words, one-ball.
Unfortunately for me, you're such a far right cultist that even when you cite historians that prove you wrong, you will never bend from the fascistic opinions you believe in during debate.
Well done in defending the nazis, all while claiming to disagree with them politically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 So in other words... you don't understand basic definitions. Here's what an oxymoron is -
oxymoron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).
So yes, of course calling fascists (far right anti-socialists) a socialist is an oxymoron, you can't be both a socialist and an anti-socialist, fascists oppose socialism and leftism at every turn.
Mussolini rejected marxism, disbanded any leftist party in his state, and gave economic control to a capitalist. He was as anti-socialist as they get, which is why so many capitalists to this day praise him. He was a fascist.
Hitler was an anti-marxist and anti-socialist, and in fact, his anti-marxism was one of the core bases of the holocaust, but we've already established that you're a holocaust denier. He despised socialism, much like you.
Plain as day, much like the historians you've cited, proving you wrong :)
1
-
@MadManRob1 Going around and trying to deny basic history and rewrite definitions is very far right fascist of you, the nazis did that, Mussolini did that, and most of your beloved imperialists do that to this day, of course, which is why you worship them. I love how you call north korea socialist, despite it not fitting any definition of socialism. Because to a fascist like you, socialism is anything you don't like. Also, the democrats are literally capitalists. This is why we call idiots like you far right, because you paint literally every group as socialist. All of these terrible governments and none are socialist, you support fascism, and that alongside capitalism is a right wing ideology. You don't even know what the right is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 Still proving you wrong, right.
And yes, I can correct your grammar frequently, because you in fact make frequent mistakes, something your defensive shame proves.
I see you in other comment sections, congratulating fellow pro-nazis, copy and pasting your nazi propaganda nonsense.
Anti-socialists seem to be far worse than the socialists they claim to hate, which is why anti-socialists defend the biggest anti-socialist of all, hitler.
The trouble with right wing propaganda, like the type you and your nazi allies spread, is that even upon you citing evidence that you are incorrect, you are told to ignore it, just because it hurts your feelings.
You call me a marxist, much as the nazis did their enemies as to justify burning their books.
You can call me all the names you want, it will not stop the far right nazis frombeing anti-socialists.
You feel the need to go to random people and insult me because you aren't confident in your own "arguments."
Your only source of confidence to fall back on is that you feel proud that your holocaust denialism has continued to fund a far right extremist who admits to lying, and I would feel shame in that, not pride. Now stop supporting nazis?
1
-
1
-
@iain5615 While I would agree that we have moved left since the age of monarchies, the right has always been ok with statist and non-capitalists. Modern libertarians are a rather new movement, rejecting all that the traditional right stood for and pretending that they in fact stand for it. The state as it existed 250 years ago, as I keep telling you. It does not matter how much land those dictators owned, or if those nobles were considered private citizens, they were still outreaching arms of the state. Not only did this system already take away the rights of private property (something that you said would qualify it as a state) but it was much more totalitarian than other systems to follow. You excusing this says a lot about what it means to be right wing. Ad hominem attacks cannot change your clear lack of understanding relating to history. In the height of the british empire those 8,000 people most likely carried by far the majority of the wealth and power in the country,and had dictatorial control. Not only is that not the case anyone, but the system has diversified,to any,many more people. More people being employed by the government is not a sign of totalitarianism, mate. It's a sign that power it becoming more spread out,and thus the individual is better represented in government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@floki_vt Saying it for what, the third time, doesn't make it any more true than the last two times you lied. Yes, it can have different economic systems, but socialism is not one of them, and hitler was not a socialist.
Yes, he killed capitalists, but he killed socialists primarily, and focused his efforts on them until the true racial genocide began. Not just marxists, socialists.
You gave a revisionist definition you couldn't cite from any socialist, and then projected that onto me. Your argument? An insult. It's truly sad how you know you're wrong, yet continue to argue.
1
-
@floki_vt Marxists aren't anything inherently, marxism isn't an economic system, it's a method of historical analysis. A marxist can be a communist, an anarchist, and yes, a socialist. More revisionism from you.
I'm done with your revisionist, snowflake ideologue idiocy.
The Nazis and Italian Fascists weren't socialist.I don't care what you think of the systems, but the fact that you so vocally hate them proves to me you aren't looking at history objectively, but just shunting everything you don't like onto one side
Fuck the right that genocided millions with the anti-socialist Nazis and the Italian Fascist, and fuck the left that did the same with Stalin and Mao. Oh, and fuck capitalism for doing that amount of deaths every few decades.
Definition of socialism (no revisionism this time)
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
* a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
* policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
* (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
And again, you'll find not one socialist, ever, backing up your definition of simply state control. State control existed before socialism, and will exist independent of it. Thank you for proving yourself wrong so I didn't have to go through much effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ichbin Janichblöd Because he was a liar? Because he openly allied with the right, passed right wing policies, and had a right wing ideology? Do you really not know any of that, is that how brainwashed you are?
If you actually read Hitler's own writings, hear him define his "socialism," you find that it's about as far from left wing as you can get. He was a fan of business, of germany industry, of social darwinism and traditionalism. It's readily apparent that you really don't understand the first thing about hitler, or more accurately, the first thing about the left and right, and what divides them. If you were, you wouldn't make such a silly claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robert48044 Again. You're making assumptions without proof. First off, the places you listed, not a single one fits the definition of communism. Which means your first basic assumption falls flat, they were not communist. If you haven't seen arguments relating to how a hereditary monarchy is not the same thing as a system without state, class, and money, then you truly do live in an echo chamber. And again, the nazis weren't socialists not just because they focused on "Race," that's a strawman TIK sets up and every time someone repeats it I know for a fact its only his point of view they've spent any time looking into. If you actually spent time in the replies, and bothered to go by a definition of socialism that makes sense, you would see how wrong you were instantly. They were not socialist, your qualifiers for "socialism" can be found in numerous other economic systems, and might not even be found in socialism. In other words - you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and have to rely on incorrect assumptions rather than making any points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KaptajnKaffe Aaaaand just further proving my point. I teach history in America, a country skewing much further right, and yet I somehow have avoided the same brainwashing you seem to throw yourself into. Hey, here's a thought - maybe if all of academia disagrees with you, there isn't some massive marxist conspiracy, you might just be wrong. And I'm comparing your behavior, the behavior that TIK encourages, to the end result of that mindset.
You are the one who accused me of some socialist marxist conspiracy before I said anything, that's the very definition of trying to poison the well. Oh, and by the way, saying "I don't accuse people of being a part of a conspiracy, I just believe in a conspiracy i'm accusing you of perpetuating" is about as ironic as you can get.
And here we go again. When you can't actually prove a point, you'll point to anything else to deflect from your ahistorical revisionism. Its literally a constant thing.
1
-
1
-
@KaptajnKaffe What the fuck are you on about. For one, I already answered your question. You should read my responses before spouting bullshit.
For two, yes, you are participating in apologia for the nazis. They threw millions of people in camps, concentration or death, even those they saw as "racially" superior would be harmed if they spoke out against the nazi regime, were gay, were disabled, were "suspected" of any of the above, ect. You trying to erase that fact is pure nonsense.
And it doesn't matter what the nazis "saw" as the people, why should I care? They saw the majority of their own citizens as subhumans and traitors, their actions killed millions of the "right" citizens in war. Nothing they did was for the people.
By claiming that they somehow "helped" the german worked, all while throwing german workers in camps or onto a losing battlefield, you are participating in blatant apologia.
And if you're so far removed from the ideology of the nazis, which I would certainly hope you are, why do you keep making excuses for them?
1
-
1
-
@KaptajnKaffe If you want to continue asserting a plain falsehood, that is that I never answered your question, you're going to have to prove it. The word you're looking for is "alluding", and all i'm doing is pointing out how the lies you're telling are making excuses for, and in fact, emboldening the lies of, historical and modern fascists. I never said you "made up" the conspiracy, but you certainly are a fanatic believer in it, beyond any type of reason. After all, even assuming that these marxist scholars had any more significant impact than conservative or capitalist scholars, they don't need to "distance" themselves from the nazis, marxists were literally one of the groups the nazis persecuted. I tell you the truth, all in good faith, and you run from it.
The nazis otherized millions of even those they claimed were racially superior, they threw even many of whom they saw as "german" workers in jail. The state and massive corporations fused together in a popular front against the workers, who were silence, oppressed, and killed by the millions. You are attempting to erase nazi crimes and history.
The idea that fascism or nazi germany were socialist is a long debunked myth, the only people who claim its true are those that all forms of objective academia have left behind. There is no debate, its been settled time and time again. That's why your cult, the ahistorical idiots, are stuck on youtube, while those who correctly point out the nazis aren't socialists are some of the top historians of the field.
Oh, and Ps. The US is going further right by the year. Popular politicians are calling biden, a conservative, some kind of socialist, because to you all anyone to the left of regan is a socialist. It has not moved left for a good while, since the New Deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jccgold I know, its the historical objectivity of my statement that makes it true... which it is.
And yes, I actually have. In that mannifesto, he points to liberalism, socialism, and capitalism as false ideologies, and that the fascist future would be "of the right." You, however, have not read it, and are only regurgitating TIK's talking points.
I did know Mussolini used to advocate Mark, similar to how figures like Thomas Sowell used to advocate him. In both cases, they soundly rejected him. Did you know that state power has nothing to do with political leaning, and yes, a large amount of state ownership under a fascist regime is still entirely right wing? So yes, in fact, fascism is and always has been right wing. Did you know that fascists hate anti-fascists as much and you, and claim the same things, that the left stands against tradition, order, and nationalism? Fascism is an anti-socialist, pro censorship ideology... just like the one of the modern right.
I have proven that I know, apparently, a few decades of researching more than you what fascism actually is. I have proven you, conclusively, wrong. And now it appears you are comparing anti-fascist libertarian anarchism… to totalitarian right wing fascism. Admit you're wrong.
1
-
@jccgold ... You're literally proving my point. This is one of the most famous quotes of Gentile, one that he makes explicit note of in his work. This is you admitting you never once read it. The quote is as follows: ""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." This was gentile himself, co-written and endorsed by Mussolini.
And yes, leftism has nothing to do with state power. This is actually the far less ignorant approach, after all, anarchism, and statelessness in general, have always been and always will be leftist ideas. There's a reason the first anarchist theorist called himself a socialist. The left is not defined by state power at all, rather, the left strives for the reduction of hierarchy. Something you would know if you ever spent a second studying objective politics outside of your echo chamber. That's why the first "right wing" ideology was monarchism, which is pretty damn totalitarian. The right hates individual liberty, you prove it in this very response.
"The left" as a whole doesn't want anything, there are hundreds of ideological factions among leftists that all want different things. The only thing that unites them is a desire to lessen hierarchy in the world. As I already proved, anarchism is leftist, how does that require state power? It requires the opposite, in fact. Didn't think that far, did you?
You realize that the economy of venezeula is 70% private, right? They're hardly better than most social democratic states, which you might know, are capitalist. Are you seriously calling mussolini a capitalist? I proved you wrong.
And sorry, it isn't your little anti-semetic conspiracy about antifa that I care about here. There is no "group" guiding "cancelling," there are individuals banding together to hold other individuals accountable... a practice explicitly protected by the first amendment. Which you are arguing against.
Who is arguing for hate speech legislation? Well, a bunch of people. Capitalists, socialists, communists, some fascists, your point is moot. The majority of people pushing for it... are capitalist. Who is fighting against capitalism? Well, not modern fascists, they hide behind it because capitalists like you protect their interests. Who is trying to force society to conform? Well, the fascists and conservatives that want an ethnostate or religious indoctrination. So you agree, the modern american right is fascist. Antifa, is mostly, but not all, anarchist. They value individual freedom far more than any right wing totalitarian idiot could claim to. People identifying as anti-fascist tend to not openly run for office decrying themselves as antifa. Seems they're doing a bad job of gaining power then, given that they don't run for office and in fact want to reduce government power. Its the right that wants power, order, conformity, and fascism.
I proved you wrong on every point, and you know it. Even worse, you embarrassed yourself. What do yo have to say? What apology can you possibly give for wasting my time like this?
1
-
@jccgold ...What. For one. I didn't quote wikipedia, I quoted his actual book. If that quotw appears on wikipedia, its because it is an actual important quote he said, like it or not. As for what you say next... that quote does not exist. I looked numerous times for any actual evidence of said quote existing, as I don't remember seeing it when I read through the book, and found literally zero evidence of it existing beyond your assertion. Provide pictures, a page number, screenshots, anything to prove your case, as you just simply fabricated a quote and seem to expect me to believe you. The line "a century of the Left, a century of Fascism," for all I could find, was only found in a single mistranslation of the exact same line, and surrounding context in the piece points to the meaning being unequivocally the right. So no, I didn't forget anything. I just actually read the text. After all, the quote you provided wasn't on another page at all, like you implied. You alright?
And i'm sorry, what? When did I say "the first anarchist theory was socialism?" I said "the first anarchist theorists called themselves socialists," which, yes, they did. That's an objective fact, like it or not.
As for you not understanding the basic definition of words, there's nothing new. We get it, you hate marx and you hate leftism, but don't rewrite history on that basis. However, none of the figures you mentioned "redefined" socialism at all, the only person to do that so far has been you.
For some reason you "forgot that".
Socialism as a concept does not predate communism at all, they were synonyms for decades, and even marx treated them as the same system at the time. You seem to be forgetting that early writers on socialism were also talking about different systems, because the word didn't have a concrete meaning yet. That's why both technocrats and anarchists were calling themselves by the same ideological title.
And here's more ad hominem. You know, you're really helping my case here. I was a bit worried for a second that i'd have to deal with an actual argument, but instead, I guess not. Actually, that's a lie, i've never been worried about ant arguments from you. Anyways, its evident that all you have are insults and ahistorical assumptions. You can't even spell the word "scientific." In any case, again, you're speaking not because you read the sources, but because TIK and other ideological idiots told you what to say and you never wanted to break out of your echo chamber. Tell me, if Marx somehow was so interested in "redefining" the term, why exactly did he use so many historical examples of that exact meaning? Why did so many other non-marxist accept his teaching? Oh, you're a liar. Yes, i'm sorry, the venezeuelan economy is 70% private, to this day. This is an objective fact, and you cite literally zero sources for your absurd "10%" figure. The reason being that no sources exist, and venezuela never did anything like that. In any case, there's a reason venezuela is so poor, that reason being capitalism.
And I have a hell of an easier time understanding what authoritarianism is than you, after all, you think that free speech is authoritarian if it disagrees with you. Hell, you're currently trying to defend the existence of the monarchy, which is one of the most historically authoritarian institutes possible. In other words... you want power and authoritarianism as long as it means you can force that power on others. Individual freedoms are void under a monarchy dumbass, its literally a dictatorship. I wouldn't expect you to think that though, you actually think that north korea is either democratic or leftist. You want a system where the minority takes all the power and individual liberty from the people as a whole. That is what the right wants, trample individual liberty to fight against freedom, equality, and basic human nature.
I have read more on all of these subjects than it seems you Ever have, which is why I can so effortlessly destroy you in debate.
And yes... yes two different movements can't actually "band together" to do anything, there are no leaders or organizations, it is literally just people working together freely. The video you linked? Why should I care what some random person says? There's no such thing as a "leader" of anti-fascism.
So you took a random video and then used that as your only evidence. Sad. What is cancel culture? Well, it doesn't exist. It is the right's way of trying to suppress free speech. And yes, antifa is by nature for individual liberty, unlike the right, who as you have shown, despises that. I have researched freely and openly far more than you here, clearly.
And yes, you are advocating for authoritarian, anti-freedom, and anti-leftist policies. You should stop.
1
-
@jccgold Yes, I actually did quote Gentile, unlike you. And in fact, I hate to break it to you, but as I showed the vast amount of translations and contexts from the text show that yes, he was talking about the right.
And this is a common, but awful argument. You're fabricating quotes again, though. He never said "*more* to the right," he simply said on the right. Because fascism is not just right of socialism, but in fact, right of center, and right of capitalism in fact. Mussolini never said fascism is on the left at all, which i why you were unable to provide anything more than a single mistranslation of the same sentence which is easily countered by the surrounding context.
And what kind of strawman argument is this? Fascism is a right wing ideology because it allies with the right and promotes stregnth and hierarchy, like all right wing ideologies do, from capitalism to monarchism. Him admitting it is on the right simply proves me right.
Oh, and I "can't find it" because it doesn't exist. Simple. 🤭
A random imgur page with no cover, book, or actual citation doesn't count as any sort of proof, anyone can literally just print a page out. However, you did just now prove yourself a liar. You said this quote was on a different page, proving you never read the piece. Here is the correct quote, the one actual professional historians use.
http://sites.nd.edu/world-politics-2017/benito-mussolini-doctrine-of-fascism-1932/
Your mistranslated quote was from a right wing ideologue, much like you, because there is no actual way to mistranslate "right" for "left" accidentally, especially considering how much of the quote was purposefully left out. Weird that they did that, hm? Edited the quote further? 🤔Its ok, you can admit that I've proven you wrong.
Given that the translation you continue to refuse to provide is not backed up by any major historians and is in fact disproven by the surrounding context... yes. It proves you wrong.
Its ok, you can admit you are jut seething at me so effortlessly destroying your argument.
And i'm orry, what? Your argument as to the undeniable fact that anarchism sprung out of socialism is simple ad hominem? Oh, and I hate to break it to you... but marx didn't advocate for a strong state. In fact, he wanted to lessen the power of the state. But its ok, he's not nearly as dumb as people like you, who go the extra step and say that giving the government power is giving you freedom. And I agree, socialism does have a meaning. You simply do not understand it, and I can't blame you, children like you have been stuck in ideological echo chambers for years, and i'm happy you're finally starting to admit you are wrong.
Of course I can't be "helped" by you, that would imply that you were right... which you've openly shown you aren't.
And here is another assertion you don't back up. You'd think if Marx was such an open liar he would have been called out by other socialists... and yet he wasn't. Odd. And again, more ad hominem. Why would I care what random misquote you can pull out from engels? All you have are deflections and insults.
And again, you have no citation to prove anything you say here. Yes, Venezuela is 70% private. That is an undeniable fact, and the fact that you've backed down from your previous made up numbers tells me even you knew you were lying there.
And... what? Why the fuck would I care what CNN says? Unlike you I don't listen to random propaganda, I do my own research. They should denounce all monarchies, even the modern constitutional ones.
Did you really think I hadn't thought about that? Wow.
I claim the right wants to get rid of liberty because they do, and you literally never asked for an example, but here's a few - they want your boss to be able to fire, harm, or mistreat you as much as they want. They want the government to be able to silence your ability to do things like burn flags or speak out about them. They despise individual accountability, so they want to get rid of the ability for people to hold others accountable, also known as "cancel culture" to you morons.
And again, what leader? You showed me a rando person i've never seen before sitting in his room. There is no such thing as a leader of an ideology. And again, did you really think that was a "free speech rally?" This is why fascists love you idiots, because they could be marching in the streets chanting racial slurs and as long as they called it a "free speech rally" you morons would defend them.
Ahahah.
Dude I don't know if you live under a rock, or if you're the rock itself
You've proven to me that you are beyond help, but i'd be happy to continue to effortlessly prove you wrong
Ahahahah
😁
😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jccgold the more "citations" you try to give, the more you show off how brainwashed you are. I hate to break it to you but sensationalist propaganda does not count as news. In any case, twitter, as a company, cannot "censor" speech at all, they don't have to give you a platform, that's well within their first amendment rights. If you want twitter to not be able to ban or block you, then you should come over to the left where we actually don't like massive corporations having unchecked power over politics and people.... Unlike the right.
As for AOC, I already addressed your myth of "cancel culture" (otherwise knows as first amendment rights to petition and association) that you want to get rid of, but now you're openly calling to censor AOC because she said something you don't like. I hate to break it to you, but even if she did say what you say she did (she didn't) that would still be protected under 1A, which you seem to hate more and more as time goes on.
Do you see how easy it is to utterly debunk and destroy your propaganda and fallacy? Maybe you should think about why that is before continuing, kid.
1
-
1
-
@jccgold I will take literally any actual source with verifiable information. If you count literal random youtube videos designed to get attention as better sources than actual media companies who are under literal regulation to not directly lie, then you're brainwashed. Simple as that.
If all it took to make a "trustworthy source" was to have a youtube channel then the world would be a very different place. Luckily, facts still matter, so your propaganda is useless.
And there, there it is. You calling all facts that disagree with you "fake news," while shifting the goalposts. Trump called from freedom of expression to be limited, education to be censored, and his opponents to be ridiculed and fired. His voters were by far the most likely demographic to commit politically charged domestic terrorist attacks. Are you really this dumb?
Oh, and dumbass, you see my point? You're trying to censor me, right now, for telling you the truth. Every sentence you say proves my point better.
1
-
1
-
@jccgold I'm sorry, you're telling me to "stop lying" (when I've done nothing but tell you facts you don't want to hear) and yet you're telling the gigantic lie that twitter is not a private company. I hate to break it to you, but they actually are private, and just because they are fine with lobbying politicians for special protections (a "right," I'll remind you, that only the modern right wing wants them to have( they are just as private and able to do that as any other corporation. That's capitalism at work, baby. Twitter tells the state what it wants, and the state comes running to it. No matter how much you hate the truth, that is capitalism, and no capitalist system has ever existed without it.
I love how to extremists like you everything left of Reagan is the extreme left. Funny. Here's the thing - the state is only involved in twitter because twitter wants them to be. That is always the end result of capitalism. It always has been. Twitter doesn't work for the democrats (which would make nonsense given that the Republicans have practically owned the government for the last few years) the democrats do what major companies.like twitter want them to, same as the Republicans. The only "censorship" happening has been done by the conservative government, dumbass. Nobody has to host you. And I couldn't care less about your long debunked biden conspiracies. And I'm still waiting for... Any example of AOC censoring anyone. Because you have provided zero. In fact, just like the free speech hating republican you are, you've called to censor your opponents more than you've even asserted she has. You are proving me right with every word you authoritarian contradictory moron.
1
-
1
-
@jccgold Yes. Literally yes. When you take a random video with a random quote and literally fill it in with what you want, it is out of context.
And what laws? There are no laws like that, meant to censor, except those that the right push out. After all, the right did try to push an entire education program meant to indoctrinate the youth by censoring facts that the right doesn't want you to know about our history. And again, you have literally no proof for your assertions, just conspiracy. "Haven't you noticed" and "of course they would" are not proof, those are examples of your paranoid thought processes. And again, get your conspiracies right. Do they already own the media or are they pushing to own the media? I don't live under a rock, I just live in actual reality, unlike you. You, who thinks that facts going against conservative propaganda is censorship. And I'm actually "arguing" (stating the fact) that it wasn't even AOC, but why the hell should I care what "the democrats" want? You don't even know what they want, and why do you even think they represent the left? And again, more insults. You still haven't answered me, why do you think its so easy to make a fool out of your arguments? I'll just tell you - it because you are objectively wrong.
1
-
@jccgold @Joaquim Coutinho ...again, you took a single out of context quote that you literally filled in half of, then added in made up legislation behind it that doesn't actually exist and was never proposed. And again, more nonsense assertions with literally zero evidence. For one, not all the of the left cares at all about hate speech, but even talking about the part that does, the purpose is to protect the speech if those being discriminated against. You know, the idea that your rights only go as far as not infringing on the right side others... An idea that the founding fathers came up with. Jesus you're bad at this. you say hate speech is anything the left doesn't like, but you do realize that you can't actually put that into law, right? Which means, like usual, you've been lying. And you don't stop lying there, of course. I proved that the left as a whole, certainly the modern american left, does not advocate for censorship. You couldn't provide any solid evidence against that, which I pointed out in that you could only find one out of context quote from a single politician that is not backed by any sort of policy. In other words, I was right. On the other hand, I pointed out how times of right wingers, yourself included, participate in desires for censorship. I literally told you many but not all of the ways in which trump promoted censorship numerous times. So you claim of me not providing any figures... Is another lie. I just keep catching you in those, huh? and now you just out more propaganda with no source, things that the literal Nazis said, and expect me to just believe you when you've never once cited a single one of your pro totalitarianism assertions.
You're a liar, a moron, and more than likely a literal child. You've been schooled time and time again and I'm happy to do it for a few more weeks. Sit down and admit the right wants censorship more than anyone on the left ever could, kid.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 @MADx Games i hope you understand the irony in you claiming that I'm lying... While not only proving my point, but lying yourself. You seem to not understand the meaning of words you're throwing around, which doesn't surprise me at all, in order to be a right winger you have to be pretty ignorant.
The problem is, it isn't a lie at all. Conservatives want to silence minority groups, like trans people and the scientists that back their existence. They want to silence those scientists on issues of climate change, as well. They want to silence those that disagree with them politically, hence all the calls to use live ammunition on protests that they don't like. They want to silence your ability to, say, have an objective education or use your freedom of expression. They hate people who think differently, look differently, believe in a different god, and openly celebrate when those people are discriminated against. This is common conservative knowledge, but I guess you haven't admitted that to yourself yet.
The right are the champions of censorship, and they're so good at censoring the truth that you don't even know it.
Im sorry, are you listening to yourself? For one, you just called liberals left wing which... Is, admittedly, a common mistake, but one that any sort of political education would have disproved you of. For two, you claim a major tech company, which leftists want to regulate the power of and break up... Is a left wing institution? No, apple banning your dumbass app is just capitalism at work, and if you don't like it, too bad. That isn't censorship. You forcing a private company to host your dumbass app, on the other hand, is an infringement of their 1st amendment rights.
There is no left wing private sector, kid. What you're witnessing is right wing infighting, and you've swallowed the propaganda so much that you aren't even willing to admit it to yourself. Also, you do know that hate speech laws protect free speech, right? Or have you completed deluded yourself on that issue too?
Oh conclusion, as I've definitively proven, the right is far more censorious than the left could ever be. Now, I believe you owe me an apology.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 I say that... because its true. You really do nothing to disprove that notion, but of course having written as much nonsense as you have, I assume you want me to respond to it, individually.
You first say that “conservatives want to silence minorities, like trans people and the scientists that back their existence”.
"Any regime or context in which the content of what is publically expressed, exhibited, published, broadcast, or otherwise distributed is regulated or in which the circulation of information is controlled.
"
So... what conservatives do to minorities. Daily.
And again, just because the facts hurt your feelings doesn't make them true. You hide behind public speeches and dogwhistles but its pretty damn easy to glean your intentions. First off, why the hell do you trust politicians? Look at their actions, not their words. And when those actions ignore science, and silence minority groups time and time again, then it doesn't matter what they say in their campaign speeches - their goal is censorship. You are not, however, just stating the incorrect, science-disproven "fact" that you don't think trans people exist. Your goal is to stop trans people from getting proper care, joining public institutions like the military, and being able to express themselves in public. This is, after all, the ends that conservatives worked towards in the past few years, and just because you're the kind of coward that hides behind fake, uncited "facts" and ignores the tangible impact of conservative policy doesn't make it any less true.
And yes, one private institution deciding to not serve another private institution is called capitalism. Tough shit, deal with it. You realize that "getting rid of competition" is just how capitalism works, right? If i'm a business, what do you expect me to do, help my competition out? No, my goal is to get rid of them, not deal with them, because that's how I make the most money. They operated in capitalism, and if you're arguing that capitalism is against federal law, then it sounds like you want capitalism to be regulated.
And yet another assertion of me being false... with no proof. For one, there was no censorship of Parler - You could easily go to any other hosting platform and get on. But even if no private hosting platform would take them, it still would not be censorship. Private enterprise has no right, no duty, no obligation to give others a platform. If you're in my house, I can kick you out. If you're advertising/hosting on my site, I can kick you off. Easy. If you were to argue they shouldn't do that... looks like you're trying to infringe on their property rights. Shame. If you're angry at the power that private enterprise uses to regulate speech, then you should have been annoyed years back when they were strikebreaking and banning leftists off their platform daily. But then, you would have to admit that what you're actually angry at - is capitalism. The free exercise of capitalism, this is where it always goes.
And, buddy - You really don't know much about the constitution, do you. You do know that companies are legally considered individuals, right? I know, its stupid, but you can thank conservative lawmakers for putting that into place. The fact that you don't know that is really, really sad. But hey, if you want to get rid of that stupid ruling... oh look! Another thing the left wants to do that the right doesn't.
And I state there is no left wing private sector, not just because the private sector itself cannot be left wing, but because the competitors within are themselves not left wing. Read what I say.
And I've already proven how your "censorship" is a conservative propaganda method, but you weren't listening, of course.
And again - do you not know the difference between left and liberal? No, of course not. As I said,
the right loves infighting, it just hates to admit it. In any case, lets assume that they did donate to an actual left wing politician, unlike what you showed me. Why does that matter? They could have just as easily donated because it gets them far more money to have those policies. Companies don't care about politics beyond what makes them rich. So again - what you're angry at is capitalism.
I proved you wrong there, and you offered no suitable comeback, nor did you actually cite anything that would add to your point. I am happy to continue to prove you wrong time and time again, though your type is usually hopeless.
1
-
@0xredrumx078
Amazing comeback - "no, they don't." You do realize that simply saying "no" in response to a point doesn't matter in the context of an argument, right? And your logic is highly flawed, like, you realize if every individual is protected, then everyone is protected, right? The protection of the most speech, by necessity, entails the regulation of some speech.
And an un-cited quote that simply doesn't help your point, bud.
I'm guessing that's from one of your propaganda sources, right?
Sad.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 This is all you've got? Damn, If i'd have known you'd give this lackluster of a response I wouldn't have bothered.
Yes, addressing hate speech does indeed, protect the rights of people to speek
It really is that simple. If I'm, say, a member of the lgbt+ community (wow, I am) and I'm in, say, a workplace of homophobes, I will be silenced. I am afraid of talking about my experiences
for fear of retribution, and thus, I am being "censored." So what happens is either nobody does anything, and I'm still censored, or somebody restricts the homophobes ability to intimidate or harass me. That is how hate speech protects speech.
And I'm well aware, I know that companies are so, so different from individuals like you or I.
Problem is, Republican lawmakers seem unwilling to address this odd discrepancy. They did, after all, sign into being "coroprate personhood."
And again, this has nothing to do with the supreme court, but even the article you link starts off by listing some of the many exceptions in which "hate speech" isn't protected by the constitution, going back centuries.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 Again, you seem to act as though I care about court precedents. I really, really don't. Just because one past court made one decision, does not mean that decision is intrinsically sound, nor does it mean it will stand the test of time. And that's assuming that you're actually representing the issue correctly, which, you aren't. The problem is, hate speech does incite violence, just not as directly as a threat. That's why the debate is ongoing, like it or not.
I know you want so desperately to appeal to authority in everything you do but I really don't care that much, after all, only a fool would trust the government to effectively give rights to the people. But from a conservative mindset, a mindset of authority and hierarchy, it isn't at all surprising.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@0xredrumx078 To answer all of your points -
First off, I don't believe in laws. Period. Of course I wouldn't support one type, then.
It was your initial assertion that I disputed. If you want to claim that "many leftists agree with hate speech laws, you're going to have to support them.
And no, by positions I was also referring to the other positions you mentioned in your responses, such as single payer healthcare, ect.
And the thing is, its not that I have a misconception, its that you simply aren't willing to address the inherent contradictions in conservatism. For example, you say you believe that we as people have rights beyond the government... and yet you assume we need a government when they seem to be the ones who "give" you any rights, and also seem to be the ones most likely to trample them. The government doesn't actually have to do anything, which is damn evident.
The problem is, if the government is around, it might as well help. Its already doing damage, might as well have it do some good as well. The problem with the conservative mindset is that it pulls away government only when it wants to, not based on a coherent framework.
Sure, its our jobs to help eachother. And why not appeal to the most effective way of doing so?
1
-
@0xredrumx078 what do you have to gain by lying? Read back my responses. If I don't support law, why would I support a type of law?? So, yes. I am saying that. For now, the third time.
I have said this exact same thing to you time and time again - me pointing out something you're afraid to admit is not me not understanding something. I'm well aware of the conservative myth that their ideal government only exists to "protect" my rights, and yet, as I keep saying, conservatives keep creating governments and "rights" that can only compliment eachother. As in, they keep appealing to rights created by government, rather than any sort of inherent rights.
And... yes. The government is doing next to nothing for its people, besides, it seems, trying to hold back the natural will of the people as much as possible.
And I could very much ask you the same, if you think the government can't handle something as simple as healthcare, why the hell do you think they could do something as nebulous as "protect our god-given rights?" I believe the government will continue to do damage, but there's no reason that they can't help in other areas while its around.
And repeating back conservative talking points does not and never has qualified as a point. I know you guys have a hard on for "order" but the government is shit at maintaining it, nor does it have any sort of moral right to attempt to do so. You all advocate throwing millions into propaganda, billions into military, all wasted. The conservative mindset is one of hypocrisy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@0xredrumx078 @MADx Games @MADx Games this... God this was painful to read. No, they both ran on highly liberal platforms, none doing anything more than regulating or modifying existing capitalist entities. "Socialized medicine..." Can exist under capitalism. Easily. Hell, it already does. Them being further left than you like doesn't mean they ain't liberals. I can't claim to know what they truly believe, but Warrens platform was objectively liberal, bernie's slightly less so.
And just... God, no. Holy shit this is painful to read. liberals are capitalists. Simple as that. Conservatives are a type of liberal ideology. You can have different views within Capitalism, but it's all still capitalism. Leftists aren't just "democratic socialists," hell most self proclaimed democratic socialists aren't even leftists. A leftist is simply somebody who advocates for an alternative system to any capitalism, from the left. Medicare for all doesn't make you a leftist, it just makes you a social democrat. You know, a social democrat, like the ruling parties of so many capitalist countries.
Medicare for all and college debt forgiveness don't abolish capitalism, bud. In fact, they only exist because they're funded by capital, through taxes. Liberals are people who believe in capitalism, no intervention or lots of intervention. Leftists just don't. Even your article gives a better answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@0xredrumx078 so... You're an admitted liar then. Not surprising in the slightest.
The definition of socialism is not, and never has been, state control of the means of production. Come on, this is pretty basic stuff. The soviet union didn't even claim to hold a socialist system for the majority of its existence, why the hell would you base your definition around that type of propaganda? This is why nobody trusts conservatives on these issues, they make up nonsense like that.
And just because an individual exists doesn't mean that they're private. We've been over this, bud.
Yes, the people can own property in socialist systems, government or no government. All people. That's literally the definition of socialism, the people as a whole own the means of production. Plus, socialists want nothing to do with your personal property. I do, however, love how you basically admit that the USSR wasn't socialist.
And... no. This is what I was talking about with government given rights, because the only thing keeping Tom's workers from owning their work... is the capitalist government. In a capitalist system Tom is his own minor dictator, ruling over his workers and taking their profit. In a socialist system, the people that work in Tom's pizza shop, or the people in his area, or maybe the people as a whole, would direct that one specific venture. You made up an internally inconsistent lie, and I called you on it.
I think an apology is long overdue.
Do you know how definitions work? You don't have to be a conservative source to spread a conservative lie. The meanings of words is not, sadly, set in stone - the dictionary accepts whatever the most popular usage of a term is. And after literally decades of conservative cold war propaganda, that's the definition they settled on. It's why anarchy, to them, first and foremost means "chaos," instead of the historical system of anarchism. The problem with that definition you posted is that it makes King George V, a conservative, more socialist than Marx. in fact, that definition even excludes Marx from being a socialist at all. I feel like if your definition includes monarchs, one of socialism's first and biggest enemies, as socialists but doesn't count some of socialism's ideological founders... You've got a problem.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 @0xredrumx078 ...what? Do you understand how etymology works in the slightest? Your "point" is an objective lie. Dictionary definitions are objectively based on how people use words, not some sort of nebulous concept of "historical correctness." After all, who determines as what era a word had the correct meaning, then? The word family has linguistic origins dating back to house slaves in ancient greece, does that mean that family "correctly" means support of slavery? You substantiate your point with nothing, and of course you couldn't - because it isn't true. hell, you admit this in your very response. They find their definition through reading texts on the subject, and what would you know, there are a hell of a lot of texts since the cold war that purposefully redefine socialism for a blatantly political, biased purpose. Again, I'll bring up to you the fact that according to the definition here, Marx was less of a socialist than King George. Yes, monarchists, the first enemy of the socialists.... Was somehow more of a socialist movement, according to this definition, than Marxism, or even all forms of non lenninist socialism. You see the problem yet? I don't care that you don't understand how etymology works, because even according to your logic (the historically correct definition should be the one in use) this definition is incorrect. I don't care what kind of fallacious appeals to authority you want to whip out, if your definition of an ideology includes the greatest enemy to that ideology but discounts its most known movements and figured, the definition is false, and you are lying. your supposed definition of socialism is false, and your only proof otherwise is trusting an institution you don't understand, that I just showed was biased by it's very nature. It isn't the definition of socialism by any means, and trusting a source just because you feel like it should be trusted, without even understanding how etymology works in the first place, that's the problem with your argument, I already explained how it's wrong and you can't even rebut me. There's a reason you didn't respond to that point - you couldn't.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 @MADx Games do you have any other "points" or is this it? You've literally said nothing new here, just repeated the same nonsense I already addressed and debunked in full. If you have no suitable response, which is clearly the case, then just admit your flawed argument and admit you are wrong, or find another point. This isn't that hard.
No, the definition provided is not factually or historically true. It is only "true" insofar as it is the most popular and wifely used modern definition... By enemies of socialism and proponents of cold war era propaganda. You allege that the staff use historical correctness as a measure as to the accuracy of their definitions, and yet it appears that they didn't even think to check Marx if this was the case. Again, I'll remind you - this is a definition that excludes Marx and in fact most of early utopian, and later libertarian, socialism. The definition, historically, does not make sense. What, then, is it based off of? Oh right, what I said in the beginning - etymology changes and is based off of vernacular. That's why, again, anarchy isn't defined as the political system most often, it's defined as chaos... Despite that definition not being historically accurate
Comment 2
no, it's not true because it doesn't line up with historical socialist movements or theory. However, if you're asking why the incorrect definition is labeled, the answer is pretty simple - because of, yes, cold war era propaganda. I don't even k ow why this is a surprise to you, we spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in physical wars to best back communism, are you really saying it's unrealistic that the US would also try to turn public favor away from socialistic systems through negative propaganda?
And again, so you understand how etymology works? The dictionary I reliable in that it is taking the most commonly used definition of something. That's its job, and it does it well. Problem is, it's really easy to change mass perception about something like a political ideology. Most of the US public hates socialism, do you really think that causes no biases in their interpretation of it?
And again, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring - the definition isn't false because there's some conspiracy going on at all dictionaries. It's false because the US fought an ideological war against leftism for over half a century, and that very much includes a war of propaganda, and the results of that have very much changed the most popular usage of terms... And thus the official definition. No conspiracy, just etymology.
And it is your definition,, because it's the definition spread by people like you in blatant contrast with the actual definition. I notice you've never once addressed how the definition you give excludes Marx. And I think I know why.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 @MADx Games
Comment 2 (+3)
no, it's not true because it doesn't line up with historical socialist movements or theory. However, if you're asking why the incorrect definition is labeled, the answer is pretty simple - because of, yes, cold war era propaganda. I don't even k ow why this is a surprise to you, we spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in physical wars to best back communism, are you really saying it's unrealistic that the US would also try to turn public favor away from socialistic systems through negative propaganda?
And again, so you understand how etymology works? The dictionary I reliable in that it is taking the most commonly used definition of something. That's its job, and it does it well. Problem is, it's really easy to change mass perception about something like a political ideology. Most of the US public hates socialism, do you really think that causes no biases in their interpretation of it?
And again, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring - the definition isn't false because there's some conspiracy going on at all dictionaries. It's false because the US fought an ideological war against leftism for over half a century, and that very much includes a war of propaganda, and the results of that have very much changed the most popular usage of terms... And thus the official definition. No conspiracy, just etymology.
And it is your definition,, because it's the definition spread by people like you in blatant contrast with the actual definition. I notice you've never once addressed how the definition you give excludes Marx. And I think I know why.
To reiterate, since you seem unable to do anything but repeat your same debunked points - dictionaries base their definitions over the most commonly used modern usage of terms. They may include historical definitions, but only as pieces of an etymological story. Decades of cold war propaganda warped the meaning of socialism to so many people, it took on a new definition in their eyes. This is basic etymological history, and for you to deny it while trying to fallaciously speak to authority is silly. Yes, those dictionaries are good at their jobs - taking the most used definitions. Sadly, those definitions aren't always historically correct, even you admitted being historically correct was the most important factor, and as I keep pointing out with your definitions, they simply aren't.
Comment 3
why are you unable to address my points and continue lying? At this point you know you're wrong. I already told you, I didn't call the dictionary propaganda, I specifically said that the definition most in popular use was only in use because of said propaganda. They're a steady building, problem is, they're on a flawed foundation. You're a liar, plain and simple. your only rebuttal to the objective fact that they don't like up with historical socialist movements or theories is... Well, you don't have one. Your only evidence is that they say that they look at evidence for their examples, and I've explained that most of that contemporary evidence is tainted by that same information war. You have no counter to the fact those definitions do not line up with historical definitions, of which I have provided evidence for you. So, you simply point out that the dictionaries say they're right (despite the evidence otherwise.) That is not an argument, liar. and then of course, you aledge that I simple call any definition I disagree with propaganda, which is another one of your lies. After all, I provided to you historically accurate examples, which you could not find by looking through propaganda, so you dismissed. I am objectively correct here, as I have explained to a liar like you time and time again. and let me ask you - are you stupid? First off, do you think the Oxford dictionary only takes definitions used in england? No, they take definitions from all common english speaking country's vernacular. It doesn't matter that they're a British dictionary. Also, dumbass, the Brits were about as anti communist as the US and were among the US' closest allies during the definition of the cold war. There was no need for a "treaty," they both already had the same goal. and then you provide another unsourced opinion, which is that the Oxford dictionary is somehow the most historically correct version... When according to it, Marx is not a socialist. No, actually, that's a lie, as I've explained to you time and time again. You are wrong, and you know it.
As for that definition, there's a reason it's not in dictionaries plagued by cold war propaganda, why would it be? And why do you trust modern companies to define a word better than those who used it first? That's like trusting a modern economist to explain the economy of the USSR better than an economist from the USSR at the time. The reason I gave you that definition is that every branch of socialism, no matter libertarian, marxist, feminist, authoritarian, whatever, has aimed for the collective control of the man's of production. That is what socialism has meant since the beginning, even before Marx, and what socialists mean when they advocate for socialism to this day. It sounds like you know this is a fact, and simply decided to fall back of fallacious and false appeals to authority to make up for your lies.
You are a liar.
Ask yourself this question - if every historical socialist theorist and movement used this definition, if every modern socialist uses it, if it is the definition given in socialist theory, who do I trust more : that, or some random company that decided the meanings of words based on how random people use them.
To counter your point - the singular "they" was only recently added to the dictionary, despite being in common usage since before shakespeare. What happened to their research then? Oh, right. It seems they aren't quite perfect. Liar.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 @MADx Games @MADx Games I did provide evidence, and examples. You have not addressed any of these, and now you're just ignoring them. Sad. Why would I link to you a capitalist dictionary, when I pointed out the problems that dictionaries addressing a propagandized public have. Instead, I have you examples of those historical records that those dictionaries have failed to look over, which you've ignored. You have not provided to me any historical evidence that your definition is accurate.
and this is an assertion you (a proven liar) have made time and time again, but have yet to back it up. I want more proof that merriam webster actually does historical research, beyond them simply saying so, which is something you have not yet provided. Assertion is not evidence. On top of that, I've actually provided counter examples, showing how it's not historically accurate, which you have brushed h see the rug as they soundly disprove your point. So I want actual proof that the research you allude to, and they assert having made, actually exists, because all available evidence says otherwise. You are able to quite the website, but are you able to back it up? in any case, what articles and books do you think they're reading? ...that's right, articles and books written by random people, to apply to the general public. A public, you may remember, that was the subject of half a century of propaganda from proud liars such as yourself.
and they has been used to refer to singular people for longer than the advent of modern english. You're a child.
Comments 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
I have these quotes from notes I took from in person copies of these books. Why are you acting in bad faith, why is it so hard to simply google a name and book, followed by the three letters "pdf?" Could it be because you're not telling the truth and you know you've been caught? You realize that I have cited to you the quotes, so you can choose to either but a physical hard copy, or look then up. Of you don't, you admit to being a liar. You have one response left to do so before admitted that you only operate in bad faith
@0xredrumx0 i gave you the titles, child. I gave you authors and quotes. That is the information I have, so I have it to you. Why are you unwilling to fact check me? Why are you scared?
I provided to you all the information you need to verify my claims, and you refuse to do so. That is solidly your fault, and I am happy to proclaim my objective victory.
I didn't delete those comments, youtube automatically removed them for whatever reason. And of course, you have not yet managed to disprove my objective facts. And here you are, continuing to not address your cowardice and failure. Truly sad. How is it my fault that you need a link from me specifically, when you can look it up just as easily as me?
you do realize there's more to citations than links, right? I gave you titles and authors, that's more than enough information
It's not my fault that you can't look up basic information to counter my objective facts.
Its not my job to provide you with evidence I've already provided you with, if you want to prove me wrong, then feel free to do so, I'm waiting. Of you can't search up the large amounts of information I gave you, you're admitting to failing to tell the truth.
And what are you talking about? Youtube regularly will delete older comments at random, usually due to people reporting them. Which I'm sure you know nothing about, right? Do you think that they either don't let you post, or wipe your whole account? You're just sounding more and more conspiratorial, as usual. You have two more responses to convince me that you're in good faith, then I'm walking away with my victory.
Because I already cited my sources, and youtube doesn't allow external links, as evidenced by the many missing replies of me trying to send them.
“you gave me that information, so you should be able to get the link for it.” why don't you search up the large amount of the information I gave you, after all, you have as much information as me, so you should be able to get the link for it.
How is it conspiratorial to point out that my comments were deleted, when I can still see them and you evidently can't? Do you understand basic definitions of words or are you being this obtuse on purpose?
Again is not my job to provide you any more evidence than the suitable and objective amount i've given you; it's not my job to provide you with more evidence than I have, when you can easily verify it with what i've given you
I've won everything, and now you're crying about it. In fact, you're so pathetic that you can't even google something that I have already cited to you.
Again it’s not my job to provide you link to my stated sources, after all it's your desire to fact check my objective citations.
If I'm pathetic for not being able google what i've cited, then how pathetic are you for not being able to google what you yourself have asked to fact check over and over again?
That's really pathetic.
“No, why don't you search up a large amount of information you gave me. ”
No, why don't you search up a large amount of information I gave you, specifically for this purpose. Stop depending on other people to do things for you. Pathetic.
Yeah, why don't you search up the large amount of information I gave you? I'm waiting.
You can’t provide justification for your inability to search based on the copious amounts of information I gave you. But you're going to depend on someone you call a lair and pathetic to do it for you. That's really pathetic.
1
-
@0xredrumx078 oh, I. Can do you one better, and directly give you sources from those historical and modern experts which your definitions seemed to ignore.
Update - he refuses to look at the sources because they aren't in link format, when youtube doesn't allow external links generally. He apparently can't verify the quotes by just looking them up - because he knows he's wrong. I literally named the sources, it's not like I refused to say where I got these. Grow up, kid.
" Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey" By Donald Busky.
Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.
"The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study" By Scott Arnold
"What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."
"International Encyclopedia of Political Science" by Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; abd Leonardo Morlino
Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates... cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
The Economics and Politics of Socialism" By Brus Routledge
"This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.
New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition" by Alec Nove
A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
Readers Guide to the Social Sciences." by Jonathan Michie. Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.
"The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought" by Mason Hastings and Adrian Pyper, . Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership.
And these are all recent citations, if you want to go more historical, look into books like "The Philosophy of Povery," by Proudhon, or "Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx or even Malatesta's "Anarchy." All are far more illustrative of historical socialist thought than some random online definition created to appeal to a propagandized public, a definition you cannot even back up.
Remember, when these people say "social control," that is defined as "a form of common ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems." While it can be done through the state, the core tenet of that definition is *common ownership, or ownership of the people as a whole. If those people are not represented, it is not common, thus not social, thus not socialist. Now i'm sure you're going to try to twist this somehow, its what you do, but why not question, now, why your definitions seem not to actually adhere to what experts on the topics say? In any case, I look forward to your next denial of basic reality.
Also, I noticed how you ignored that you were wrong on the historical usage of "they." Funny how you dropped that so quickly.
1
-
1
-
@0xredrumx078 I didn't delete those comments, youtube automatically removed them for whatever reason. And of course, you have not yet managed to disprove my objective facts. And here you are, continuing to not address your cowardice and failure. Truly sad. How is it my fault that you need a link from me specifically, when you can look it up just as easily as me?
you do realize there's more to citations than links, right? I gave you titles and authors, that's more than enough information
It's not my fault that you can't look up basic information to counter my objective facts.
Its not my job to provide you with evidence I've already provided you with, if you want to prove me wrong, then feel free to do so, I'm waiting. Of you can't search up the large amounts of information I gave you, you're admitting to lying.
And what are you talking about? Youtube regularly will delete older comments at random, usually due to people reporting them. Which I'm sure you know nothing about, right? Do you think that they either don't let you post, or wipe your whole account? You're just sounding more and more conspiratorial, as usual. You have two more responses to convince me that you're in good faith, then I'm walking away with my victory.
“you gave me that information, so you should be able to get the link for it.” why don't you search up the large amount of the information I gave you, after all, you have as much information as me, so you should be able to get the link for it.
Again is not my job to provide you any more evidence than the suitable and objective amount i've given you; it's not my job to provide you with more evidence than I have, when you can easily verify it with what i've given you
I've won everything, and now you're crying about it. In fact, you're so pathetic that you can't even google something that I have already cited to you.
Again it’s not my job to provide you link to my stated sources, after all it's your desire to fact check my objective citations.
If I'm pathetic for not being able google what i've cited, then how pathetic are you for not being able to google what you yourself have asked to fact check over and over again?
That's really pathetic.
“No, why don't you search up a large amount of information you gave me. ”
No, why don't you search up a large amount of information I gave you, specifically for this purpose. Stop depending on other people to do things for you. Pathetic.
Yeah, why don't you search up the large amount of information I gave you? I'm waiting.
You can’t provide justification for your inability to search based on the copious amounts of information I gave you. But you're going to depend on someone you call a lair and pathetic to do it for you. That's really pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KaikanoSei It's amazing, you call fascism socialist, and in the same breath perfectly embody their own rhetorical strategy of literally labeling anyone who opposes them as a marxist. This is classic. Mussolini outright said in his book "The Doctrine of Fascism" that fascism was a right wing political ideology that wanted to leave behind both socialism and capitalism. Communism is not socialist, nor is it marxist. Socialism has always focused on class, even before marx, which is something you left out, which makes hitler not a socialist. Oh, by the way, the Nazis started the cultural marxism myth to justify sending jewish people to camps. As I said, fascism is objectively not socialism. Neither is nazism. You also seem to have no idea what socialism actually is, or what they actually want. Hint: it's not total state control of... anything. Socialism can exist without a state. Anyway, fascism and nazism are not socialism, nor were they even close to the same in terms of ideology.
1
-
@KaikanoSei I hate to clue you in but you're letting your ignorance show. Marxism isn't an economic ideology, so it' can't be socialist. Leninism isn't an actual political ideology, you're thinking of Marxism-Leninism, which is socialist. Fascism is a right wing corporatist ideology, which despises socialism as much as you. Nazism is the exact same. You can argue on their merits some other time, but to lump them all together is the same as lying.
You have the nerve to call me propagandized, while repeating lies that we've known are false since the very beginning. You don't know what collectivist and socialist mean, and it's clear that you're a fanatic.
If i've been infected with some kind of rabies then friend you have ebola and stage 4 cancer, rolled int one. You don't know what I am. Hint - it's not a socialist.
Hm, did you know that socialists actually took quite a bit of inspiration from all of those people? I'm guessing not, you're far too propagandized for anywhere near that level of self awareness.
I care more about history, facts, and liberty than you ever could. It would do you good to look into any of those things.
Perhaps, before you start to write, think for half a second about how easy it is to disprove your hateful idiocy, and how fanaticized you sound. Nevermind, you probably think ignoring history is a good thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel I never left. It likewise seems that you're still fighting the lost battle in trying to deny history, and say that National Socialist were and are socialists.
It is always interesting to see how you fascists tend to rewrite history, like calling a broad ideologically diverse reformist movement "neo-marxist" and "black supremacist," most likely because you too despise the ability of black people to exist within this country. But of course, to fascists like you, everything is an attack on your fragile white identity. Of course the right revels in the cases of violence and ignores the peace of the overall movement, because they want to do exactly what they did last time with the nazis, and sieze more and more state power by fearmongering about scary leftists and cultures that they don't want to deal with. Note, of course, that of the countries you mentioned few actually have the same material problems as the countries where the protests were taking place. Interesting, that. But of course you blame this on conspiracy, rather than reflect on why it happened. But please, keep lying to protect your fascist and nazi right wing counterparts. These protests more than anything have exposed that their nazi roots truly have not left the american Reich- sorry, Right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel The problem being, of course, thatfascists out of favor with other conservatives are frequently dismissed as "left wing."
The "left wing" in reality started as a name for pro-socialists, anarchists, and classical liberals in France, and by extension, to anyone who generally was not in favor of rule by an aristocracy or king, though it has changed much since then. I'm not right wing, but you are. I'm particularly annoyed by fascists attempting to overthrow democratic governments and replacing them with despotic fascist aristocracies, as for example has happened in Chile, Afghanistan and Cambodia and is presently being attempted in Venezuela. Of course, you seem to be more than fine with these exercises of tyranny.
The irony, again, is that the fascists are almost always right wing racists, and if not, right wing "Identitarians," (which is functionally the same thing) that exist in the world today, and quite flagrantly so at that. It's that traditional conservative hypocrisy thing I suppose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Funny you should mention exterminating any potential rivals. Are you talking Pinochet's actions towards alleged communists? Or perhaps the USA's actions itself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_in_Pinochet%27s_Chile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAT_Buford
No doubt, just keep deflecting again again. Except that this is exactly the sort of behavior you right wingers have engaged in, time and time and time again, from the Monarchists across europe to the National Socialists in Germany, Conservatives in the usa, and so on, right down to the modern day. There's a whole historical record of these atrocities, often against rival conservative factions, but more often the left generally - no doubt now attributable to "left wing deviations" if not direct action by the "left fascist" devils themselves.
"Now try to explain to me how the US wasn't responsible for funding the Khmer Rouge as they slaughtered two million people by bombing them."
And, as expected, we have more historical revisionism. So I suppose even counting that as true (it largley wasn't) we should just ignore the instrumental role in the USA allowing and funding the Rouge before that fact, helping them come to power, and then cracking down on political dissidents?
1
-
@DrCruel No, I know you're not talking about Pinochet destroying the innocent protesters and union leaders of his country. Your observation seems to be about sworn enemies going at it. The conservative tradition, instead, is to find some movement, ally with the factions involved in supporting that movement - then murdering their allies at some convenient point, claiming they are the only representatives of that movement (which they would be at that point; they'd killed off all the rivals to that claim), and that further fighting against them is a blow against what those that the conservatives have murdered had stood for.
As an example. Take the German National People's Party, the mainstream Conservative party of the Weimar Republic, before the nazis. Of course, them and the nazis fought far less than the nazis and the socialists fought, so they eventually found allies in eachother, through Papen who not only got hitler elected, but acted as his first Vice-Chancellor. Of course, many were purged at a later date because they wanted a different type of conservative government, a monarchy, rather than Hitler's traditionalist dictatorship. Just one example of many, all of which you seem to ignore.
Not an isolated incident, mind. Orwell spent a good portion of his words condemning the authoritarian imperialism between rival western nations, and how realistically, the conservatism of nazi germany as well as the conservatism of figures like Churchill were separated not in ideology, but in degrees of application of said ideology. But didn't we go over this earlier? You can also look at the history of other conservative nations like the USA during the Cold War. And so on.
This kind of treachery is quite common among conservatives. That the National Socialists would ally with their conservative citizens, that they learned so much from is, in this context, not unusual at all - and that one would eventually betray the other even less extraordinary. The same murderous betrayal came between the conservative Christians and conservative Muslims, the various Conservative factions of the USA, and the destruction of any sort of freedom in Chile with the help of their American allies.
But we've already gone over this ground before. No honour among thieves. Go figure.
1
-
@DrCruel Orwell spent a good portion of his words condemning the authoritarian imperialism between rival western nations, and how realistically, the conservatism of nazi germany (sic) as well as the conservatism of figures like Churchill were separated not in ideology, but in degrees of application of said ideology."
Interesting thesis, and best of all, it's true. Let's see what you have to oppose it.
"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism – using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members but ‘fellow-travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty to justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Obviously such people abound in England today, and their direct and indirect influence is very great."
-George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/
And... predictably, this has nothing to do with what I said.
1
-
@DrCruel Simple. They weren't, you're a liar.
As usual, rather than actually telling the simple truth about history, you literally try to blame everything on the left, on "progressives." If one actually examines history, you find first and foremost that the average progressives of the era had little to no ideological or material connection to the Bolsheviks or socialism at all, unlike what you conspiratorially attempt to assert. Second, we find that support for the war fell strongly on ideological lines and did not shift with the changes to the war outside the country until the US was drawn in, which again, would contradict your ahistorical and conspiratorial notion that "the Left" shifted their ideology according to who the soviets were allied with. Rather, the whole US became "rabid war hawks" when we were attacked. Now, conflating progressivism with socialism is the least of your errors, but it's one worth pointing out, right alongside the simple fact that it was conservatives that held us back from the war so long along with their capitalist partners, because they were profiting from nazi germany's pro-private policy, and the conservatives they funded ideologically agreed with the far-right fascist beliefs that had begun to take over Europe. Now, the Soviets and Nazis were not what you'd call "comrades," nor did the soviets have "agents" in washington, though the nazis did attempt to assert so in order to push back against Americans supporting the war effort, just as you're doing.
Now, in reality, none of what you say is true, and is so easily contradicted that I've now become convinced that the only method of debate you're aware of is restating your premise over and over, and when faced with contradicting facts, run away or attempt to argue by citing opinion pieces or irrelevant snippets of dialogue. After all, despite continually restating these points, they have all been explicitly disproven by me and others, to which you have offered no response. To repeat myself though, the soviets had no socialist allies under Hitler, both because Hitler was a far-right anti-socialist and because a temporary agreement both planned on betraying counted to neither as an alliance. Funny you bring up Churchill though, given his explicit support of what you have claimed to be socialist and anarchist ideals, though you deflect away from that fact when confronted with it. Now of course, Stalin was well aware of the temporary nature of his dealings with Hitler, and unlike the Western powers that had so vocally endorsed his beliefs, he separated from the far right dictator. Now of course, I understand you hate all those you call "socialists," but that is no excuse to lie about history. After all, the west did not "save" Stalin's "vicious socialist empire," they were military allies, and the argument can easily be made that the countries who benefitted the most were the Western nations that had either been taken or were on the brink of collapse. Stalin was also not fighting a "rival socialist empire," nor did he ever have any "german socialist nationalist allies." If you're attempting to refer to the Nazis, I'll again remind you that they were far right anti-socialists, and that Stalin never had any intentions of loyalty or prolonged, even mid-term alliance with them, and that for all his hatred of the Western powers, he worked with them and praised them far more than he ever did the Nazis. Now of course, your suspicion rests on a faulty assumption, but we already knew this. For Stalin to have allied more closely with the Nazis than the Allies because of ideological similarity, he would a) have to have actually allied closer with the nazis than the allies and b) had any sort of ideological similarity. In actual history, we find neither. Of course, the far right anti-socialist nazis and the far left socialists did not actually have all that many ideological similarities, much less enough to qualify calling them both "so ideologically similar," but that's just one fact of many I suspect you have no interest in admitting to. Further, your post rests on the assumption that alliances or cooperation/ceasefires between countries or groups is always based on shared ideology, which the whole of WW2 should have taught you not to assume, had you actually researched it. So to reiterate, the nazis were far right anti-socialists, and you can condemn socialism and Stalin especially without lying about them, a fact you seem yet to have grasped. I am deeply sorry you feel this kinship with nazi policies that forces you to apologize for them continuously, perhaps it's due to the anti-socialist nazis and your anti-socialist self being so ideologically similar to eachother? Something worth considering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel
The problem is that my supporting cites verify what you are pretending are "lies," whereas your opinion pieces prove you wrong. Thus the conundrum.
I have answered the question in full, though. Your question is based on false premises, a lie. That's why, when asked to support the question, you deflect ff into anecdotal evidence, or side-happenings, rather than actually supporting it. This tells me that you can't actually prove your point, so of course, you deflect. So please do stop dodging the question. Please do tell us why socialists were against Hitler, then fought against the right wingers allied to Hitler, then fought those right wingers begging for help when Hitler betrayed them, then betraying the people who allied with hitler before Hitler's corpse was cold. Or are you sticking with "you got nothing on me copper" variants?
1
-
@DrCruel Well I'd actually like you to provide proof of your assertions, buddy, I hate to break it to you, but at best your evidence covers the actions of one regime, and a few dictators. You're well aware that they were not universally loved among socialists, correct? Or is that another lie you're going to tell?
I do love this strategy you're trying, though. Pretend to somehow be in the right by citing information, but rather than actually relying on the content of the citation and quotes, you act as if their mere presence will excuse you narrow focus, and historical revisionism. I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't work. I can't wait to see the next response in which you do the same, deflect, move the goalposts, and then blame me for not following your one-off train of thought.
gain, to reiterate in more detail.
Socialists were always against Hitler:
" ... Hitler gave military assistance to the fascist rebels who ultimately crushed the young [Spanish] republic. The ASU, influenced by these events—especially by the deaths of several ASU members who joined the International Brigade in its fight to save the Spanish Republic—and by the Popular Front line of the Comintern, shifted its emphasis from anti-interventionism to collective security against fascism."
Then the capitalists were allied to Hitler:
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. ...Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
Then the capitalists begged the "socialist exploiters" to save their miserable hides:
"Stalin met with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference and began to discuss a two-front war against Germany and the future of Europe after the war. Berlin finally fell in April 1945. Fending off the German invasion and pressing to victory in the East required a tremendous sacrifice by the Soviet Union, which suffered the highest casualties in the war, losing more than 20 million citizens, about a third of all World War II casualties. The full demographic loss to the Soviet peoples was even greater."
Then the capitalists betrayed the people who saved them before Hitler's corpse was cold:
"Operation Paperclip was a secret United States intelligence program in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from former Nazi Germany to the U.S. for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945 and 1959"
https wwwhistory news/what-was-operation-paperclip
"As James Q. Whitman reminds us in Hitler’s American Model, Nazi Germany learned many of its practices by studying the Jim Crow laws in the United States. In fact, as Whitman points out, Charles Vibbert, a Frenchman, argued in 1930, “The Ku Klux Klan are the fascists of America. The moment has come where Trump supporters have been revealed as not being believers in democracy or freedom but white supremacy and dictatorship. They were never patriots, they were white nationalists. Their conspiracies and violence replaced truth and justice. ‘The American Way’ was paved by white supremacy and enslaved black people. While fascists today might not wear hoods or swastikas, opting instead for red hats and confederate flags, their attempt to overthrow the US government this past week could have ended very differently."
https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/american-student-union
https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html
Again. Will you answer the question, or are you sticking with another "you got nothing on me copper" variant?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freedomordeath89 ...socdems are literally, by definition, capitalist. Socdems, historically, have resisted socialism in favor of putting in place capitalist regimes. If you don't even understand your own ideology, how can I trust you to understand others? See, your problem is, you're pointing to random groups and calling them socialist, and when you get called out, you're calling that a fallacy. I think we can say, for example, that Adam Smith wasn't a socialist, right? So is me saying that a "No True Scotsman" fallacy? No, its just true. Same with hitler. Hitler, according to all objective historical facts and definitions, is not a socialist.
1
-
@freedomordeath89 Aaaaand more overly emotional crying that nobody cares about your random, made up definition of socialists.
No, actually, I had no say in the definition of socialism, it was created centuries before I was born. I just adhere to it, something you seem incapable of doing.
You literally have no argument, your entire span of responses consists of accusing others of fallacies without once substantiating your claims, because you literally can't.
You're right, I don't decide who is a socialist and who isn't. The basic, centuries old definition does. And that definition proves you, objectively, wrong. Sorry?
If you are accusing me of a fallacy, prove it. Prove that your definition of socialism is somehow more correct than the objective historical one, and prove that the random people you're calling socialists at all adhere to that definition. If not, you're committing a fallacy of fallacies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JKJK Except... that isn't true. They aren't the same, at all, especially in ideology. Communism calls for a stateless, classless, moneyless society, and although it isn't actually achieved in the cases we have, the very goal of it is antithetical to nazism. Nazis were not left wing, they were right wing, and openly said they despised the left. communism, as an ideology, is all about spreading democracy to the workplace. And if stalin's non-efforts against poland started WW2, then isn't the western world also to blame for letting germany expand? Of course both ideologies have had bad regimes, totalitarian ones, but that's far from being the exact same. You couldn't even name that many actual ideological similarities.
1
-
@JKJK The program you're talking about doesn't exist. The closest I can find is the 25 point program, and it only has one of the points you mentioned, although it's documented in private that hitler didn't want to follow it. Hitler himself praised private property openly, and said that his ideology would protect it.
He's right wing because he primarily allied with conservatives, was open about hating the left and praising the right, and his ideology came from right wing figures. Even Mussolini said that fascism was right wing, it wasn't propaganda at all.
As for the main attributes, i'd say this - left leaning ideologies tend to value equality before all else, whether that's equality in terms of equality of opportunity with some fallbacks in capitalist social democracy, or rigidly enforced equality, or communal stateless equality. The right tends to prefer hierarchy, either the fluid ever-changing hierarchy of capitalism, or the rigid hierarchy of fascism and monarchism. That isn't to say that the left never embraces hierarchy, or the right doesn't want some measure of equality, but the further you move away from the center the more those values separate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@[CT CCTCGGCGGG] You should look into the actual history of those who praised the nazis. Hint - it was the right wingers. As in the people who still fly their flags.
first off, ideological influences/roots. The nazis, and fascists in general, were most influenced by the following figures - Spengler, Evola, and to a smaller extent Darwin and Carl Schmitt. First off, Spengler invented the idea of "Prussian Socialism." It was an ideology he was adamant had nothing to to do with any other socialism's, but he only devised the name from the same root word. This prussian socialism was nationalistic, corporatistic, in favor of private property as long as it benefited the state. Sound familiar? It wasn't quite fascism, it was a sort of proto-fascism, but it was nothing like socialism. Spengler was against labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. Not very much socialism. He, however, did share the same idea that his socialism was an ancient german tradition of sorts, that Marx had stolen. He also wrote extensively on the supposed collapse of western civilization, which heavily influenced the rise of fascism, and personally supported Mussolini. As for Evola, he was also heavily involved with the italian fascist party, considered himself a "super fascist" (I have no idea, his words not mine) but more importantly he was the largely the creator of traditionalism, a social policy that was very similar to the nazi's later sort of german mythos, something he sort of acted as a foreword to. He wasn't as much a fan of the fascist forces as they manifested, he wanted them to be far more reactionary and mystical, but he certainly did count himself among their ranks. As for Darwin, he himself did little to benefit the fascist movement, but Social Darwinism, which was largely pushed by reactionaries at the time, was a cornerstone of Nazi society. They believed in a sort of enforced superiority, eugenics, which the spread of social darwinism had very much popularized. Finally, while Carl Schmitt wasn't as influential as the other figures or ideologies mentioned, his anti-democracy work in the years before the rise of the nazis was somewhat influential in the ranks, as well as useful for radicalizing many other germans. He remained an avid supporter of a new nazi state until he died, sometime in the 80's. While his ideas are somewhat less commonly talked about, regarding the use of democracy and state power you can see at the least he very much echoed nazi sentiments. All of the ideologies I mentioned, and all of the figures (save darwin) were right wing, conservative reactionary figures.
Now - associations. I'll try to keep this a bit quicker. Hitler only came into power due to the effort of Franz von Papen, a conservative figure in the government who saw hitler as a way to take power against the increasing popularity of socialism. While he would later be expelled form the party, he also served as hitler's first vice-chancellor, and helped to populate hitler's first cabinet, many of which would go on to have long careers in the party. One of the first economic advisors for Mussolini was Classical Liberal Alberto de Stefani. Mussolini and Hitler both would spend a large part of their later regimes trying to appeal to the religious conservative crowd, Mussolini most of all, although a previous fascist country had managed far better, the FSA. Speaking of the FSA, their fascist party (even before takeover) The Fatherland Front under Engelbert Dolfuss employed a certain man by the name of ludwig von mises. While he would flee later to american after the FF took full control over the country and Hitler began to reach his influences into the country, Mises still taught the same economics that were so popular under the FF, and would later say that while he wasn't a fascist, he viewed it as a necessary tool in the defense of western civilization, like the Spengler fellow, a sentiment that would be echoed in part by later ideological descendants of Mises, and in a way re-contextualized by figures like Hoppe, who shared many of the same bigotries, disdain for democracy, and desire for "physical removal" of those he deemed unfit to participate in society, from communists to gay people. Hitler himself often found himself allied with conservatives industrialists of the time who would go across the ocean to work with him, most notably Ford, who would write books on jewish people Hitler personally praised and was awarded with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor a non-german could receive, and funnily enough Koch sr. The list goes on, as you can imagine.
As for policies, this one is rather simple - hitler opposed the right to collective bargaining, enriched the ruling classes of his time, and never came close to handing the workers the means of production. For a more in depth look at Hitler's betrayal of the "socialist" title, I recommend James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" for the rise in movements, both in capitalism and socialism, which only sought to take power and did so in betrayal of their principles and ideology.
1
-
@[CT CCTCGGCGGG] Calling the most right wing people "leftists" is certainly an interesting attempt at doublethink...
Quick problem with that - the nazis weren't socialists, and you're closer to the nazis than socialists willl ever be.
If that's the impression you got from reading marx, then you literally did not read him. He set out no road maps for anything, he's infamous for it.
The nazis quite literally despised those dialectics, ok.
This is the actions of a private company, mate. Not the government. You pretend to oppose the nazis, but as long as you pretend they are socialists you'll never actually be opposing them
There is nothing about the nazi regime that qualifies it as being socialist. Can you name something that qualifies it?
If you can't find that definition, you may just be blind.
State capitalism isn't a contradiction, however socialist nazism is. And you are wrong, you don't know what marxism is. Socialism is based on class, even before marx.
You've been proven wrong, time and time again. Perhaps you should stop supporting people like the nazis as they actually existed by strawmanning their ideology.
1
-
@[CT CCTCGGCGGG] Exactly, I look at those and I find that they were about as socialist as you are. Which is to say that no matter what parts of their propaganda you want to look at, all it takes is a tiny bit of effort to find how objectively wrong you are. Effort you should have put in ages ago.
Ohhh, you're that kind of denialist. You know the term right wing literally started with describing monarchists, right? The right has no aversions to giant governments, bureaucracies, and overbearing social policy and totalitarian rule. The left has no aversion to small or even no government, hell, anarchism is leftist, and libertarianism was used for a long time (and still is in many places) to describe leftists. This is so easy to disprove it's no wonder that you want to erase history, even looking at it for half a second proves you objectively wrong, instantly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TIK's definitions, if you want the truth, are made up. They are based off of extremists who declare, ahistorically, that the only "true capitalism" is one without a state, despite the fact that the first proponents of capitalism were avid statists, and capitalism always results in a state. The worst part is, however, TIK's definition of both capitalism and socialism are so warped, that he honestly thinks all prior and modern countries have been socialist, and despite, you know, historical records, no country has ever been capitalist. In short... why ask him to clarify? It's not like he thinks his ideology is correct, or even coherent. He knows its a lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love how you claim to be objective and yet your actions show the opposite. You fill your comment section with insults and misguided arguments, you lie to your audience and then use that to attack your enemies, you lend your support to every person who agrees with your even people who openly admit that they've done no individual research and much like you have no idea what they're talking about. You can even properly address the counters, because to do that would be to admit failure, which any objective historian would have done months ago. Your actions betray your intentions, and I do hope you're happy knowing the only effect of your videos will be to contribute in the radicalization of ignorant teens and ideological zealots, while objective history skips your psuedo-religious lies. If you wanted to properly reply to your critics, you'd have to make a 10 hour video. Instead, you decided to shop up your audience. You've said it yourself, I've left hundreds of comments on your page. So why were you afraid to include more?
edit - just thought i'd include the irony of pinning the comment "don't harass those in the videos" while rewarding literally everyone who says anything negative about those people in your own comment section, just incentivizing that behavior. Proving my point.
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight So you still can't even admit I watched the entirety of your video, despite directly citing numerous specifics from it. I guess you ideologues really are all the same... And, ohhh, you mean those "points" of yours refuted by your own sources, common sense, dictionary definitions, or the historical account of anyone that isn't a far right extremist? Those "facts" of yours that even you've admitted have no actual factual basis? Look, I know you're annoyed i've managed to disprove you several times, and I know you're so obsessed with me and the others that you've done a whole video to try to get the last word in, but its sad how me and the others who have likely watched more of your video than your fans are just swept under the bus because our facts hurt your feelings.
But, who am I kidding! We all know you'd rather continue to say the same old points that have been debunked so many times, and make so many silly excuses, because you can't handle the fact that I watched your silly, ahistorical video months ago, which is more than most of your fans can say... glorious. In any case, feel free to continue to try to convince others to troll, and remain ignorant of the facts! Maybe one day you'll manage a proper rebuttal.. I doubt it. Maybe one day you'll admit I watched the video, and grow as an individual from admitting you were wrong. I doubt this too.
1
-
1
-
@edwardcarson81 I find myself saying this to every person I happen upon in these comments, but my job here is not to defend any one ideology, it is to categorize them. And while putting fascism and socialism far apart is may be seen as a defense of socialism, I view it more as a better opportunity to criticize socialism for it's actual crimes without muddying the water. And I would point that out in the beginning, I often do, but you posed your own argument so I saw fit to address your argument before speaking on the validity of the video. I am no fan of either system, but to conflate them is utter nonsense. You can criticize both, hell, you can harbor a seething hatred for both, and still know that they are very different things. Because if you don't make that distinction, you're really only weakening your argument against both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight TIK, you have spent more time making up stories about me in the last week than I have actually commenting. I decided to come back, see what was happening, and of course I find you peddling more ahistorical nonsense. If anyone is a troll, it's you, who has refused to engage with a single bit of criticism beyond trollish accusations of imagined bigotry or projected accusations of bad faith. You absolutely defended the actions of hitler, you talked at length about the supposed benefits and labor unions that gave the german workers a leg up, ignoring that not only were your actual statements false, they wholly took up the torch of defending the actions of hitler. Of course you must also ignore the fact that I have addressed specific arguments and examples found in your video, as well as several other ones, because you simply think that just by presenting a faulty "counter" that the point can be wiped away. You cannot hide behind your excuses forever, and you and I both know that you've been wholly disproven, and are so dishonest you refuse to engage in any sort of good faith to respond to your failed arguments. I'll say it again, as I said the last time I called you out for this behavior - one cannot call hitler a socialist without getting into revisionist and apologist territory, and you prove that more and more daily. If you can't actually even listen to criticism, and call everyone who dares oppose you a marxist anti-semetic troll, I can see why less and less of your old fans are praising your videos, and rather its random people who have stumbled upon this one.
1
-
@Not_SoIrish That's the problem, stating he "improved the life of the average german" is quite silly.The only way to even start with that claim is to follow hitler's logic, and only count the few people he considered "true aryans" to be german citizens. If we don't do that, and count all pre-hitler citizens of germany, well we can't say that the averahe life improved, because of the many, many people that were killed or thrown in camps. Even then, many citizens were sent off to war, and millions died in it. But even at home, the life of the worker improved in some smaller ways, but hardly in the way TIK praised them for. For example, he used the German Labor Front to somehow show that life was better for the workers, despite the fact that the labor front was but in place specifically for the purpose of outlawing all unions and removing collective bargaining rights, replacing them with a state-run union that, specifically, could not go against the state. That was not an improvement for anything. Obviously he wasn't a capitalist, but trying to call him a socialist through TIK's revision isn't a good move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshualittle877
Hitler and the nazis were very much not socialists. Blocks of text with historical lies doesn't change that.
The nazi party was vehemently anti-socialist. You don't know what socialism is. Socialism isn't defined as the abolition of private property and centrally planned/managed economies, but hitler doesn't even fit that definition. They did not believe in those things. Hitler got into power because conservatives wanted him in power to oppose socialism.
Hitler said nothing like what you asserted, he openly discussed his desire to protect private property and private property interests. He didn't want to "Nationalize people," nor is that at all a coherent economic policy nor an example of socialist thought. He allowed private business to exist because he thought it was proof of the supposed superiority of his race and country, and he bribed, not forced, these private companies to support his right wing anti-socialist interests. They still owned their businesses, and they still profited, more even given that the nazis had long since shut down any sort of opposition to their private rule in the form of unionism. Companies like Volkswagon worked with the nazis specifically because it profited them the most, not because they were forced at gunpoint to make private profit.
Ownership was no illusion, it existed and was in many cases stronger than it had been under the Weimar republic, given the lack of oppositon by unionists or socialists that the nazis had made sure of. If you owned a business making boats, the nazi party would come to you and offer a contract to you and other boat makers for guaranteed profits so long as you made a certain amount of boats, a contract that would then be competed over by private individuals for the goal of profit. Other than that, they didn't tell you how do your business, what kind of boats to make and sell, how many you were to make, who you could sell them to and how you would sell them, and so on. They kept their profits and the vast majority of their autonomy. Not sure why you're trying to present the nazis as pro-gay or something, but the night of the long knives was explicitly an anti-socialist purge.
I'm sorry, they simply weren't socialist. As their ideology evolved they gave up even the pretense of being anything other than the far right anti-socialists they had been seen as for a while now. I'm sorry for the horrors your family went through but that doesn't erase the experiences of holocaust survivors and other victims of nazi germany, and the historians that studied them, all pointing out the anti-socialist nature of nazi germany.
The problem is, you are asserting that the nazis were socialists while literally repeating the very rhetoric and propaganda the nazis used against socialists. No, the education system is not overrun with socialists. And history itself shows us the difference between nazis and socialists, no conspiracy. No, nazi ideology is not socialism based on race. Not only is that oxymoronic, it doesn't reflect the reality of hitler's far right anti-socialist party. You don't know what socialism is and sadly you seem not to know the history of antisemtism either. Marx was antisemetic yes, but the others didn't come from jewish backgrounds, that's literally nazi propaganda. Lenin and Trotsky weren't antisemetic either, Lenin actually spoke out about and outlawed antisemetism. Stalin never tried to purge jewish people, and he too for all his faults relating to his individual bigots he never attempted to push policy with the goal of hurting jewish people or communities. Saying he hated jewish people as much as hitler is simply false. Nazi ideology is not at all socialism, even your imagined "socialism based on race."
The Baath party doesn't have much in common with the nazis at all, and the existence of far right religious extremists that supported other far right extremists (the nazis) is no surprise at all. There's no such thing as nazi with a marxist leaning. I'm saddened that you feel the need to spread such obviously false propaganda to serve the modern day far right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue I knew it. You don't care about history, because when we look at history, it instantly proves me wrong. You're propagandized, and brainwashed, and not even good at hiding it. I quoted it, straight from the horses mouth, and you're so triggered that you can't even deal with answering it. I knew it. You've not once quoted hitler, or any nazi, or any piece of history. And we both know why, it's because it would prove you wrong. The best part is, hitler hated the name of his party, and he didn't have the ability to stop them from changing to that name. Thanks for proving that i'm right, without a question!😂
1
-
@mcbarberblue Huh. You know, the funny part about that is that it just isn't true. If you want to fool yourself into thinking it is true, I would recommend that you provide actual citation, and not just your word. And i'm looking at your hypocrisy right now, and i'm sorry to say it's an ugly beast. I quoted hitler, and yes, it is important to listen to what he was saying. However, instead of quoting him, you've decided to assert something without proof, and then pretend as if you're right. So, he didn't want socialist in the party name, but once more, it's important to actually listen to what he said. For example, this line: ""'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the * 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. Or perhaps this one. "We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." Why do I ask you listen to these? Because it proves that when hitler said "socialist," he wasn't talking about the same system you and I are. But thank you for proving that you've not studied this subject once in your life. So, let's answer your question - do we listen to him, or do we ignore his word? Well, unlike you, we can't cherry pick lines to push an agenda, we actually have to listen to his whole position, not just the points you like. You seem awfully confident for a guy that just proudly displayed their own ignorance. So yes, I destroyed you. Oh, and I can't hate benny-boy, he's too funny. The only debates he's ever won are against college students, when he comes in front of a professional he turns into a bit of a "wet-ass P-word." 😂 You remember when he said that people should just sell their flooded homes? Or that time he lost an interview? HE's a joke, and he's proof that the right is so fundamentally stupid they just assume anyone who talks fast is smart.
1
-
@mcbarberblue Ohhh... I get it. You can't actually prove your assertion, so you got angry. I actually proved you wrong multiple times, but i'm waiting for you to actually even try to prove yourself right. Something you aren't that good at. You tried to point out "hypocrisy," failed miserably, and now are deflecting from that failed point yet again. Oh, by the way. Youtube videos of politicians (not historians) isn't actually citation. If we're playing that game, then here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI So if you somehow think a random biased politician's word means anything... gosh, just no. And as we've been over time and time again, of course hitler's ideology had nothing to do with communism, marxism, socialism, ect. It was right wing, and conservative, something hitler himself admitted to, something you refuse to acknowledge. They very much were on different ends of the spectrum, mate, and no matter how much you try to deflect from history that basic fact is not changing.Oh, by the way, your situation is completely incompatible with my example. Try this - who would have bought the home if it would have stayed flooded forever? That is the situation Shapiro was talking about. Not the ability to buy property when values go down after a disaster, but to try to sell your home in the middle of a disaster that destroyed your home.
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue Well the, that's nice. But that isn't really what I said. You probably should have know about this occasion before I started talking about it by the reference I made, but ok. If you've not seen the sea levels rise, well you kind of should be a bit more observant, but i can't blame you. It's risen about 2.5-4 inches in the past 20 years, which doesn't seem to bad, until you remember that the sea level isn't supposed to rise much more than a millimetre per year. Oh, and the rate is going up exponentially, which is fun. The thing is, the sea levels do rise and fall over time. Yet every time they rise, it's a little bit higher now. And every time they fall, it's never as low. That's something worth remembering. I agree, of course, that pollution is bad, and I really don't care much about your fantasies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue And yet, you said that somehow trump would be a threatening figure. And if helping me means giving unsolicited invites to fights, well buddy, I don't know what to tell you. I think we both do know i'm right, you just have yet to admit it. Thw thing is, the right has over and over shown themselves to despise free speech, and your threats only prove as much. If winning means offering to beat me up online, well buddy, that's quite a low bar. Yeah, sorry, I don't see fights with random online children as a good method of settling disputes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue I know, you watch a lot of videos, very few of them are actually based in facts though. But sure, if people want to do that, I see no issue with it. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy, as people tend not to like loud sounds randomly no matter what those sounds are, but sure. Oh, also - religious people, no matter the religion, tend to lean conservative. Yes, that includes muslim people. Does that trigger you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue Sorry, is that another ad hominem attack? Sad. Yes, you tried to call me arrogant because I correctly pointed out that you have yet to actually make an argument beyond insults and propaganda links. I don't care about those insults, by the way, but it just proves your intellectual dishonesty, really. I've been asking you what the question even is for about a day now, and I can't answer it if you never tell me what i'm even supposed to be answering. I've got plenty to say, but i'll boil it down - you're wrong. Objectively. The quotations prove my point, and as of yet, you have not rebutted them in any meaningful form. Hitler sprung for the right wing vote in both places, and he called himself a "socialist" while calling for decidedly anti-socialist policies. Calling me manipulative doesn't change the facts here buddy. As well as that, like I keep telling you, i'm not a socialist, and hitler objectively didn't want socialism. Also, you know most religious people, including Muslims, are conservative right? Jesus. I want you to listen to objective arguments without your normal screaming and crying and blatant dismissal. You've not pointed out anything to me that I haven't addressed, and you've not addressed one thing I pointed out to you. You don't want to accept context or nuance, just yell. You can call me anything you want, but we both know why you refuse to answer the question, and why you lost the conversation - you're objectively, historically, contemporarily, and politically wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue I don't need to do a thing about history kid, because we both know you're a liar that's trying to cover for the fascistic right. Hitler wasn't a socialist, no more than you were a socialist. You want to claim everyone else is nazis, but you use the same rhetoric of the nazis, praise free speech violations, and link the best friends of open racists, holocaust deniers, and neo-nazis. I don't even believe in a state, that would make me a pretty shit nazi. You, on the other hand, are already perfectly fine with falling into their ranks. Hitler wasn't a socialist, he was a far-right fascist that had nothing to do with socialism. What are you going to do about it? More importantly, why do you keep deflecting?
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue Where did I say that, kid. Go on and quote me, i'll wait. Oh wait, you can't, because I never said it. You, on the other hand, have openly announced your support for nazi figures. Also, you're proving yourself wrong. Globalism is a capitalist ideology that lies on the right. If you're calling nazis globalists, you're admitting that the nazis weren't socialists. Now, you're saying that the ideology of gaining profits is literally worse than hitler. This is the thing with you far right extremists, you love to try to normalize the nazis. You can't call me a globalist, a socialist, and a nazi, those terms cannot coexist. And I know why you didn't answer my question, it's because you know that the second you do I would demolish your argument, so you're scared of answering it. It's probably because you're scared of the fragility of your argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue You are in denial, kid. That's the point. I just don’t agree with you, at all, because you come up with some bullshit about me being "a believer to start with and then changing my mind," and now you're just making stuff up to try to avoid dealing with the fact that you can't answer the question. And I don't care at this point, deflect all you want. You want to claim everyone else is nazis, but you use the same rhetoric of the nazis, praise free speech violations, and link the best friends of open racists, holocaust deniers, and neo-nazis. I don't even believe in a state, that would make me a pretty shit nazi. You, on the other hand, are already perfectly fine with falling into their ranks. Hitler wasn't a socialist, he was a far-right fascist that had nothing to do with socialism. What are you going to do about it? More importantly, why do you keep deflecting?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Donestre1234 Nationalism is absolutely antithetical to both of those things, as socialism has always focused on the international shared struggle of class identity, not national identity. Marx never even focused on the nation, he explicitly said that the struggles of the workers were not just resigned to one nation, but to all of them, meaning internationalism. Stalin literally went against all of the principles of socialism, and wasn't even a nationalist, he worked with the Americans plenty. Most socialist parties didn't want to touch the war, nearly every single one, because it was an anti-socialist issue. The Italians especially knew this, because Italian socialists and Italian fascists voted opposite on nearly everything, including the war. It was absolutely in issue, not of competing factions, but of socialism vs separate unique ideologies.
1
-
@Donestre1234 Can "national identities" still exist under communism? Yeah, kind of, but not really. The whole point of socialism is to focus on class before race, before gender, before nation. The case you're talking about doesn't actually reflect that. On top of that, no, national identity pretty much could not exist under a system that does not have any states, or classes, or nations, because that's what a worldwide communist system would be. You're thinking of a different war, this was WW1, and Lenin's first act while in change of the Soviet Union was literally to pull out of the war. In WW1 the issues were absolutely issues of socialism vs nationalism, and they very much shaped the assessment of such issues.
1
-
@Donestre1234 That's not even close to true. For one, syndicalism by itself is not socialist, that's anarcho-syndicalism. Alongside that, these people weren't just "syndicalists" either, they preached themselves as a right wing variety called, wait for it, "National Syndicalists." Mussolini never intended for fascism to be on the left, nor did he want it to be socialist, as he openly said. And so, it was neither of those things. The system you described is, by definition, anti socialist, no matter what small and nuanceless semantic connections can be made.
1
-
@Donestre1234 If the world, tomorrow, turned into a communist world, then the very concept of nation itself would cease to exist. People may still feel some form of connection with their heritage or culture, but the notion of tying that to a nation, a piece of land, would vanish. Why? Well, what would they have to feel nationalistic about? Here is the definition of nationalism is such - "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." How can they be nationalistic when there is no nation, and there are no borders? How can you care about your country to the detriment of other countries when you don't even know where your country ends and their's starts? You can't. And yes, communism is by definition a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Lenin was clearly against the war, not just because of the logical problems with fighting it, but because it was a war the proletariat had no stock in, and quite correctly he pointed out it was a war that faulty alliances and bureaucracy had forced them to fight in anyway. He may have seen some good things in the war, but he certainly wasn't willing to expand the soviet union into destroyed Europe. Byt the time Lenin was in power the "civil war" had been all but won.
1
-
@Donestre1234 Syndicalism is not socialist, nor is it leftist, by definition, that is if you're counting "national syndicalism," which was but a fancy word for corporatism at the time. The fascists utterly rejected socialism, leftism, ect. Here's a quote from the Doctrine of Fascism. "A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century. " They rejected those things you said they were built on. Also, your very link details how much of their goals were not put into place, nor are they particularly left wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tombrunila2695 @tom brunila no, insults are insults. Try to keep up champ. By the way, the far right conservative Nazis did actually reach their ideal society, they said so themselves. They wanted to oppress people, they wanted to work with private interests, they wanted to kill thousands of socialists. They had accomplished all of that well before their defeat. The Nazis were not collectivists, nor are they necessarily statist. Hell, communism is literally a stateless society. The USSR could not have been communist, as they have a state. Totalitarianism doesn't make places have the same ideology child, you should know that by now. But it's ok, I can see that you're very angry I proved you wrong. You should work on that. Yes, I think we both know that the USSR was a totalitarian state, but we also both know that the Nazis were right wing, and not at all socialists.
1
-
@tombrunila2695 No, actually, I continue to provide proof and you continue to pretend said proof "doesn't count"as it is detrimental to your "point." You said *all" communist parties friend, not just some, a position you seem to be just now realizing the absurdity of. And yes, i'm well aware that soviet russia was an oppressive and bizarre place to live. The state, however, did not kill people for not being socialist enough, they often killed people for being too socialist. Stalin didn't "found" the kulaks by the way, they were a classification that already existed long before him. They also continued to exist after him. I love the fact that you have to assume i'm a communist. It's because you know you have no proof, and want to deny the fact that i'm objectively right. It isn't my "ideology of choice," child, no matter how much you want it to be. And you seem to forget that the USSR went from a backwards feudal hellscape to having decent space travel in only a few decades, something america had never done. I would say socialism has been successful in america, given it was socialists who fought for civil rights and abolition of slavery the hardest. That's a funny thing to call "oppression, misery, and poverty," the freeing of all american slaves. The national "socialists" actually agreed with you on many issues, as they agreed with many conservatives, and threw socialists in camps long before any other group. This is, of course, because the nazis were far right and not socialists. My arguments are all true, every single one, and are well known by anyone with more than a solitary brain cell, not communists. And I don't seem to recall the soviet union having the MoP in worker hands, or having no state, class, and money, so... yes. They were not.
1
-
@tombrunila2695 People were actually put in forced labor camps and more importantly death camps in nazi germany for being socialist. That's a fact. What fasts have i provided? Nothing but them. You're the one who has refused to even try to engage with reality. And you realize that the only reason america had that technology in the first place was because we took nazi scientists and agreed to pardon them if they would work for us? WE spied on them the entire time as well, and doubtlessly stole plenty of information at the same time. It was the USA that german scientists were primarily brought to, not the USSR. One of the heads of NASA was a nazi, if i remember correctly. You seem to try to be passing moral judgement on a regime that can be much more effectively criticized. And while stalin's economic conditions did result in the deaths of many kulaks, he certainly didn't wipe the entire group out as you imply.
Were those that fought for slaves in the republican party? Yes. Were they socialists? Also yes. That's because the republican party has moved much further right than it was at inception, while the democratic party has moved further left. Socialists fought to free slaves. Hell, Marx endorsed lincoln. Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, or Horace Greeley, the kist goes on really.
Considering that the soviet union was just around longer, then yes? that is how the linear function of time does indeed work. It's funny you say people "abandoned" socialism because they didn't like it, bu more and more people kept trying it, and still try it to this day. I wonder why that is. You realize, right now, you live in a capitalist country with shortages of everything? And that unsurprisingly, you don't realize the contradiction in your statement? And yes, i'm not a socialist, but unlike you I don't praise or criticize an ideology solely because I agree with it or not. That's "how come." And no, i am still not a socialist, nor a communist, but go ahead and keep reaching mate. You'll get there one day.
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight You see, this is the problem. In trying to call the nazis socialists, you always lapse into nazi apologism. You, again, assume I haven't watched the video just because I disagree with your false version of history. Does living under a totalitarian regime where you could get tossed into a camp at the slightest sign of dissent, or "degeneracy," sound like caring about the workers? Does campaigning with films like Erbkrank to convince the public that disabled people did not deserve to live sound like caring about them? You ignore that this union was established in the place of all other collective bargaining rights (which were removed) and had no automnity, it acted as only a pacifying arm of the state. And it's odd that the rich gained so much wealth and kept coming over from other countries to work with the nazis with this "massive tax burden," but oh well, those must not have been real right people, right? All this of course relating primarily to german citizens, which discounts the fact that they arbitrarily removed that citizenship from groups they don't like. Right, sounds so worker friendly.
1
-
1
-
@the_answeris6694 So to you, obvious right wingers aren't right wing. And you claim I know nothing about the subject. Two things - for one, that speech was written for him, not by him. Want to guess who by? Well, no less than his minister of propaganda. Second off, you have to look at how hitler defined socialism. Let's look at some quotes.
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"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... 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"
"'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the J*w 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.
"
None of that sounds remotely leftist. So, it turns out he defined socialism at whatever he wanted, and then spread that instead. As for this nonsense "Ending the freedom, liberty, and opportunity of capitalism is a long held LEFT -WING SOCIALIST demand," that was actually a right wing demand first, by the monarchists. It then became right wing again, with the fascists, as they thought that sometimes capitalism could work against their culture. Face it - they weren't socialists, and that's objective fact. Welcome to reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Reriiru Well first off, you'll notice the vast majority of the time isn't actually going over the material. The first ~1.5 hours are his critique of socialism and promotion of capitalism. The last ~1.5 are him addressing smaller, less historial arguments. Only the middle section ever even dives into his point. Hell, the vast majority of his citation goes into that first part, not the actual historical bits. On top of that, he defines socialism as literally state power, and defines a state as any collective of multiple people.
The problem is of course, he didn't do that. Hitler rarely called himself a socialist in anywhere but a few public speeches, and even then he defined "socialism" to be the same as "nationalism." He didn't make the party, he took over it with a new faction, and then purged most of the old members. He didn't institute socialist policies, unless you consider regulations on a capitalist market or basic welfare socialist, in which case every country is socialist. Hell, that second to last thing, "rivate property redistribution to the state officials" is about as un-socialist as it gets. There's a reason he, and his allies, wrote hundreds of pages explaining their ideology, and it isn't just so they could be called a new branch of socialist. He was a fascist, right wing. He blamed "marxist socialism" for many things, but the key is that he defined all socialism as marxist socialism, and tied it to marx (who was ethnically jewish) to aide his conspiracies. One more thing - globalism is a capitalist ideology. Come on. So, not socialist, really at all.
I mean, it kind of is taking them on their word, but whatever. Which of their actions gave the workers as a whole any sort of control over the means of production? Maybe when he outlawed all unions? Or when he put union leaders in camps? Or maybe when he used the state to reward owners of private property while ignoring the workers? No, they weren't socialist. Totalitarian? Yes. Places like Denmark or Sweden, while not socialist, are good examples of places with strong welfare systems that help the poor have a say in their lives. The nazis literally put out hundreds of films, like Erbkrank, with the sole purpose of pointing out the drain such programs caused. I would recommend actually reading some nazi or Italian fascist literature on their ideology, or some analysis of it, and not from guys like this who think statism is socialism. You find that they rejected socialism, wholly, but (like capitalism) stole some bits to use along the way. However, they didn't care about any of what socialists cared about, they just saw potential in the rhetoric. I would be happy to show you some quotes showing this. Overall, they weren't socialists, and that's pretty well known for a reason.
1
-
@Reriiru The problems (as i've stated) in the video are numerous. The issue of course is that all arguments for saying the nazis were socialists, much like yours, utterly ignore the definition, even while you quote it.
Yes, you quoted the definition. And, funnily, enough, even you have to segment and twist it to even get close, and even then it doesn't work. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Did the workers, as a whole, own the means of production, distribution, and exchange in nazi germany? No, they did not. Did hitler advocate for them to? No, he did not.
"Did Hitler and NazSoc party own and redestribute the means of production? Yes, yes it did, the video gives you the evidence INCREDIBLY clearly."
I think you misread the definition. The means of distribution *must be owned by the community, *socialism is not just when redistribution is done. By that logic, i'm sorry to say, the founding fathers were all socialists. The question, of course, is who were they distributed to in nazi germany? Not the workers, and that already disqualifies hitler for being a socialist. In fact, they were most often distributed back to private companies. Tell me, was Thatcher a socialist? Reagan? After all, they "redistributed the means of production"... into private hands. Is a dead father passing down his factory to his son socialist? No, I didn't think so.
"Did it regulate it? Yes it did. "
You forgot that last bit of the definition again. "regulated by the community as a whole." So is now every economy that is even slightly regulated a socialist economy?
"Was it representing a community (albeit a very particular one)? Yes it bloody did."
Ah, and there we have it. Even you can't twist the definition enough. According to you, the "workers *as a whole*" bit can be utterly discarded, as long as they were representing "a community." So, again, someone like Reagan, who redistributed some means of production into private hands, held over a somewhat regulated economy and called for regulation himself (Mulford Act) and was representing a community of white, rich republicans and private property owners... was socialist. This is why you can't pick and choose when it comes to definitions.
"Was it done under a particular political and economic theory? Yes, as outlined in a book I can not legally read because of the other sect of socialists."
Like, come on man. You didn't have to make this point, i'm pretty sure we all know fascism is an economic theory. One, that, unsurprisingly, rejects the left and socialism!
"A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century. "
And you know you can find PDFs online, right? Stop blaming socialists for all your problems.
What i'm debating here is why you somehow think your argument is at all solid. You all but admitted it, the nazis do not fit the definition of socialism. The reason I "avoid association so desperately" is because none exists. What I would ask you, in turn, is why you try to push that nonexistent association so desperately? Why is it so important to you that the nazis were socialists, even when asserting that makes no reasonable sense?
1
-
@Reriiru Because you literally, not figureatively but literally, managed to prove your argument wrong in just a few sentences. It's truly amazing the lengths you'll go to to deny this.
I know you cannot answer to your own hypocrisy, but at least make it less obvious that you're a biased hack.
So why do you push that association? Well to narrow it down, it's because you, (like TIK) have no clue what socialism actually is. You literally call Reagan a kind of socialist and then spend time complaining about me not showing the ideology being consistent with itself. No, it always has been. It's always been about "the workers" and to define it as broadly as you do makes the term meaningless. You are, already, denying history. It very clearly wasn't marxist, but it wasn't socialist as well, because you people seem to have no idea what the hell marxism actually is, or where it differs from socialism to begin with. What i am telling you is not about marxism, it is about socialism itself. And no, by any definition, Reagan was not socialist, and nowhere close to the left. That notion is utterly baffling, i'll be honest. And then you literally just go and say it, you call everyone a socialist who calls themselves socialist. No, that isn't how it works. I cannot advocate against a system under said system's label and be taken seriously.
This takes your argument to a whole new level of moronic. Now, you're trying to put a moralistic spin on it. "If you deny the crimes of your past, you'll never learn from them." Sorry, when the hell did I call for ethnic cleansing? The system modern socialists propose is utterly incompatible with nazi ideology, and the system the socialists of the time of the nazis proposed was as well. Your statement makes no sense, and i'll give you an example why. The USSR called themselves "state capitalist." Mussolini called himself "state capitalist." The modern Chinese system is often referred to as "state capitalist." Ok, you're most likely a capitalist. So i'll be expecting an apology for your atrocious and criminal acts of trying to distance yourself from mussolini, the USSR, and modern day china.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JeffPenaify @Jeff Boxing @Jeff Boxing ok, first off, what? No, sweden isn't socialist, and TIK agrees with that statement far more than any actual socialists. in any case, first off, socialism is not at all when the government does stuff. Hell, some of the first proposed version soft socialism were stateless, and that's a branch of socialism that continues strong to this day. In any case, socialism means the collective ownership of the means of production, and it's kind of hard to lay claim to that when you're collecting all power in the hands of private backers and government officials while throwing huge percentages of your population in death camps. Also, what the hell are you describing nazi germany as? "Welfare state?" They literally elected over fearmongering over government spending, and then ran a eugenics plan to get rid of disabled and elderly people. Not at all a welfare state. The union you talk about? Was under direct control of the workers bosses, and was only put in place because doing so made all other worker organization illegal. that doesn't represent a majority of the workers at all, especially since most of them were currently undergoing mass political censorship and ethnic cleansing. Oh, and did you ever wonder why they called themselves socialists? Well first, why the hell would you trust a regime known for lying about everything from eugenic "science" to the state of their war? In any case, maaaaaybe look into how hitler actually defined his version of "socialism." I'll give you some quotes if you'd like, but they all follow the same lines. "Leftist socialism is actually not socialist at all, in fact, the only real socialism is (insert whatever was politically convenient)" like, hitler literally called himself an individualist, and then said that the individual was a myth. He said he wanted to stop greedy capitalists, but then allied with a shit tone of them and called the private market the most efficient method of production. The man was a liar, and damn good at it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicholascastellano5106 Sorry, that just isn't true, and we both know it. The first socialists didn't even believe in a state, how could socialism be about state power? The issue of class was always a part of socialism, but the methods of addressing it varied for a while until a more concrete set of actions was later formed. Mussolini openly rejected Marx and called his ideology right wing. He openly said he wanted to leave socialism behind and create something new, fascism. He didn't care about socialism in any form, he showed that, and said it. Hitler, again, learned instead from the same revolutionary traditionalists that Mussolini did, like Schmitt, Evola, Spengler, ect. He created national socialism based off of the conservative "Prussian Socialism" of Spengler, which again, openly said it was not related to any other socialism, and was right wing. Socialism is not, and never has been, about state control. I "claim" hitler was not a socialist, because Hitler literally defined socialism as being synonymous with nationalism, and being against everything the left was for, because he also said he hated the left. Oh, and he also said he respected private property. How... "socialist" of him.
1
-
@nicholascastellano5106 That isn't even close to true. For one, the place you're thinking of was called "New Harmony," and it wasn't in the 1600s, it was in the mid 1800s. While it was before Marx's time, they still very much had an ideology based in the dissalusion of private property and collective control, not state control. They also did their best to minimize class differences within the community, long before Marx began to speak on those issues. It also wasn't the first socialist community/experiment, not even in America, the Shakers take that title. The town failed because, well, it was a colonial town. Most of those failed, it just didn't have the backing it needed. Marx's ideas of class were not just shared by Marx, and did not start with Marx. Neither did communism. Or socialism. But they have always dealt with collective control and the issues of class. While Marx did want Communism through Socialism, he didn't come up with Communism, nor was his the only kind of communist. He also didn't have a wholly unique take on socialism. You really need to brush up on your history of the development of socialism and socialist ideals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyvamakes5226 If that's all you see him as, look again. Most capitalists are willing to admit the nazis weren't socialists, willing to admit capitalism can be statist, willing to admit that things like order exist under capitalism. He is willing to do none of the above and twists his "history" videos to this absurd perspective.
The "reason" the nazis had socialist in the title of their party was because they wanted voters. I mean think for a minute, the party had infighting, purges, factional wars, splinters, everything. You really think they kept a core ideology the whole way through?
Mussolini isn't a socialist, though. And his rule was sure as hell anti-semetic. I hate to break this to you but holocaust denialism isn't a good look.
Barter isn't capitalism, though. Of course, you would know this if you ever did any actual individual research, but just "trade" isn't capitalism. Furthermore, I would recommend admitting what he says about "the individual" vs "the collective."
And of course you've only used his videos as sources - because his videos are filled with lies and inconsistencies. Because he can't hold a solid opinion for longer than a month. And because you're willing to fall for his lies. The length some of you people go to defend a clearly ideologically incoherent man is just sad.
Sources -
"FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism"
"Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism"
Also, his particularly funny video on Marx.
1
-
@Undead38055 You really don't get it, do you? I can answer your question - TIK is wrong because he's been unable to prove otherwise. If you have a counter to that, feel free to present it, but i'm seeing nothing so far. And as I told you, time and time again. You're asking me to prove something wrong, when you're not even willing to put forth the effort to pretend its right, and make an argument for it. You're still deflecting, to this second. Again, let me repeat - "That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I don't have to prove you wrong if you can't even prove you right. As for "most people don't hold the same opinion as [me]..." jesus what an echo chamber you're in. In the real world, the vast majority of people know that TIK's assertions in this video are nonsense, and lend him no more credence than that. I mean hell, how disconnected are you? You ask me to make a blog, upload a video, and I ask you... why? There have been books published on the subject for decades now, there have been papers and articles going back years on this very subject, again i'll remind you TIK's sources disagree with him. So the problem is, the combat of history has already been fought, and won. You're just unwilling to do your own research. The battle being fought now is not over the truth, that was decided years ago, and TIK isn't agreeing with it. The battle is over who can get the most people to agree with them, truth or not. That's why you recommend I make a youtube channel, and act like the hundreds of historians who dedicated their lives to this topic alone... just don't exist. Stop asking for "sources and reasoning" when TIK has provided more against him than for him, and you've provided none. What matters isn't "investment." It's the truth. And I would rather a boring or uncomfortable truth than an easily sold lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyvamakes5226 This isn't just about "perspective." This is about the man you're defending.
Here are two stories. One of which I can link to you, the other, you're going to have to take my word for.
I was scrolling through TIK's comment section, months ago. I had watched a few of his less ideological videos, enjoyed them, but saw an odd video with an odd title pop into my recommended. Clicked on it, scrolled through the comments, and found TIK repeating a classic right wing line against a socialist in the comments. Nothing special, "Scandinavia isn't socialist, its a social democracy, regulated capitalism." Nothing special. And yet, couple of weeks later, the guy is asserting that capitalism can't exist within a state, or really anywhere despite the individual, despite most capitalists being statists, and a hell of a lot of individualists being anti-capitalist, and that everything else is just socialism. Now, people can change their mind, but given the time span it much more seems like he's just willing to say or do anything to "win" an argument. That's why he makes videos like this.
The second story, the one I can link to you, is one a few months later, in which I had attempted to engage TIK a number of times on historical inaccuracies, and he had taken to calling me a troll who never watched the video. Then, I suppose he got fed up, because he started accusing me of being a marxist, and called me a holocaust denying anti-semite. All because I dared point out some flaws. Don't believe me? Here's a link - scroll down. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg)
TIK, ideologically, makes no sense. He wants to be right and he wants the people he dislikes to be wrong, and he's willing to do a lot to get that, and frankly I don't care anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyvamakes5226 I'm aware that he's trying to promote other perspectives, and I don't even disagree with his idea that set or established "truths" should be questioned, and revised if found inadequate. My problem is that he seems rarely honest when discussing what is supposed to be factual and what is supposed to be his viewpoint or the way he wants you to see the opposing viewpoints of others.
And sure, its his right to make videos like this. Never tried to deny that to him, not like I could. But its my right to point out the flaws in these videos, and how presented as they are, they're dangerous. Take the whole "Mussolini wasn't an anti-semite" thing. Yes, initially his ideology wasn't centered around anti-semetism BUT under his rule jewish people were persecuted, restricted, oppressed, ect. And of course, Fascist italy was a willing participant in the german effort and holocaust, which is about as anti-semetic as you get. Not recognizing that opens up the road to apologizing for figures like mussolini. Furthermore, I understand it seems like overkill to put in the amount of effort he does. But I wiuld say so. When writing an essay, would you never try to pad the lenght, or add in more sources just to have a longer work cited page? I'm not saying he's doing that, but its the same reasoning. Because doing that makes your point look a lot more impressive. Suddenly your video isn't being advertised as a quick comeback to the leftists, now you can try to call it the work of a historian, even if it isn't true.
He says a lot of his critics don't watch the video, but I doubt that's true in most cases. But even if it was... why does he act the way he does? If everything is already addressed in the video, he should just have quotes and timestamps saved to copy-paste to anyone who brings up those points. But instead he insults and writes off, which no matter what, isn't a good look.
Well, thank you for that I guess, and all i'll say is that I wouldn't have nearly the same problems with TIK if he'd stop treating history like a political tool and those who are curious like a directable mob or an impressionable consumer base.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nestword5654 ...yes. He has called many people all of those things, all with no proof, because he would rather accuse and insult than dare to argue with people than know better than him. Perhaps you should stop defending someone who is so willing to lie. And I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of the people talking to him fit none of those words. He only tries to shove those words onto them because if he doesn't he has to admit that they proved him wrong. Which they did. He doesn't know how to call people what they are, so he lies. Oh, and nice insult, but no there's no "Cheap tricks" to be found, nor did I ever even imply he only talks to me? What are you talking about? Please stop lying. Calling someone a troll who has never even watched a video, when that is blatantly false and has been pointed out to be so several times, is nothing more than an attempt at an ad hominem insult, attacking my supposed character rather than my arguments. He does in constantly. The problem is, you people treat his videos like a bible, and if you don't have the same interpretation, you say they :haven't even watched it." I have watched TIK's videos, as well as discussed that issue in particular with him. If he supposedly addressed those arguments in the video, where are they? And why did he instantly contradict them when I commented to him directly? If you actually read my points or watched his video you could tell easily that nothing he says ever even addresses the arguments I bring up. Of course, you've done neither of those things, so how could I expect you to understand that basic fact? You assert that he countered something I said, and yet no proof of that has ever been presented to me, and in fact proof to the counter has been presented to me by TIK himself. So do you have a citation, or are you willing to admit you're wrong? Also, I see no shame in not watching his full video. I mean, I suffered through it specifically because i've dealt with TIK so much, but the video is based on lies, lies that are put forward as arguments in different videos. All you have to do is point out, say, that his definitions are nonsense and that his citations don't agree with him, and every other point crumbles. He's trying to prove the nazis were socialists with a made-up definition of socialism, so yeah, all it takes is to show that and suddenly the behaviors he's describing, when accurate (Which is seldom true) don't show any sort of socialism. See the problem? Perhaps you should attempt to better understand the context before you leap into a conversation you know nothing about.
1
-
@Nestword But... he didn't. He made his claim and then "backed it up" with sources that openly disagree with his conclusions. The few sources that don't are not historical, rather, they are ideological. That's why he tends to cite more right wing economists than historians. He doesn't really back much of anything up, because backing something up doesn't just require that you have a source, it requires said source being actually applicable to what you're trying to state, and sadly for TIK not once does that happen. And what about me? Yes, I am more than willing to interrupt your ahistorical nonsense session to point out that he is wrong. And as we've been over - he has yet to prove he's right. In fact, none of you, not one of you, have made a single bit of effort to even attempt to prove him right, you all just deflect and insult when I bring up facts you don't like to hear. I say that he knows he's wrong, and that others do as well, because me and TIK have been discussing this for 3/4ths of a year now, and the rest of these children can hardly string together a sentence that isn't "watch the video!" despite... well you know, that not applying. So yes I agree, your type is always beating around the bush, always deflecting, always drowning the other person with an ocean of meaningless words that lack any meaningful substances. And yes, after they do that, I asked them to prove the claim they made, the whole TIK being right one. Haven't gotten an answer yet.
"Did he say exactly that?" Yes, in fact, he did. Around timestamp 04:18:16 of the 5 hour nonsense-fest. He admits that many of the historians he cites disagree with his conclusions, and in fact names one in particular, Richard Evans. (author of one of the most comprehensive and historically respected series of works on the Third Reich) He states that Evans points out clearly in the source that the nazis were not socialists, and in fact gives many reasons for this. TIK then responds by saying that Evans must have been fooled by some marxist conspiracy, because the definition that Evans uses for socialism (a definition Evans actually researched, backed up, and has been accepted for decades) is incorrect, TIK of course citing his long disproven "Public Vs Private" video. In other words, TIK cites people that come to opposite conclusions to him, but twists their information to twist his own political agenda. And yes, I think when you admit you see yourself as above historians who will live and die far more recognized than you'll ever be, and you in fact show contempt for said figure, you can kiss your nonsense argument goodbye.
And of course, I replied to people here making the assumption that "there is no counter argument," that there was "no attempt to engage with the actual arguments," ect. I haven't seen any proof of that yet. And of course, that which is presented without evidence... you get the gist. This isn't my comment chain, dude. I replied to people making the assertion that TIK was right and his opposition is not only wrong, but has basically never addressed his argument. And of course... nobody here has been able to give any proof to support that nonsense statement. The burden of proof lies solidly with who I replied with, and with whoever takes up their cause.
Perhaps you should stop commuting the fallacy of fallacies and listen. If the vast majority of the contributors and founders of an ideology disagree with you on what said ideology means, they are much more likely correct than some random ideological zealot on youtube.
And yes, that evidence is what's known as "political common sense." Think about it, the nazi party was filled with strife, different ideologies, infighting. You think they kept the same ideology, hell even same leadership, that was around when they chose the name? Hitler, later, would make a point out of attempting to redefine the word socialism, and why redefine a word instead of just picking a new one? Well, that's because it has political appeal. If I was to rename my ideology to "goodthingsism" and say "all we want are good things," you can point out that's a lie and maybe I don't want "good things," but the title is what draws people in, especially desperate people. Furthermore, TIK asserts capitalism is defined by private property, that being just the individual, and trade with no state interference being that.
Well you see, Marx didn't use the ancient greek definition of private, or the rough equivalent word. Proudhon didn't use the latin definition of state, or the rough equivalent word. Likely both because those words had other meanings and because languages change, but also because the state as it exists under capitalism, private property as a concept, Didn't exist back then. So why would you use a word from a culture that has no concept of the topic at hand? Furthermore, TIK tries to draw lines between ancient etymology and modern words, which doesn't work. Since the definitions of private and individual were intermingled in ancient times, he attempts to intermingle them again. However, that isn't how language works. Here's an example - in ancient rome, the word for "family" and the word for "servant/slave" were very similar. Does that mean in the modern day that anyone who claims to love "family values" wants slavery to return? no? So you see the problem. Not to mention, of course, that socialists and capitalists don't use TIK's definition. Ancient languages have no more inherent value than modern ones, nothing has been "perverted," champ. As for an example of far right extremists TIK happily cites, we can point out Hayek, who praised fascist regimes and traces his own ideology back to a long line of people who did the same, alongside advocating for monarchism over democracy. That man isn't a historian. I already gave you an example of a historian, but are you really claiming that some biased ideological hack has more expertise in history than someone who dedicated their lives to the subject and has received worldwide praise for their work? Damn. That's a new low.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexmuller1680 1. The problem of course is that the system you are describing, and attributing to socialism, is not socialist. While it was an ideology that certainly centered around giving to the state to eventually give back to the people, that's hardly socialist in origin, the monarchists had a similar system. The problem is that socialism as an ideology has bases in promoting the well-being of the workers as a whole, as well as giving them control of the means of production. And yes, that does include pre-marx socialism. The nazis achieved, and even wanted, nothing close to that. They didn't even want the workers of their nation or their race to own the means of production, they still gave it to the state or private interests over them. And for equality? As a concept, it was despised by the nazis. Hierarchy was a natural part of life for them, and that extended to from the rigid racial hierarchies they tried to impose onto the world to the constant political hierarchies of the dictator's power being broadened and challenged. Equality, as a concept, was despised. Certainly there was a tiny degree of it, but when people are being tossed into camps daily you can't really call it equality. The problem is that hitler's ideology wasn't just "socialism in one country" or "socialism but with nationalism as well." As I already said, he didn't apply the rules of socialism to his own people, so that discounts that idea. He held up private property as a good, worked with conservatives and capitalists, threw socialists in camps. Of course there isn't one "pure"form of socialism, but every form has the same things in common - they want the workers, as a whole, to own the means of production. How we get there, how that society is structured, what else they want, that's where socialists differ. But hitler didn't want that.,so he could not be a socialist. The problem with many of your examples is that yes, they don't fit the definition. That doesn't mean we broaden the definition of socialism, it means we apply it consistently.
2. Corporatism is a concept that, no offense,has more in common with capitalism than socialism. It's a system where the wealthy private property owners are compensated and rewarded by the government over the workers, which ironically, was something very similar to the system that the first socialists united specifically against. Of course socialism wasn't a concept or word yet, but even then, this idea of "socialism" does not line up with the actual founding of the socialist movement, and what it stood for. Was socialism created from absolutely scratch? Of course it wasn't, but again, it was based not on pro-private systems, but on systems specifically made to combat the problems with an intermingling of private and governmental power to the detriment of the people. The fascist doctrine, while it did take from socialism partly, also took from capitalism, and other ideologies. That makes it a unique ideology. I'll quote Mussolini here: "A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century." So again, are there multiple forms of socialism? Of course, Democratic, Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian, Green, ect. But all of these systems have that base thing in common. And fascism absolutely does not have that thing. They took from socialism, certainly, but did not take the whole thing, or even most of it, and could not reliably be called socialists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fatherelijahcal9620
Yeah, one quick problem - that isn't true though. This is pretty basic stuff, and I'm not surprised TIK has lied to you to the extent that you don't understand it. Let me repeat myself - marx never differentiated between socialism and communism. He used the terms interchangeably. He described a lower phase communism/socialism (stateless, still with classes and currency) and a higher stage communism/socialism. (stateless, classless, moneyless) The person who came up with the idea of socialism being distinct from communism, and eventually "withering away" into communism, was Lenin, after Marx's death. That's why the whole "statist socialism before stateless communism" ideology is called marxist leninism, because it was lenin's adaptation of Marx's ideas. So, evidently, you don't understand Marx. Now, fascists, like Hitler and Mussolini, in no way desired socialism. Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." or "a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production," social ownership meaning "the appropriation of the surplus product produced by the means of production by a society or community as a whole." Mussolini and Hitler never desired a system in which the means of production were regulated by the community as a whole, that's why they constantly privatized or put businesses in party or loyal hands. Socialism is not state ownership, the fascists do not want a solely state controlled economy, and socialism and fascism are incompatible. This. Is. Basic.
1
-
@2020Max1
But again - this isn't true. Fascism is an ideology, not a practice. Fascism has always, and still, meant a far right, ultra nationalist society, characterized by traditionalism, anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and so on. By definition, there cannot be a left wing fascist. Fascism is not just authoritarianism, or trying to put one's ideas out through authoritarianism, that existed long before the first fascist and will exist long after. Hitler was most certainly a right wing fascist, an anti-socialist, an anti-communist, and an anti-leftist. They were anti-union, anti-leftism, pro-privatization, pro-loyal private property, and were undoubtably right wing. Hitler on many occasions spoke out against centralized economies, and said that private ownership was the most efficient. He spoke out, explicitly, against government dependence, and campaigned literally on cutting funding for the weak and poor. How fucking stupid do you have to be to see the nazis, an ideology build around the supremacy of some race, and think that they'd be in favor of "government dependence." They were, explicitly, a right wing movement an ideology.
It is people like you who would seek to devalue the term fascism, and thus enable modern fascists to spread even easier. One can not do anything "through" fascism, again, fascism is an ideology, not an action. Fascism is, objectively, not authoritarianism. Fascism cannot be anything but a right wing ideology, according to its founding, its ideological tenants, and its implementation.
I know you despise anti-fascists and literally swallow the nazi myth that anti-fascism is at all comparable to fascism. To fall anti-fascists the epitome of fascism, which is a sentiment that you now share with literal neo-nazis, is sad and frankly disgusting. Perhaps you should stop enabling modern fascists, and stop pretending that fascism is an action, rather than what it objectively is - a right wing authoritarian ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valenrn8657 oh, but I have tried again. And will continue to. Because, you see, mises himself was long disproven, the book you cite comes to very different conclusions, and a little fact I know you don't want to admit - mises held fascist sympathies. Of course he would deny his ideological ties to those who he helped inspire. Oh wait, you didn't know that he managed a fascist economy, was best friends with a fascist dictator, and praised fascism numerous times throughout his life?
I hate to break this to you, but Mises was not a historian - he was a biased, sympathetic "economist." His view on "history" has no historical basis, and he was well known for frequently attempting to rewrite definitions in an attempt to support his biased economic opinions. Mises, of course, knew that the nazis weren't socialists - In fact, he praised fascism for stopping socialism. "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." The government in nazi germany did not have "full control of the means of production," nor is that the definition of socialism.
Of course, you go on to showcase a blatant contradiction, which you seem to have picked up on. The nazis did maintain private ownership of the means of production. In fact, they supported many private businesses, and let them compete among themselves. You see the problem is that mises thinks that if a business is regulated or incentivized, at all, it is somehow under the "full control" of the government. This absurd statement of course holds no real world examples, and no value.
I hate to break this to you, but if you have to create regulations and fines on a business, you don't have full control over it. Today, in every modern capitalist economy, there are hundreds of fines and regulations on private business, and yet, business chugs on. The nazis in no way had complete control of the german economy, nor did they want it. "We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world... If Russia likes Bolshevism it is not our affair, but if Bolshevism casts its nets over to Germany, then we will fight it tooth and nail. " That's a quote from hitler, champ. Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@razzberry6180 But again, he wasn't just anti-marxist, he was anti-socialist, anti-leftist, hell even anti-liberal. He specifically spoke out against state control of the economy, condemning and purging those that pushed for it. (and again, that literally is not the definition of socialism.) And even now you engage in nazi ideological apologia, calling acts of war crime and genocide just "repopulating." Jesus. That's the problem, your type always lies about the reality of the nazis but within minutes will use nazi tactics, minimize their crimes, or push their ideas which you are unwilling to admit they held.
1
-
@razzberry6180 But... you objectively aren't. You're telling lies not at all backed up by historical data, lies that empower actual, modern nazis. And yes, purposefully choosing language that the nazis used to downplay their genocidal atrocities, and then defending that choice of words afterwards, is extremely suspect, given that no sane person would call a genocide anything but a genocide. That is, unless they were trying to apologize for the nazis. See the problem?
And... ok? You do realize that writing a book where he says he dislikes international capitalism doesn't mean he wanted any form of central state control, right? He also wrote and spoke on numerous occasions that he was explicitly against state control of german businesses, he saw that system as a weakness of the bolsheviks, and used it to point out the supposed "superiority" of aryan business. The nazi party worked with big business, not against it, and I hate to break it to you but most businesses were not at all nationalized under the nazis, quite the opposite, they regularly competed and bided amongst eachother for the rights to build things like concentration camps. Most national projects were started and finished by bribing national and international industrialists. The point of Hitler's ideology was to show the supposed superiority of the "ethnic germans," and he pointed out that that clearly meant that to control german business was inefficient and counter-productive. He never had the goal of socialism, (which has always been defined as social ownership of the means of production, not state control, keep up) and he certainly didn't put any power in the hands of nay of his citizens, "ethnic germans" included. He spoke out against a state centered command economy, this is an objective fact and one you've ignored.
And this is how I know you've done no research except watch TIK videos. When did I, or any historian, call them capitalists? It is an objective fact that they were not socialists, that doesn't make them capitalists child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@razzberry6180 Well yes, if you just make a hundred assumptions without ever once questioning if they're accurate, you can come to false conclusions, like you just did! Congratulations.
First off - I literally just told you that the state is horrible at representing the community as a whole, and yes, direct democracy is included. How can you claim that property is controlled by the community as a whole, if only 51% of people are included? That wouldn't be social ownership at all. Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with people telling eachother what rights they have or what they can own - again, social ownership is an economic device, not a device of politics or government. So you just kind of made up that part.
"They" decide what to do with production, with "they" being the community as a whole, yes.
Social Ownership has nothing to say about political procedures or laws, in fact it can exist under hundreds of systems of state or stateless societies. So, not political.
You literally just made up a whole bunch of assumptions and associations that you could have easily put to rest with a simple google of the term. So in short, yes if you try to describe a state and latch that description onto something unrelated, of course it sounds like a state.
The best part is, no matter what, the definition still wouldn't be state control.
1
-
@razzberry6180 Yeah but again - that just isn't true. Not all state control is socialism, and most socialism does not revolve around state control. Do you honestly think monarchism, or imperialism, are forms of socialism??
The nazis stated, over and over, that they had no desire to try to force their economy to bend to the will of any sort of collective, as the nazis only cared for the strong. The "collective" of germany were thrown in jail, beaten, repressed, or gassed. They never wanted anything close to the sharing of profits, which is why on the whole the rich increased their wealth under the nazis. It was nationalist, and while it did want business to support the government, the nazis and especially hitler saw the idea of putting business under the control of the government, instead of letting it compete to show the strongest out of them all, as a terrible idea. And uh... no. Socialism isn't just "when collectivism." Individualist socialism exists, we've been over this. And this is a point that you children continually bring up without realizing how stupid it is. If you replace terms, you now have a different ideology. First off, again, the nazis never advocated for any sort of collective control, even "racial." Aryans were not exempt from repression. Second off, saying that socialism is just when "some group" has control is silly. Socialism has always been the control of the MoP by the community as a whole. Not just one community of many. If we decide that a "race" can be substituted, what next? Is monarchism just "monarcho-socialism," because the monarchs are a collective in control? Is capitalism capital-socialism because the rich and landowners are in control? Socialism is not just when some group owns things.
I'm sorry, but businesses being incentivized to do certain things does not negate the fact that they are private, nor does it put them in some sort of "Racial control." Every country at this time forced businesses to conform to their national identity and ideology, it isn't some new socialist state-ownership scheme that you've discovered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rajpeanut well the answer to that is simple, video responses are the works of lazy and greedy people, that treat history as entertainment, instead of a field of study.
And you seem keen to prove this point, because you can only ever reply with copy pasted responses, or more likely, insults that prove that you simply cannot fathom the idea of doing more work than watching a video. Why do you even want mek to make a video anyway, it would just be me reading out loyd comments I have already sent to TIK. It is, simply, because you are too lazy to treat history as a field of study. How do you think debates were had before videos, champ? In any case, I'll take every lazy copy pasted response after this to be an admission of your failure, and feel free to respond to confirm your complacency in this. I know my greater historical knowledge cut you deep, and I know that your obsession with replying to me with no rebuttal must really wear on your kind, but it's ok. One day you'll grow up and educate yourself enough to admit I'm right :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reserva120 Hitler wasn't a socialist, though. He despised the russians, which is why he broke their fragile peace treaty extremely quickly, but never broke his treaties and agreements with anti-socialist countries or people. Hitler proudly proclaimed himself as an anti-socialist, and his actions reflect this. After all, that is why the nazis pushed for anti-socialist policies, backed by their anti-socialist allies, all while putting in place an anti-socialist system, killing socialists, allying with anti-socialists, and creating an economy on the back of anti-socialism.
How are you this uninformed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManRob1 aww, now you're doing the conspiracy thing where you pretend that objectively private companies are "public," for no reason at all. Cute, honestly.
No, sorry, to a person like you everything you don't like is marxist, and that apparently includes american private corporations. I hate to break it to you, but all tech private companies are indeed not public, and if you oppose them because of their economics, then you're just an anti-capitalist in denial. Calling Capitalism marxism doesn't make it so :)
I understand that you are completely historically, linguistically, and economically inept, but it is apparent that your conspiratorial, extremist mindset isn't fooling anyone, which is why it is rightfully unpopular. Your goal is to erase history, redefine words, and pretend the majority of your ideology doesn't belong to you... Because you don't like it. This entire time you have only admitted to the world that you have no argument, and you concede your cultish, ahistorical points. I understand that you want to force people to think like you. Luckily for the world, we've all surpassed you in intelligence upon turning 16 months old, so that isn't likely
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tariqnasneed3857 so, again. Neither group actually respected the desires of the community as a whole, as they artificially and without purpose attacked the community as a whole.
And of course there is a community as a whole, it is known as humanity. Of course, not all of humanity can be reached at one point, so every instance must simply do the best possible. I don't see how that community doesn't exist, though. And as socialism can exist without a state, your claim is a clear lie.
This following statement is also false for many reasons. For one, many capitalists do see themselves a single group. Yes a group in competition, but the nazi party was no different in that regard. That is why many capitalists lobby for policies that might help their competition... But also help them. They are, objectively, a single community. And socialism, of course, does not abolish individual competition with others. Also, the "socialism for the rich" line is a social democratic political slogan, not an actual stance of political objectivity. In any case, no, Capitalists do have concrete class interests that they hold in common. Also, the Germans under hitler were as far from "seeing eye to eye" as possible.
And a monarchy is based around a royal family, which in itself is a community, not to mention the lords, nobles, and vassals under their direct service. So they are a community.
So how is every state not socialist then, by your warped definition?
1
-
@tariqnasneed3857
Yeah, that isn't true. "Community as a whole" does not mean "whatever the most popular opinion is." And you've got to be joking me, hitler killed literally millions of germans and expelled/sent off to war/oppressed at home millions more.
Cooperation is a necessity for survival. How many times have we heard stories of people putting aside their differences to actually make a difference and make something greater than their squabbling selves? So, so many times. If competition is what drove the human race, we would never have made it this fa, hell we would have never created civilization. Violence is not necessary for humanity to live and thrive, but you saying this makes me realize what kind of a person you are, and what kind of a twisted mentality you have.
I hate to break it to you but things like the marginal tax rate, income brackets, and just general income tax don't apply for specific goods, they apply for incomes, and classes. That's why so many billionaires support lowering taxes as a whole.
An example of a man cooperating with other rich people for his own class benefit really doesn't prove your point.
And yeah, that's just false. Most members of the royal family hold other titles and positions, and wield that power independently. Also, I hate to break it to you, but dictatorships work in the same way. So what's with your contradiction?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glennchartrand5411 I love when your type does this. It is a blatant admittance of defeat.
When I make a point, unlike you, I am proud to stick by it, and I am proud to provide reasoning and evidence for said claim. You then call me a liar, despite everyone being able to read how this is not the case.
When I was criticized for grammar, I continued making my points, as well as grammatical corrections to those I argued with. They, of course, took any excuse to neglect my points and focus on the grammar.
I keep a close eye for when your type edits their posts, because you are prone to editing out statements I directly address, and then lying about them afterwards.
The funny part is, you know you can't rebut these facts, none of you have been able to, which is why you do your best to make sure that others don't engage with me.
After all, your sole goal is to create an ideological echo chamber, and i'm getting in the way of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ImperiumSerama http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
"According to Roger Griffin, fascism can be defined as a revolutionary species of political modernism originating in the early twentieth century whose mission is to combat the allegedly degenerative forces of contemporary history (decadence) by bringing about an alternative modernity and temporality (a ‘new order’ and a ‘new era’) based on the rebirth, or palingenesis, of the nation. Fascists conceive the nation as an organism shaped by historic, cultural, and in some cases, ethnic and hereditary factors, a mythic construct incompatible with liberal, conservative, and communist theories of society. The health of this organism they see undermined as much by the principles of institutional and cultural pluralism, individualism, and globalized consumerism promoted by liberalism as by the global regime of social justice and human equality identified by socialism in theory as the ultimate goal of history, or by the conservative defense of 'tradition' (Anton Shekhovtsov "Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir" ‘Fascism and the Far Right Series’ p. xxi-xxii). https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Western-Far-Right-Routledge-ebook/dp/B075GY37XM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Russia+and+the+Western+Far+Right%3A+Tango+Noir&qid=1597817814&s=books&sr=1-1
"Roger Griffin sees fascism is a form of ‘populist ultranationalism’ which aims to reconstruct the nation following a period of perceived crisis and decline—he uses the Victorian term ‘palingenetic’, meaning ‘rebirth from the ashes’, to characterize fascism. This attempted national resurrection amounts to a revolution, in that fascism compensates for the destruction of tradition through the promotion of a modernizing, utopian ideology" (Kevin Passmore "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" 'Oxford Press' (2014) p.16). https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00K4VCCRE/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Fascism%3A+A+Very+Short+Introduction&qid=1597817972&s=books&sr=1-1
1
-
@ImperiumSerama
“Meanwhile, some journalists writing for the ‘quality press' assure us that China has mutated from a communist into a fascist state (e.g. Becker 2002). The most serious effect of such sloppy use of the term ‘fascism,’ whatever is cathartic effect as a pejorative or expletive term, is that it has contributed to the profound confusion that prevails about how to describe the advocates of particular Right-wing forms of democratic politics who attack multiculturalism, the free movement of labour, the Islamization of society, big government, and international bodies such as the EU and the UN, but do so democratically, from within the institutions of representative government that they have no intention of dismantling. The prevailing term for this increasingly important current in contemporary politics, ‘populism,’ raises problematic issues of its own, not least because it is frequently conflated with ‘fascism’” (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 5). https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Key-Concepts-Political-Theory-ebook/dp/B07DPB3X7G/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Griffin+Fascism&qid=1597818106&s=books&sr=1-1
"'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251).
The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 253).
For [Giovanni] Gentile, history showed how the rise of secularism and individualism had destroyed faith and heroism. He saw fascism as the continuation of the struggle between the idealist spirit of [Giuseppe] Mazzini [an Italian nationalist, rejected the liberalism of the Enlightenment period, & an anti-Marxist] and the materialist scepticism of [Giovanni] Giolitti [a moderate liberal], the two souls of Italy" (Robert Eatwell "The Drive Towards Synthesis: Natural History" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 192).
"Almost immediately after his expulsion from the Socialist Party, Mussolini noted that the war had crystallized whole populations into national units in which intragroup class distinctions had been by-and-large obliterated. In effect, Mussolini began to argue that national rather than class units constituted more adequate subjects of analysis.
…‘Class,’ Mussolini maintained, ‘is based on the community of interests, but the nation is a history of sentiments, of traditions, of language, of culture or race.’ One could not plausibly argue for the priority of class interests as opposed to national interests.
…He spoke of a reassessment of the European situation from a national as well as a socialist point of view—and gave the first intimations of the possibility of a ‘national socialism’ that would better accord with the evident realities with which socialist theoreticians were compelled to contend.
…By January, 1915, he could maintain, ‘The Working Class International…has not only demonstrated its impotence in the face of events and its inability to prevent the war, but its literal nonexistence as well.’ The reality of then current conflict made it obvious that the peoples of Europe were striving to fulfill their national and not their class aspiration. In view of such a realization, the advocacy of class war was a vain prescription. What the circumstances demanded was national unity. The consequences of this re-orientation were obvious. Mussolini advocated a return to the nationalism of Mazzini and a rejection of Marx if the reality, complexity, and urgency of contemporary events required it. By May 1915, these convictions were firmly established” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 142-144). https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Fascism-Rationale-Totalitarianism/dp/0029130301/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Ideology+of+Fascism%3A+The+Rationale+of+Totalitarianism&qid=1566136080&s=books&sr=1-1
The minoritarian governing class of the nation must govern. It must mobilize the efforts of the nation in the service of victory. It was in this capacity that the governing class proved itself, in Mussolini’s judgment, incompetent. He declared himself anti-parliamentarian because parliament had failed the nation. Parliament in Italy had become ‘a plague that poisoned the blood of the nation.’ It was necessary to extirpate it. His objection to parliament was no longer based upon a conception which construed it as representing special class interests; it turned on the judgment and defending the vital interests of the nation” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 146).
1
-
@ImperiumSerama “Given the constellation of ideas that had developed since October 1914, Mussolini’s class-oriented socialism had become increasingly diaphanous. It was certainly no longer Marxist. On the eleventh of August 1918, he changed the subtitle of his paper from ‘A Socialist Daily’ to ‘A Daily of Combatants and Producers,’ and in inaugurating the change indicated the designation socialist was no longer descriptive of the ideas with which he identified. So many of the categories of what had been orthodox socialism, ‘class,’ ‘class struggle,’ ‘surplus value,’ and ‘economic determinism,’ had been either abandoned or so extensively revised that the term socialism no longer had cognitive significance” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 147).
The most authoritative narrative history of all fascist movements and regimes is Stanley G. Payne’s prodigiously learned A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), but it describes better than it explains" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" digital loc. 4,302).
(Stanley G. Payne “Fascism: Comparison and Definition” 1980). https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009NZH6VO/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i6
"In 1980 Stanley Payne entered the fray with two seminal publications (1980a, 1980b). They showed the influence both of his colleague George Mosse and of the sociologist and political scientist Juan Linz, who at the time was also making important contributions to fascist studies (Linz 1976, 1980). Payne offered for the first time a coherent taxonomy of fascism as a distinctive category of the extreme Right" (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital Ch. 3 pp. 8-9). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Kp-wevSGo
“Though the nineteenth century was the time of the greatest expansion of civic and personal freedom in world history to that point, individualist liberalism was increasingly contested by two new forms of political collectivism—nationalism and socialism” (Stanley G. Payne “A History of Fascism, 1914-1945” 1995 digital: loc. 725). https://www.amazon.com/History-Fascism-1914-1945-Stanley-Payne-ebook/dp/B00ECIB76C/ref=sr_1_2?crid=15IPXB4GN5I2H&dchild=1&keywords=a+history+of+fascism+stanley+payne&qid=1597859656&s=books&sprefix=A+History+of+Fascism+%2Caps%2C846&sr=1-2
"Most people of the current generation lack a sense of the historical sweep of the intellectual side of the right-wing collectivist position. It represents the revival of a tradition of interwar collectivist thought that might at first seem like a hybrid but was distinctly mainstream between the two world wars. It is anti-communist but not for the reasons that were conventional during the Cold War, that is, because communism opposed freedom in the liberal tradition. Right-collectivism also opposes traditional liberalism. It opposes free trade, freedom of association, free migration, and capitalism understood as a laissez-faire free market. It rallies around nation and state as the organizing principles of the social order—and trends in the direction of favoring one-man rule—but positions itself as opposed to leftism traditionally understood" (Jeffrey Tucker "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty" 2017 digital: loc. 105). https://www.amazon.com/Right-Wing-Collectivism-Other-Threat-Liberty-ebook/dp/B075MRH3W5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Right-Wing+Collectivism%3A+The+Other+Threat+to+Liberty&qid=1597788924&s=books&sr=1-1
"Perhaps the best definition [of fascism] comes from Robert Paxton professor emeritus at Columbia University and holder of the Legion d’Honneur, despite all the books he has written on wartime France’s pro-Nazi Vichy regime. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism analyzes the stages by which 20th century fascisms rose and fell. It should be essential reading for any student of fascist movements, and especially for anyone thinking of founding one. Fascism, Paxton says, is a dynamic process, rather than a fixed ideology like socialism or communism. There are five steps on Paxton’s road to hell, and not all fascist parties made it past the second step" (Dominic Green "The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist'" ‘The Atlantic’ 2016 web). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eB07s3PGG5I
"Robert Paxton, an outstanding expert on the Vichy regime" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 14). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8xsaMqturA
Unlike them [“liberalism, conservatism, and socialism”], fascism does not rest on formal philosophical positions with claims to universal validity” (Robert Paxton “The Five Stages of Fascism” ‘The Journal of Modern History’ 1998 Vol. 70, p. 4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/235001?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
"Fascism, by contrast [to conservatism, liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16).
"This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214). https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton-ebook-dp-B000XUBE6G/dp/B000XUBE6G/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me&qid=1545809207&fbclid=IwAR3IIQu2dH2K5-keTFNXlzvBwej2HFuh7Eon_E2oek6VrEnuu1osxiU-YpY
1
-
@ImperiumSerama
“The German Right had traditionally been völkisch, devoted to the defense of a biological ‘people’ threatened by foreign impurities, socialist division, and bourgeois softness” (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" p. 37). https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton-ebook/dp/B000XUBE6G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=38NXXKFYDXU5B&dchild=1&keywords=the+anatomy+of+fascism+robert+o.+paxton&qid=1597860555&s=digital-text&sprefix=The+Anatomy+of+Fascism+%2Cdigital-text%2C1101&sr=1-1
“Ian Kershaw, a major expert on Nazism” (Roger Griffin “International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus” ed. Roger Griffin ‘Arnold Readers in History Series’ 1998 p. 11).
"[Read] Ian Kershaw's chapter 'The essence of Nazism: form of fascism, brand of totalitarianism, or unique phenomenon?' in his seminal work The Nazi Dictatorship (third edition: London, Edward Arnold, 1993)" (Roger Griffin “International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus” ed. Roger Griffin ‘Arnold Readers in History Series’ 1998 p. 325).
"[A] world expert on the Third Reich [...] Ian Kershaw was now prepared not only to classify Nazism as a form of fascism but to assert that ‘The quest for national rebirth lay, of course, at the heart of all fascist movements’" (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 54).
"The preeminent biography of Hitler is now Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (New York: Norton, 1999), and Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (New York: Norton, 2000). Kershaw relates the dictator to the society that imagined him, and that 'worked toward' its leader without needing to be forced" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital, loc. 4,302).
(‘Remember This’ “The Most Compelling Biography of the German Dictator Yet Written (1999)” video [lecture by Ian Kershaw] ‘YouTube’ 03/30/2016). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=udJZogklcZI&t=1147s
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031). https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-ebook/dp/B01AVKWG5K/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Ian+Kershaw+%22Hitler+1889%E2%80%931936%3A+Hubris&qid=1595299044&s=books&sr=1-1
“It is thus worth stressing that, in academic analysis and properly researched journalism, ‘populism’, or more precisely ‘the populist radical right’, is generally used to designate an illiberal but democratic and non-revolutionary form of politics driven by widespread (hence ‘popular’) mistrust of ruling political and economic elites, both domestic and international. This mistrust is compounded by concerns about the impact on national identity and sovereignty of globalizing forces such as multiculturalism, international trade, the export of manufacturing jobs, and mass immigration” (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 95). https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Key-Concepts-Political-Theory-ebook/dp/B07DPB3X7G/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Griffin+Fascism&qid=1597818106&s=books&sr=1-1
"This book is not concerned with the so-called 'mainstream right,' such as conservatives and liberals/libertarians, but only with those on the right who are 'anti-system,' defined here as hostile to liberal democracy. This is what I call the far right, which is itself divided into two broader subgroups. The extreme right rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule. The most infamous example of the extreme right is fascism, which brought to power German Führer Adolf Hitler and Italian Duce Benito Mussolini, and was responsible for the most destructive war in world history. The radical right accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law, and separation of powers. Both subgroups oppose the postwar liberal democratic consensus, but in fundamentally different ways. While the extreme right is revolutionary, the radical right is more reformist. In essence, the radical right trusts the power of the people, the extreme right does not" (Cas Mudde "The Far Right Today" 2019 digital: p. 6).
“As I finish this manuscript, in May 2019, three of the five most populous countries in the world have a far-right leader (Brazil, India, and the US) and the biggest political party in the world is the populist radical right Indian People’s Party (BJP). Within the European Union (EU), two governments are fully controlled by populist radical right parties (Hungary and Poland), another four include such parties (Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy, Slovakia), and two are held up with support of a populist radical right party (Denmark and the United Kingdom).” (Cass Mudde “The Far Right Today” 2019 digital: p. 1).
(Cass Mudde “Why We Should Study Populism” ‘The Wheatley Institution’ ‘YouTube’ 03/23/2016). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE9RkfRqGcE
"First, populism is by definition antielitist, but key liberal democratic institutions inevitably include many people with high levels of education and specialized knowledge. So populist voters scorn institutions in favor of direct relationships with charismatic leaders, who, history suggests, threaten liberal democracy.
Second, populists believe these leaders should be free to act on their behalf, unrestrained by institutions designed to protect individual liberties and minority rights. Populists typically are hostile to liberal democratic institutions such as constitutional courts, independent agencies and the press—unless populist leaders can bring them to heel.
Third, ethnonationalists distinguish between the ‘real’ people—defined by descent, ethnicity and religion—and the rest. This contradicts a core principle of liberal democracy—that our shared civic identity as citizens overrides our differences—without which the U.S. could never have thrived as a nation of immigrants.
Ethnonationalism may work in countries with nearly homogenous populations, but it means an ugly politics everywhere else. If the citizens of diverse societies don’t unite against it, repression and strife are inevitable, and liberal democracy will be in peril" (William A. Galston "Liberal Democracy’s Threats from Within" 'WSJ' Jan. 21, 2020). https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberal-democracys-threats-from-within-11579651613?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR3ESCZtpYkEcRn2EXeMAa1T8REuvUVJN4MhtdpRBUjXCLMeFD0VXqSQnHQ
(William A. Galston “The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy” ‘Brookings’ 04/17/2018).
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-populist-challenge-to-liberal-democracy/
"History also shows that conservatives should be particularly wary of embracing right-wing populists. Mainstream Republicans who make bogus claims about voter fraud, rigged elections, and the questionable patriotism and nationality of President Barack Obama in order to appeal to the extremist fringes are playing an extremely dangerous game, since such rhetoric fans citizens’ fear and distrust of their politicians and institutions, thus undermining their faith in democracy itself" (Sheri Berman "Populism is not Fascism: But It Could Be a Harbinger" 'Foreign Affairs' November/December 2016). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-10-17/populism-not-fascism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fattony638 Well, that's the thing. First off, it isn't as much the "majority" that counts here, as it is the collective of people. Could that be the majority, and will it be in most cases? Yes, probably, but that doesn't mean that the will of the 51 will always take total precedence over the will of the 49, in most cases you wouldn't reach that kind of disagreement. In any case, the other thing to mention is that in this type of socialism, there really only is the proletariat. Marx defined the classes by their relation to the means of production, which means that if private property was abolished and put in the hands of either the government or people directly, the proles would be the only class to exist, and thus there would be no "rest" to disenfranchise. That's the point, not to replace one power-hungry oppressive group with another, but to raise everyone up to the same level of political, economic, and class power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sonderweg9927 Ah, more projection! You claim I didn't acknowledge any of your points, and yet I literally went and responded to every point you made, line by line. You, on the other hand, can't respond to a single thing I wrote. Because you can't, because your positions are incorrect and indefensible.
The point is that saying that there is no difference, functional or rhetorical, between a society where the people as a whole have power over their workplaces and political lives, and a society where only the strong have any power at all, is just wrong. Clearly there is a difference, one you just refuse to see.
And I know you want to call me a fascist, despite me not being a fascist or a socialist, which kind of shows how ideologically driven your supposedly objective argument is. It's you who is proposing a system in which you allow a select few people to seize the work of their fellow man and micromanage their lives and productions because it is somehow "efficient." Is this you admitting that you have the same moral outlook as fascists? Your strawmen fall flat, again. You're a liar, who by your own admission holds a contempt for humanity stronger than what you attribute to socialists.
And again - strawmen and projection. As I told you, in a point you refused to respond to. Socialism carries no contempt for human beings, in fact nearly every strain of socialism prides itself on granting the individual more autonomy, more protections, more rights and political power over themselves and their work. People like you, on the other hand, hold contempt for those individual freedoms, and base their ideology on long dead idealism, and thus by your own admission, you are more morally similar to fascists than socialists are.
.
Fascists are hated for the reasons I gave you, not your subjective notions of "inhumanity" and "dignity." Nobody cares how dignified the fascists were, they care about the goals and actions of fascists, and the millions of bodies that you seek to sweep under the rug. You can call me a communist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are again, lying. Where did I say my primary concern was with the fascist economy? No, I care about the fascist social view, you know the one you share with them, where humans are fundamentally unequal and society should be built around the strong dominating and forcing out the weak. I agree, no reasonable person, when asked what the problem with fascism is, would primarily object to their economic policy. Which makes it weird that you attribute that opinion to me. So go ahead, quote where I said that. I'll wait. You can't, can you?
Fascism and socialism are not the same, not in morals, not in goals, not in actions, not in history. Historically, they have been viewed as opposite movements that fought eachother at nearly every opportunity. The fact that you ignore this in favor of your own biased personal opinions towards the two speaks volumes.
Capitalism is a system. This isn't false, this is literally the definition of capitalism and economic systems. Hell, Adam Smith called capitalism an opposing system to absolute monarchy, is he a socialist now? Fascists, on the other hand, do think of the driving force of capitalism as an inescapable part of nature. Something you agree on.
The people who own things literally do dictate economic activity, this is something that capitalists first proposed as the primary method of economic mobility. Its common sense, the people who own production decide how production is used.
Fascism is pro-capital. You can insult the ideologies you disagree with all you want, but when your entire "point" is just saying "this is wrong" without providing evidence, you are a liar.
Fascism doesn't believe in a community, fascism believes in the domination of groups and individuals over others. Socialism doesn't believe a community is one entity (as I corrected you on previously) socialists believe that their system would help people as individuals.
...This is literally pulled out of your ass, and its more commonly peddled by anti-democracy capitalists than any other group. If socialists thought the people were brainwashed, why the hell would they base their entire economy system around giving power to those people??
Fascists never believed value comes from labor, champ. This is another lie you have told, backed up by nothing.
Can we go on? Can we? Because please, go ahead, i'd be interested to hear it. None of the things you listed were remotely true, most of them were more true of capitalists than any other group, the rest of them were strawmen that I already addressed.
The point is, fascism and socialism are dynamically opposed, and the fact that you have to so transparently lie to find any supposed similarity between the two is perfect evidence of this.
As I told you last time, and as you are continually proving - it isn't the actions or words of the people you oppose that need to change. It's you. You keep saying that I have so much in common with fascists, because I "talk like them." Tell me, which fascist talks like an anarchist? I'll wait. Just let that sink in. You are saying an anarchist talks like fascists. While saying fascism is about the rejection of individuality. The truth is, you just want to call me a fascist. That's why you have been strawmanning me this whole time, all while showing the many similarities you and fascists share.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sonderweg9927 Ah yes, the individualist anarchist talks like a fascist. In other news, up is down, left is right, and the past is in the future. It is plain that after me taking hours to deconstruct every single one of your points, time and time again, you've realized that you don't actually have any factual information backing a single one of your prior claims. That's why you abandon them so quickly, why you leave behind you a trail of discarded "points" and conceded arguments - because you know i'm right, and because you don't have the knowledge necessary to even try to address a single one of my points, much less refute it. That's why, to this date, you have not addressed my points. I'll be waiting. This is also why you despise actual evidence based reasoning on things like the human condition, and human nature. This is why you despise objective historical fact, and seek to dismiss it. It is because, like the preachers before you, your ideology is not rooted in fact. Rather, it is rooted in your hatred of your opposition, which is why all you have left are insults. You, like the preachers before you, have no facts to back up your beliefs. So you call your opponents "heretics," (or in my case, somehow a 'libertarian fascist') and then attempt to deflect. Sad.
Let's address some of your strawmen and attempts at arguments. First off, let me remind you, and quote my last response. I wholly reject the idea that the worst or most opposable part of fascism is its economic theory. This is a position I have never espoused, and you have ignored my requests to quote me on. This is, of course, because you are an admitted liar who is more willing to strawman me than address a single one of my points. Now, let's move on to your cultish usage of "inhumanity." Inhumanity is a subjective term, that hundreds of different people have used to mean hundreds of different things. The preachers before you called it inhuman to indulge in basic pleasures, and before that, it was inhuman to not commit to blood sacrifices. Your version of "inhumanity" is just as vapid and ill-defined as your past religious counterparts. Yes, bad things are bad. Yes, genocide, racism, brutality, and repression are bad. But they aren't just bad because you label them as "inhumane," just as murder isn't just bad because christians think God said so. They are bad because they impact real people, people you want to ignore, deaths and whole lives you want to sweep under the rug. by calling this behavior "inhumane," you are apologizing for those who conducted it. Sadly, bad things are a part of humanity, and blaming them on some "other" is what a child would do. And just to remind you a fourth time - you are the person who seems to take issue with fascism for a wholly arbitrary reason. Not me. If a fascist was to convince you that their view of the world was "human," (which they thought it was,) you would be a proud fascist.
We are already aware you refuse to define socialism in any sort of rational or historically accurate way, but this takes that to a whole new level. No, I do not subscribe to marxism or socialism of any sort, as I have told you time and time again. You seem to be unable to grasp basic definitions. The following prove only that you seem unable to recall any basic definitions or economic theory, and that you seem to think of... yourself as a marxist socialist.
- This is false. Marx never touched on "Social" class, he only ever dealt with economic class
- This is the definition everyone from capitalists to egoists use. Because it is literally true. Yes, the system is defined as the owners actually owning things. Sorry that triggers you.
- Again - another belief held by many groups, most of them having nothing to do with marx.
- And again - something not Even marx believed, and this one in particular I have corrected you on two times prior. You refused to address them both of these times, and I have no faith you'll even read down this far.
Half of these views aren't even held by marxists, and the other half are held from people who don't care about marx, to people who hate marx more than you. Again - you prove yourself historically illiterate.
And ironically enough, now you might as well be quoting marx! Uh, yes. Workers need to combine their labor with capital to actually make things. Lucky for you, marx agreed. He just thought the workers should own their labor and the capitol they create with it, unlike you. According to you, however, some unnamed person "owns" their work simply because they say so, or perhaps because they were given a few pieces of marked paper that claim so. Sadly, this system has no basis in efficiency or reality, and yet you adhere to it as your own personal religion. You call people owning their own work "stealing," of course. However, there is one line that stands out to me as correct - "the workers must ask the owner for permission." Well, at least here you admit that capitalism is a system only upheld through force or violence. That's a good first step. The capital owner doesn't play a fundamental role in creating the wealth, that's the thing you seem not to understand. If a CEO goes missing, the company chugs on. If the lowest workers all go missing, then the company can no longer operate. Yours system is rooted in an unfair and coerced power dynamic that defies all of human nature, and you're well aware.
Ah, and of course this argument, the idea that no matter what, capitalism will always exist. If this was the case, why do you seem to oppose socialists so much, according to you their ideas won't change anything anyway. What you seem not understand is that, by definition and historical fact, capitalism is a system, one that has not existed forever, and will not exist forever. Breaking out of capitalism is not only possible - with things like automation, it is inevitable.
And what? I don't think that people are entitled to the work of others, i'm not a capitalist. You think that a boss is entitled to the work of the laborer siply because they have stamped their name on the land, how is that any less than basic robbery? I'm glad you seem to understand that the system you espouse is inhumane, though. You explicitly claim that some people who own things are superior, and thus, should be able to control the lives of us little folk. I think people should own what they do and what they produce, while you seem to think that you have a right to confiscate what they produce in the name of the rich. I don't want to speak "for the people," I want to let people speak for themselves. You seem to not understand the depth of your theft. After all, that's all your ideology is. A smokescreen for repression, murder, and genocide. At least fascists are a little more honest about what they want to protect.
Your outlook is about as rooted in consent as a gunpoint rapists is. In your system, people need to work. But not only that, they need to work under somebody, they need to give up their work to someone who likely hasn't worked a day in their lives, just because you feel that's "Fair." When you are faced with me, an actual person who has a hundreds year old ideology based on mutual aid, consent, and the ultimate emancipation of the individual, you call me a fascist. I have nothing fundamentally in common with a fascist, whereas you share their contempt for individual rights, idea in natural hierarchy, and adherence to mythological nonsense.
You are free to ignore every response I post, as you no doubt will. After all, you haven't even read the whole posts, have you? You seem to think you're justified in calling an anarchist a fascist, all while doing the very things you accuse fascists of, and now why is that? But I just want you to know how clear it is that the only thing separating you from a fascist is a title and a set of morals. And as you've proven, your morals shift very easily. It's a good thing that the vast majority of people are aware of your historical lies and rhetorical propaganda. They know what fascism looks like, and it doesn't look like an anarchist.
1
-
1
-
@sonderweg9927 I agree, everybody here can read, and just in case not, i've been sure to bold out specific sections you might want to pay a bit more attention to. One thing i've noticed in your writing is that every paragraph is based on a false assumption - when you say something, you don't attempt to explain it, or give examples, or even give a coherent thought. You simply state it as if it is fact, and when it is addressed, you ignore it. And then, when called out in a clear and simple way... you can't respond, even then. It's quite sad to watch.
I'm sorry you're such a liar, and i'm sorry that you're such a poor debater. I'm sorry that you have devoted supposedly hours to writing down paragraphs upon paragraphs which wholly deflect from our actual conversation, in favor of baseless insults.
Potential solutions:
- Read the comment you're supposed to be refuting
- Actually read it, address it line by line, even mirror your opponents organization, like I do
- Learn when you're wrong, and instead of shifting the goalposts, concede
- Read a book once in a while, then you might not call anarchists fascists
And then perhaps you won't have to bow out of your next embarrassing loss upon me or another pointing out how easy it is to refute you.
1
-
1
-
@sonderweg9927
Ah, so we've reached this part, eh? A typo is now considered an argument, whereas you can ignore my argument for paragraphs on end and somehow its me who doesn't read. Why are you projecting your own faults onto me? Is there anything else I should be worried about?
Inhumane is what the fascists thought they were doing, because it was only "humane" to put the 'powerful' at the top, and the 'weak' in their 'rightful place.' I of course do not support this ideology, unlike you, but its worth pointing out how shifty and subjective your moral system is. Oh wait, I already did. And you never responded.
And again, let me remind you - the fascists considered what they did "humane," on a moral basis. Just like you do. Which means the only substantial difference between your ideas and the ideas of fascists is a slight shift in moral code. A shift you have proven yourself more than willing to make. You'll notice, despite you saying that I have not read nor interpreted your responses, I have said all this before. which means, again, you're lying. But i'm happy to correct you... again.
And yet another case where you seem to be unable to actually read what i've wrote - I don't claim you "think" that, in fact I pointed out how you've deluded yourself into believing the opposite of the truth many times before. What i've shown is that the result of your ideas is a system in which the owners feel unjustly entitled to the labor of their workers. Of course, you ignore this, not surprised, but then you ignore the fact that the property owners don't actually have a justified reason to "own" what they say they do - the workers do. Of course, you seem unable to address any of these arguments i've presented before, and do exactly what I said you do - present your "Arguments" as facts, without explaining or expanding on them.
Your only "example" here is nonsense.
What actually happens:
- A rich person gives professionals slips of paper to signify he "owns" their work
- A worker, who actually does the labor, wants to create a product
- The rich person decides, despite doing no work, he is entitled to that person's labor.
Your solution is that the rich person takes from the work of the engineer, simply because they decide they are entitled to that work. My position is that the engineer should own their own work, and not be restricted or stolen from simply because someone else claims they are entitled to it.
You claim the rich person is entitled to the drill. Prove it Give me an actual reason that they "deserve" that drill, and that despite them not working with it, or knowing how to use it.
The thing is, only one of these people is needed to extract a product from the earth. Even if the rich person "owns" the drill, if they disappear, the drill stays right there. If the engineer disappears, the drill is useless. Funny, I already went over this. Oh well, another thing you never read.
It's a simplified form, yes, but one that shows your simple thinking. Simple as in... well, not realistic. Not what actually happens. If you assert that the core logic remains the same... (and I would agree) then the core logic is fundamentally flawed. It makes no sense, isn't efficient, and translates into pretty much all of the unnatural force behind the system of capitalism. At least you admit that the owner holds unjust power over the individual worker.
And here's another constant mistake you make - you assume that just because I am able to see past your rhetoric and point out your system for what it actually is. You don't even disguise it that well, you are an admitted proponent of the theft of property and labor, and you only justify it by worshipping the most successful thieves.
Ah, and you admit it! you take no time in these responses, which is entirely because you do not actually reply to them. No, rather you skim my responses and then in a fit of rage post your own. Which is why you still have yet to address my claims.
What we have established:
-You cannot read, as shown by the aforementioned failures in reading comprehension and your lies
-You cannot write, which is why you constantly work yourself into rhetorical loopholes.
I know you can't copy an actual distinct writing style, i'm well aware, trust me. Your text boxes of nonsense don't even come close to the quality or quantity of what you write. Of course, you admit this freely, as you have with your other lies. I know you are making excuses for your own lack of attention paid to me effortlessly debunking your arguments time and time again.
I do understand what you said, which is why I respond in such detail. You, on the other hand, seem to not even be able to respond to what is said in any amount, which is why, like usual, you leave off your response not with a point... but an insult.
1
-
@sonderweg9927 Ahhh, and another lie! So, where's the proof?
According to you, it has been my own statements that show I am somehow comfortable with authoritarian socialism... despite me opposing both of those things upon them being brought up. You, on the other hand, have argued plainly in favor of a system based on authoritarianism and inhumane theft. You are, in everything but title, a step away from fascism. That is no longer the topic in dispute. That has already been established, and conceded to by you.
I know you want to run away from that fact, which is why despite you bringing it up for the first time here, you say it's somehow "not in dispute." I think the only thing left in dispute, as in the only point you haven't admitted i'm right on, is why you seem to think lying is ok?
1
-
@sonderweg9927
Oh, i'm aware the word has a different meaning. In fact, I was so aware of it... I addressed it in my previous response. You know, the one you didn't read? I quite literally said that every point I made works against the definition of humane, and brought up said points again. You, of course, didn't read that far though, and thus like every other one of my points against you, you concede your "arguments" to me. And again, I have already criticized your made up and constantly shifting definition of what is "inhumane," and how much said definition can shift and be abused by different groups with only minor differences in ideology with you. So it must be repeated - you refuse to read my arguments, and reply back to me with points I have already not only addressed but refuted. You insult me, rather than actually attempt to rebut my points, because you know you don't actually have any ability to disprove what i'm saying. You blame me for your own actions, and yet it is me who continues to argue with you, and you who refuses to address my actual posts. Hence why this conversation is the way that it it is.
Of course you aren't trying to prove anything - you can't. You couldn't prove it in an academic setting, you can't prove it here, and you couldn't even make a good argument for it on a school playground. You seem to forget that words carry arguments. Well, my words do at any rate, yours are just filled with insults now, a fact you've admitted to. Another problem - you seem to presume things are "facts" simply because you say they are. I've told you this time and time again, but of course you've either not read it or refused to respond to it. You have a problem of presuming things to be facts with no evidence, examples, or explanation, and then using those statements to "back up" even more absurd statements. The problem is, your arguments are only ever based on your own statements, and in every case, those statements are easy to address and disprove, completely removing the foundation and legitimacy of any attempted argument. You have failed to adhere to actual, material reality in your arguments, and instead presume I have some knowledge of your magical fantasy world that has nothing to do with this one. And of course, as I've already said, your "points" consist of insults because you know you have nothing else.
And again. When did I say that it was impossible someone could "own" a drill under your system? In fact, I literally used an example in which someone "owned" that drill. No, the point I brought up, that you plainly misunderstood, was that your very concept of ownership under a capitalist system is flawed.
And again... what do these examples have to do with your supposed point? They are examples that, again, rely on your own presumptions. For example, you presume that your concept of ownership is just (it isn't) that it is based in material fact (it isn't) and that it actually exists in anything but deed. (it doesn't.)
I've pointed out this problem of yours four times prior, and here we go again.
In fact, you continue to do so over and over again in this very response showing just how you don't understand how to format basic debate. Well, at least we can both admit you've dropped your more absurd claims, such as that i'm some capitalist theif or authoritarian like you.
I love how this whole paragraph, your longest by far... is based off of the fact that you couldn't read my response. I'll say it again - I even used an example in which there was a rich person, and he had already exchanged money for the drill. I never nce said that there was no reason for anyone to own a drill, literally not once. I said that your concept of ownership is flawed. Of course, you do nothing to address this, which i'm not surprised about, but that's just how you are I suppose. And of course you try to justify your inhumane system of greed and theft again, by saying the worker is somehow better of being stolen from! Well I suppose a man carrying a back-breaking amount of gold would be "helped" if someone were to take enough gold for him to stand, but that isn't really a good help to the man in the long run, is it? And Right here, you touch on how absurd your notions of property are - you seem to think that somehow, under any other system, people would have to... build up industry from scratch? Without actually cooperating, the one thing I said they were most likely to do in literally my last response? I swear, sometimes you write these things just for me to pick out and make fun of. Capital is what workers need to work effectively... good thing capital doesn't need bosses to exist. And here's another example of your contradictions - you say that one thing that isn't a factor is the theft of drills, but the drills are being stolen - they are labor that is handed over to a boss, a theif... only because said person believes they are entitled to it. And uh, yes. I think that if people make money... they should work for it. Your system is entirely unconsentual, but we've been over that. Your rejection of morality in place of laziness and strife is duly noted, and it seems that you really do support an inhumane system.
Of course we've been over this, and I repeat myself... because you have not yet addressed a single one of my responses. You admit here that the person who "owns" the drill doesn't work, and rather than concede the inefficiency and absurdity of a system in which those who don't work are the richest of them all, you try to defend that system... by again falling back on your unproven and preconceived notion of "ownership," based only one who transfers bank notes to who. Of course, i've said this all before, but you seem either unable or unwilling to read it. And sorry, how does buying from workers and not bosses at all show a contradiction or hypocrisy?
I agree, there is no beneficial relationship between those that simply own things, and those that actually work. Finally, a good take from you. Bosses, however, provide nothing of value - they only exist to take away thing as an incentive for you to provide value to them. Basic economics. Oh, and as we've been over, your system is about as consensual as a robbery, but you knew that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mounstrum I... what? That just isn't at all accurate. First and foremost, fascists don't care about class, the entire basis of their ideology is a rejection of class as a socially relevant factor, they instead measure based on race, nation, ect. One could argue that they accidentally achieve class solidarity by that metric, since they don't "actively" promote the idea of class warfare, but that isn't true either. Fascism has always allowed for class divide, and has always allowed some to be rich and some to be poor. Yes, they suppress the workers and the rich that go against them, but that doesn't mean everyone left over is somehow equal. If we go by the metric that all ideologies that do not promote class conflict, instead promote class solidarity, then capitalism also fills your metric there. That goal of yours isn't really apparent in actual fascist countries either, most didn't follow a single guideline, or hell, even follow eachother's guidelines, they each had different goals and methods. Some were far more friendly to the rich, some not, ect. Now, as for the last bit, i'm going to need some elaboration. If we count social democracy as a soft fascism simply because it promotes class solidarity, how do all other forms of capitalism not do the same, as they also try to discredit the social measurement of class? I get that you're saying they obviously aren't the same and really that related, but your framing of that still doesn't make much sense. As well as that, I have to say that of all the examples, Mussolini really didn't "balance out" class conflict so much as he shifted attention away from it and made a bigger fuss elsewhere to distract from it. In any case, thanks for your answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@InhabitantOfOddworld god, the irony is intense. You complain about my supposed "ad hominem," and yet your only response to me proving you wrong is to deflect and insult me. A bit sad, but not in any way unexpected.
Of course you don't know much at all, that was just a rhetorical question, not surprised you didn't get that though. I get it, you're annoyed, but there's a reason you never responded to my points against you. I get it, you hate me, doesn't make me any less right. If i'm stupid, and lacking basic logic and reasoning skills, that makes it even sadder that you so handily lost a debate to me.
1
-
@InhabitantOfOddworld "I haven't lost the debate. This is because, despite not having provided anything beyond petty insults and strawmen, I feel entitled to say I won because it hurts my feelings to admit I didn't." Thank you for proving to me that you believe that sentiment exactly. I mean, after all, what is in your response here? You claiming that you provided accurate historical context, when you've done nothing of the sort, and even the historians TIK himself cites disagree with the lies presented in this video's conclusion. You accuse anyone you don't like, or who knows more history than you, of being a "tankie," seemingly unaware of what the word even means. Of course hitler wasn't a socialist, he knew that, the world has known that for decades, and there's a reason that all of the top historians in that field have come to that same conclusion. All arguments proclaiming otherwise are from politically motivated idiots who are ashamed of the history of the right wing, and wish to deny it. All the supposed "proof" of hitler being a socialist is long debunked, and we both know this. You, in fact, are likely far more socialist than hitler. This is an objective historical fact, and i'm sorry that it brings you to tears and insults to have it told to you.
1
-
@InhabitantOfOddworld
I'm sorry, "long and rambling?" That was like a paragraph champ, what are you in second grade?
Oh, and here's a stunning piece of cited historical argumentation! "It's just not true." Reasoning? None given. Of course they weren't capitalists, nor were they socialist. They are called "third position" for a good reason. What, did you really only think that there was only capitalism and socialism? You really are silly. I get it, you're a conspiratorial nutjob.
And I agree, of course the world has known for decades, and it will know for decades more.
The funny thing is, the Nazis did the same thing with their history. Whenever someone came along to correct them, they simply called that person a jewish or bolshevik spy, and had them killed. In trying to pin the blame for the nazis on anyone but your own side... you simply prove my point yourself.
And I agree again, all the top historians.
See, this is conspiratorial talk. If a historian doesn't agree with you, that must be because there's some massive conspiracy. Not, of course, because hundreds of historians with decades of experience and indifferent sociological, political, and economic background all came to the same conclusion. The only difference between nazi historical conspiracies and your historical conspiracies is that you blame the left only... the nazis thought the jewish people funded the left.
Of course the german economy wasn't capitalist, nor was it socialist. This is a simple fact that those studied in the field agreed on... until the right found out that it was politically beneficial for them to deny that basic history. I get it man, you hate the truth, but don't you see the problem? The nazis called everything they didn't like a bolshevik lie as well.
You say "The history of my ideology is a bolshevik lie."
A nazi would agree. The only difference is, as I said earlier... the nazis blamed jewish people as well. One step away really isn't that far for you, huh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeblow1942 I said "imply" because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But if you want to proudly declare your ignorance, I cannot stop you. You stated those, but you are wrong - hitler was not a socialist, he was right wing, and a fascist. That is a fact. While fascism is authoritarian by default, socialism can be libertarian, and communism by definition cannot be authoritarian. According to your own little "authoritarianism test," the founding of america is authoritarian, as is the maintenance of private property. Perhaps, before you make such easily disprovable statements, think for half a second.
1
-
@joeblow1942 That's... kind of the point. I would say that non-authoritarian statist ideologies exist, but socialism absolutely can be stateless (libertarian socialism, like Proudhon's) and communism as a system is designed to be stateless. That's why "authoritarian communism" isn't really a thing. Also, did you never think of the reverse of your system? For example, what is it that enforces private property rights? That's right, either the state, or the barrel of a gun. Not the best to exemplify your system, right?
And whenever people bring up the 25 points, I kind of just have to shake my head. Primarily because there are much better points to try to show hitler's supposed socialism. In any case, the 25 points were a pre-war, pre-election political pamphlet. Saying the nazis were socialists because they engaged in political grandstanding in that piece of propaganda is like saying Hoover ended the Great Depression. On top of that, most of them revolved around statements the nazis never wanted to implement, the end of welfare (end of unearned income, "Erbkrank") and policies that you can find in modern day capitalist countries. Hardly socialist. In any case, no one is contesting that he was an authoritarian, but you realize that Marx was not, right? He spent his early career writing essays against taxation and in favor of popular armament. The only time I can recall him explicitly calling for state force is when he called for the American Union to forcefully end the ongoing slavery in the country.
1
-
@joeblow1942 And I would agree with you, in that I would prefer peacful and voluntary above anything else, but here's something worth considering - sometimes inaction can be more violent than action. Striving for peace should always be a must, but what happens if nobody listens, and goes on being violent? In any case, I don't mean that Marx was a "withering away" kind of guy, upon reading him you see that he didn't even argue much in the way of a process, but rather that he himself was against the state. As for people taking and relinquishing power... I assume you're American, right? We could have had a King George, you know. Anyway, one final point, this one non-political. These people were not psychopaths, not for the most part. After (and during) the Nuremberg trials, psychological profiles were made of the nazi leadership. Those profiles were later sent to experts, un-labeled, and said experts were asked to imagine what those people did. Not one of them guessed that they had been anything but normal people. Did they do awful things? Obviously! But to call them mentally ill deflect from the fact that really, anyone can be as bad as that, if forced into the right circumstances or propagandized enough. I know you weren't talking about the nazis, but it's still a point worth making.
Finally, comparing the two and finding them authoritarian is like comparing two things and finding them to be the same color. It is one, just one, part of that item, and one of the least important parts in finding differences between something like the sky and a blue shelf. And I have to ask you, please do not tell me you think that the only axis on the political compass is authoritarian vs libertarian, right? The only less informed opinion would be to call the left authoritarian with the right being libertarian. But lumping them together that way, some of the most devoutly anti-capitalists and some of the most devout capitalists are somehow on the same side.
1
-
@joeblow1942 And never action by individuals? A state is only the people who are in power, not those who want to be in power, nor those who effectivley wield power. Our current situation is enough evidence of that.
And I ask you not to call them psychopaths, not just for the moral reasons that I listed, but because it's useless. Calling them a psychopath implies that with the right tests, the right science, we can "catch" these people before they get into power. It's a comforting thought, and a scary one at the same time. Comforting, in that we can try to distance ourselves from those figures, saying that it could never happen here, with us. Scary in that we're now apparently punishing people for thought crimes. The simple fact is, most signs point to them being just normal people, and while that is hell to hear, how people could do things that terrible and not be some sort of inhuman monster, that's just how it worked. Here's an overview of that study I mentioned, by the way. It's by no means definitive, but it's important. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/03/nazi
And again, for the same reasons I would heavily disagree. One, because ideologies don't actually make that much logical sense. What about, say, Marxism-Leninism? It's an ideology that advocates for a strong ruling vanguard party... that would eventually dissolve into anarchy. On a purely conceptual level, is that totalitarian, or libertarian? Or what about Egoism, an ideology that preaches that the state should be dismantled, but also argues that people should do whatever pleases their "Ego," and that might makes right in such a world. Is that libertarian, or authoritarian? That's not even counting the things that I mentioned previously, like that anti-capitalism and capitalism would overlap as somehow the same thing.
And your definitions of libertarianism aren't the best. First off, capital-L Libertarianism used to (and still does in many parts of the world) refer to a left wing anarchist, not an "an"cap or a voluntaryist. The lower-case l libertarian is used, in the context of political categorization, to mean less central authority, less state, ect. Not just modern capitalist ideologies devised from what we now call Libertarianism. As well as that, no, with the examples given you wouldn't have anarchy, you just wouldn't have a state. Those terms are not synonymous. There is no such thing as capitalist anarchism, and while capitalists can seek to dismantle the state they are doing so through entirely different methods, with an entirely different end result and entirely different motivations than anarchists. Anarchism, since conception, has been anti-capitalist and only within the pas 80 years or so have people even entertained the notion of "anarcho-capitalism." Rothbard himself wrote an interesting piece advocating for the use of the word "nonarchist," to refer to people who liked capitalism, and liked statelessness. But that's a whole different debate. My point is that the way you use the word "libertarian," both forms, doesn't really pay heed to modern usage or even historical usage. For example, I am certainly on the libertarian side of the left, but I don't have much in common with the libertarian side of the right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fred Thompson That isn't what I asked, though. Would you prefer to work in a work in a workplace where you had equal power as everyone else, or in a workplace where you most likely had zero poer, but there was a tiny, tiny chance that you would have all the power. I know my answer. As for capitalism being "natural," trade is somewhat natural, but the base state of humanity is mutualism, not capitalism. Private property is a relatively recent invention. Of course you strawman socialism though, despite me just defining it. And let's look at the very US of A here, we have plenty of worker coops that are doing very well, socialism just wants that on a national scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sslave7815
Then you would be wrong, and also privately owned means of production was a well known classification even back then, so i'm not sure what you're talking about.
But those are quite literally a fundamental shift in the way private property is viewed, implemented, and generally exists in the modern world
And yeah, most people don't know about specific economic terminology, but that doesn't mean that said definitions and classifications hold no value or are not correct in their distinction.
And no, that's false. There is much more difference between ownership of a toothbrush and a factory. When you own a toothbrush, you can use it. When you own a factory, you can tell other people to use it, and make profit. Private property being defined as property one profits from with other people's labor is far from vague, nor does it make sense to apply it to any of your examples.
1
-
@sslave7815
Private property isn't determined by the individual functions of an item, but the broader way it is used. A house can be used to live in, in which case, it is personal. It can also be sold out and rented, in which case, it is private. The distinction is not just of items, but actions. A toothbrush exists for individual use, and while you can sell it or lend it out, you don't profit from other individuals brushing their teeth with it. A factory, on the other hand, is something an owner doesn't even need to step foot in to profit from it. Sure, there are points of commonality between them, but they are very, very far from the same. Private property requires one individual to own the labor of others. Personal property does not. At least you agree that private property only exists because it's state enforced though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@promethium-145 I understand that you despise the objective and correct teaching of history, but you can do well and keep that to themselves. The nazis were not socialist, the state did not control the means of production (nor is that the definition of socialism) nor did the nazi party control business. TIK quite openly and easily contradicts his own sources. For example, here's a quote from a historical source he and others use:
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
So before you assume nonsense with no proof, try actually understanding the facts.
1
-
@promethium-145
But... they didn't. Or are you denying the validity of TIK's sources? The economy was not controlled or managed by the state, but by private businesses, which controlled their wages and prices in non-war essential markets, like the rest of europe. Of course they didn't nationalize the businesses, they openly professed their support of german private industry. Hitler's anti-unionism is only a single part of his far right anti-socialism. He was an anti-socialist. You assert that he believed in racial collective control, but he actually openly praised private control of germany. What you describe is not socialism, nor is it accurate to hitler's reign. Of course, you can neither define marxist socialism nor the nazi's anti-socialism, but this does not surprise me, it's a common behavior of the denialists.The nazis were a flavor of socialism like an chalk is a flavor of chocolate icecream. As in, they weren't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@promethium-145 I'm sorry that someone fooled you into believing those clearly ahistorical things. He was against international capitalism, as he thought it would benefit "lesser nations/peoples" while taking resources away from Germany. However, he had no problem with, and even praised, the processes of private property and competition within his own nation. He believed that, conversely, socialism, Marxism, communism, and even leftism itself was a conspiratorial product of "the Jews" and felt that they would lead to the end of civilization. He was never anti trader he openly encouraged competition and trade within his boarders, and even participated in a courted international trade and industry agreements. Again, what he opposed was systems of international trade the he felt benefitted those he hated at his country's detriment. The industries, businesses, and property of nazi germany was not controlled by the state, again, it was by far majority private and was openly encouraged to compete between eachother, even for government contracts. To call this state owned is absolutely false, and similarly false is the nonsense assertion that socialism is defined by state ownership, when in reality it is defined by collective ownership. The Nazis never wanted any sort of socialism of race or nation, as if such a thing is even possible. No, they pushed not only against the people of "their race" and nation, subjugating and taking power away from them, but he also encouraged private ownership, which is not the collective ownership of socialism, and served only to further divide and promote hierarchy among his people. None of this fits even remotely with any sort of hypothetical socialism. What you have repeated is nearly word for word verbatim the assertions of right wing think tanks and YouTubers who have attempted to push an ideological narrative not based in reality, as shown from your absurd claims. What I've tried to expose to you is the conclusion of actual accredited historians and we'll known supported experts in the field, which even TIK cites. You're welcome.
1
-
@promethium-145 Hitler was against *leftism because he viewed it as a jewish scheme. Leftism, of course, including the socialism he despised so much. As for his "anti-capitalism," "Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
Your problem is that you seem utterly unwilling to accept the actual fact and internal "logic" of hitler's policies, instead just naming things you dislike and projecting them onto him. Why would he be against any and all trade when his very ideology was based on social darwinism, and necessitates the domination of people over other people, including in issues of trade and competition? The point is, you have no logical basis to actually promote these "points" as true, and rather than deal with that, you accuse me of "defending socialism" for bringing up historical facts you don't want to acknowledge. You really can't handle that your points are only pushed by those with an ideological goal? So, bye. I'm done with your nonsense.
1
-
1
-
@promethium-145
Socialism, according to actual economics and economic history, is defined as: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Not state ownership, as we've been over. Hitler didn't want the "Aryan Race" to control production, he wanted private control of the means of production backed by an anti-socialist state. Hitler's goal was anti-socialism, hence, his constant anti-socialist rhetoric, policies, and actions. TIK openly admits his sources disagree with his conclusion, as you would know if you actually watched the video, and I have already cited two of TIK's cited historians saying that the nazis were not by any definition socialist. You only agree with him, and accuse me of "excusing the soviet union" (how???) because you can't deal with the fact that i'm right.
1
-
@Blackninjafox13
You seem nice enough so i'll engage with you on this. First and foremost, the assumption that the public school system has an explicit or implicit desire to legitimize the state as a result of its funding isn't really based in fact. First, coming from the perspective of a US citizen, a lot of our education system is actually monitored and decided by private companies, like College Board, so the statist funding assertion doesn't really make sense. But besides that, as a person who worked as an assistant teacher for a number of years and is currently working towards a secondary education degree, alongside degrees in english literature and history, the goal of teachers is generally not to enforce compliance or push a narrative, but to allow students to make and discuss their own narratives.
In any case, as a final addition, I will say that I agree with your statement on government and private sectors having the same problems, however, I disagree on wealth being better than voting. You say that "it gives the most amount of voting power to those who currently provide the most value or perceived value to society.," but what if that isn't the case? What if it's a lottery winner, a lucky inheritance receiver, or someone that cornered a market/created a pseudo-monopoly? Why should their "vote" have more power if their contribution is not beneficial? Furthermore, why should say, an oil billionaire, get a greater "vote" in terms of other industries? And why does helping society earn your opinion more credit, even if the work you did was good, you can still have disasterous opinions.
In any case, thank you, and I look forward to your response.
1
-
1
-
@osmosys808 That just isn't true. For one, TIK isn't just calling socialism totalitarian, he is calling socialism and totalitarianism identical concepts that always equal eachother. There can be no totalitarianism without socialism, according to him, which is absurd. Totalitarianism dates back thousands of years, socialism at most a few hundred. And I could go into how socialism is not by necessity totalitarian, but i've already addressed that somewhat in this thread. And the creator of this video doesn't deserve kudos for much of anything, he would call you a socialist, just like he calls businesses and groupings socialist. He also calls random people racists, fascists, anti-semites, ect just if they disagree with him, while praising literal holocaust apologists that agree with him somewhat. It's absurd to hold that kind of person in any high regard.
1
-
1
-
@osmosys808 Historically they were also 3rd world countries that had just had a revolution and were in between two world wars, so of course they were unstable. The story is similar with most socialist-attempting countries, especially during the cold war era. As for how you get people to give their wealth away, there are a bunch of solutions ranging all the way from reform to revolution, but here's the thing - they, themselves, are only holding on to the property because a higher authority is telling them to. What happens when the workers, the group that actually maintains said property, don't feel like giving the owner that right to own their labor? Why do they deserve it? That's the logic, at least, that i've seen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@osmosys808 Most likely not, no, so i'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I'll just leave this last response to what you've given me so far. Hitler just didn't have socialism. The problem is, no socialist before hitler had advocated for the ideas he praised, and no socialist after associated with him, though that last one is understandable. Among the first socialists were those that didn't even want a state, who are they now? Capitalists that hate capitalism? And again, it already requires government force to grant those people that land. Taking that away would be a removal of force, and a more even distribution of power. Again, hitler not liking aspects of capitalism (while praising private property and industrialists) doesn't make him a socialist. And a system not working doesn't mean it's the same as any other system that doesn't work, but hitler's goal wasn't to benefit the worker, but to benefit the strong, which he saw as his race and the elite among them. But sure, I suppose we can agree to disagree. It was nice talking to you, and have a good one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica.
Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind.
The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis.
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie.
Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history.
Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.
Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption."
As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word.
Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it.
His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title.
The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily.
Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism
The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
This quote:
“National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1]
In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact.
Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out:
"Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. "
He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought.
Sources:
[1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159.
[2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
1
-
@walkerh.7851 Hey dude, you've probably seen my response here as well, but while I certainly admire your effort to reach out to TIK, I wouldn't expect much. Mostly because he seems far more prone to just linking his own videos and raining down insults than discussion, and to show that, i'll link a youtube thread in which he accuses me and a few others of anti-semetism, somehow. In any case, it's also worth mentioning that TIK defines socialism as state control, and defines any collective of people with a common goal as a state. And that means, in no uncertain terms, that he himself directly said that he considers corporations socialist entities. Anyway, I don't mean to put you off from reaching out to him if you want to, but i'm just warning you about the stuff you may have to deal with. My example is linked right below. IF you'd like, I can also link some of the previous arguments I brought up against him and others, which he pretty much just ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg
1
-
@sandshark2 Hey, thanks! I'm always happy to help, and it feels nice to be recognized. However, I just want to offer a quick correction, just to clear things up, if you don't mind.
First off, while there can certainly be intersections between socialism and capitalism, such as worker coopts/communes under capitalism, and there can be fusions of the systems, like social democracy, they can't really perfectly overlap.
The goal of socialism is to have the workers have control of the means of production, private enterprise. The goal of capitalism is to have private individuals or entities in charge of said property. It's kind of hard to have both a single boss, and a democratically run workplace. Again, they can go together in small doses, but not really fully overlap.
As for this, it's pretty much right, but a quick correction - communism is an idea somewhat separated from socialism, as the hypothetical utopian end goal of socialism, and liberalism in terms of economics means Libertarian capitalism, but liberalism in terms of social policy would be things like generally progressive non-economic policy. As for communism, I called it utopian because it was kind of planned that way, a stateless, classless, moneyless society which I have to agree with you in that hitler was nowhere close to wanting that. Hitler wasn't a socialist for so, so many reasons it's crazy to say otherwise.
Anyway, I didn't mean to sound like a dick or anything, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page, but I have to agree that it's amazing to see actual sane people in here, and not just more 12 year olds screaming about marxist sjw conspiracies or something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBluntNinja What is with the "seethe" comments? Dude, I just answered your post with a simply-posed question. He accused me of far more than not having honest arguments, including being racist and anti-semetic, but he did it because he didn't want to address them. Exactly where am I wrong here? Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, supported taxation so it can not be considered socialist. Socializing the people is a thing TIK made up to sound like socialism, when in reality it was just a kind of totalitarian control of the people and genocide, which is far from exclusive to socialism. Where am I wrong? Where am I "caught up in semantics?" TIK is the one out here calling companies and the concept of totalitarian socialist, how is that better than what I said? I'm genuinely curious here, because you seemed perfectly reasonable, and then when I responded you switched instantly to "seethe," rather than addressing it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hustada Yeah I don't much care, sorry mate. I don't care if you don't like the two ideologies, good for you, but conflating to two for that reason alone is nonsense. I don't like socialism, I don't like fascism, and I don't like capitalism. Three things that I don't feel like calling the same things. I don't care if you assume i'm taking some moral high ground, I was under the impression I was writing abut history not morals. Sorry for trying to teach people. And yeah, when you go over definitions, you actually have to look at these "vague theoretical concepts" to figure out how to classify certain things. That's kind of the point, you can't just call everything you don't like socialism and be done with it. And here's a pro tip - if you really think that something is impossible, you can't also think that it's happened before. You kind of have to argue one or the other. And if it is impossible, then you have to look at those vague theoretical concepts to even talk about it. The reason I don't feel like talking about my own ideology here is because it has no place, it is none of the major ideologies being discussed, and I have no reason to bring up the potential future in a conservation about history.
1
-
@OntologicalQuandry That's your way of saying you didn't read it, right?
And yes, it's plainly obvious, you already tried to pull this. "Capitalism is good thing, socialism is bad thing. What's a 'nuance'?" I know that you seemingly despise socialism more than the actual manifestation of fascism as it exists, but try to keep up with this. Capitalism is not the "furtherance of individual rights," especially if you consider capitalism statelessness, as the government very much has to step in to guarantee rights, and sometimes movements that do so are explicitly or implicitly socialist. Socialism is the collective control of the means of production, but I like how you try to define it to mean "when government/group does stuff I don't like." Fascism, while it's a bit harder to define than the two above, is far right, generally ultra-nationalist, and draws heavily on the ideas of traditionalism and social darwinism.
Socialism and fascism differ in literally hundreds of ways, and I think you'd be more hard pressed to find sustained ideological similarities, to be honest. The things you can really find is that both had totalitarian manifestations in the 20th century, but even that doesn't fully work, because plenty of socialist movements weren't totalitarian at all, and socialism retains the ability to even be conducted without a state. Obviously, there were many similarities between the totalitarian regimes of the USSR and Nazi germany, however, the similarities began and ended at their totalitarian and at times genocidal cruelty. The way they conducted themselves, the motivations, the goals, the eventual fates of both nations, their economic and social policy, all contained a host of differences. Perhaps more importantly though, most people, from Orwell to Lenin, didn't call the USSR a socialist system. Collective control of the means of production, remember? Saying socialism can "use" fascism is like saying capitalism can use socialism, it's nonsense.
Now this kind of proves my theory from earlier - I don't think you actually watched the video, or even read my points against you, and I think this for a few reasons. For one, if you actually had watched the video (as I mentioned above) you would have noticed some very different conclusions you and TIK came to. Furthermore, if you had, you would have been able to refute all of my points with ease, since I apparently didn't comprehend the video, right? But you didn't. Now I can chalk that up to lazieness on your part, not everyone has the time to actually back up their claims, but this kind of cements it. You seem to worship this video, literally, without once actually making a point the video expresses. It's like you push it as this divine being solely because you know you're going to have to fall back on an argument to authority when your nonsense inevitably gets called out. Anyway, you've been corrected on this before. Hitler was not a socialist, fascism is not socialism, and obviously hitler was not a capitalist. The two ideologies are not part of some binary, you can not be both quite easily.
If capitalism was completely counter to how he operated, despite a few small capitalistic tendencies, then I think we can safely say that socialism was also counter to how he operated, despite a few small socialistic tendencies.
This is particularly ironic. Not once did you actually address what they said beyond "wow that's long" and then just leaping into a rant about how little you understand the source material or ideologies in question. And yet, you feel justified with ending your statement with "address the actual points?" Alright bud. You first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OntologicalQuandry Yes, The ideology of the nazis was not socialism. I'm glad we could agree there buddy. But your argument doesn't follow logically from your statement.
Obviously it wasn't capitalism, just as obviously as it wasn't socialism. The existence of trace amounts of both ideologies could be found within, but it traced it's lineage to none of them.
Fascism, which is of course about as far from socialism as one can get right up there next to capitalism, is entirely different from socialism in more than just who controls the means of production. If we only cared about that, well then capitalism is just socialism, but instead of the workers or collective owning the MoP, it's the rich.
And this is your problem. You and I both know that you don't have an argument, which is why you don't actually, you know, argue. You just lay out the three terms, capitalist, socialist, fascist, and then try to hammer socialism into the position of fascism, not with relevant arguments but rather with attacks on the ideology itself. What have I proven, since I am right? I have proven that fascists are not socialists. I have set out to prove or advocate for nothing else.
You evidently don't know much about socialism. Socialism was meant to come about after a period of capitalism. Marx never thought that socialism would arise in places like China or Russia, he thought it would start in England, the most industrialized place in the world at the time. When, say, the Russian Revolution was over, they figured that they couldn't rightly jump right from feudalism to socialism. So what did they do? Well, they put in place the NEP, to simulate the economy with market reform. Now, how is that different from what hitler did? See, hitler wanted his system. The soviets for the most part disliked the NEP, they saw it as just bringing back rabid capitalism into their economy. They saw it as a step, one to quickly move past. The nazis, on the other hand, saw their system as a goal. They weren't socialist in the slightest, they just saw an advantage in the managerialist economy for their wartime needs, so hopped onto it. They didn't need more time, they got what they wanted. And where are your numbers coming from? Combined socialism and fascism have maybe killed about 200 million people, a large amount of those being from the war. Saying Socialism is bad, and Fascism is bad, and Capitalism is good does not prove any sort of correlation, and you know it. That's why you didn't post an argument.
Hitler's policies weren't socialist, they despised socialism of all forms and they moved as far away from socialism as one really can. To say that the only different making them socialist is class vs race is again like saying capitalism is socialist because it's the rich vs class vs race.
The video, like you, has been objectively disproven.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OntologicalQuandry Well now that just isn't true, but you don't seem to realize that fascism is just cronyism taken to the next level, with conservative social policy.
As we both know as a fact, hitler was not a socialist, and only railed against specific types of capitalism while he praised other parts. That's something you miss out on. You also forget that hitler didn't want socialism, he wanted fascism, which is incompatible with socialism. I think hitler for example understood capitalism a little bit better than you, because while he didn't like perfectly free capitalism, he was fine with a "capitalism" (cronyism) that worked directly for the state.
Socialism cannot be established with the use of cronyism, that is an objective fact.
Again, for the third time just this night - saying you do not like something is not actually evidence of it being the same as other things that you do not like.
Capitalism always descends to cronyism, yet it is cronyism that must first be combated to but in place socialism, while fascism thrives off of croynism.
The "line" you have constructed is, as usual, relativist nonsense.
Capitalism creates croynism, by itself, every single time. There has not been a single period of prolonged perfect capitalism for that very reason. I am not a socialist, but socialism combats cronyism far more efficiently than even capitalism does.
As I continue to say, I don't care if you don't like them, we're talking about classification. And that has nothing to do with your revisionist nonsense.
1
-
@OntologicalQuandry Simply asserting that you have prove some sort of point where at every moment you have floundered and been rebutted is a glorious thing, but it doesn't actually mean you are right. Fascism and socialism are not the same thing, by any metric, and this is a fact. Saying "when bad thing happens they're the same" means absolutely nothing, as I have continues to tell you from the first second.
Yes, it does come down to intentions. You proclaim it to be arguing in the favor of socialism if I simply correct your false definitions and history. You an pretend I don't understand capitalism, but you haven't done a very good job so far.
I keep telling you this, I don't care. I have no desire to attack or defend ideas based on their merits, I am here to discuss the classifications and titles of said ideas. Saying you like something doesn't erase your revisionism.
I am not a socialist, as as I continue to say, don't care about your deflection from the argument at hand, but I continue to have to remind you to perhaps not rewrite history with tho evidence.
I don't think hitler was a capitalist, he was a fascist, which is an extreme right wing ideology based in nationalism, social darwinism, and traditionalism. If I was to call them capitalist though, your rebuttal would be pathetic, because it would only prove to me that they were terrible capitalists, not that they weren't capitalists at all.
But sure, that's totally the same things the soviets did. I'm sure bud.
And here's more revisionism! Was it a capitalist country that fought on the front lines for years while the countries surrounding it were breaking down? No, it was literally the soviet union, that lost tens of times more than the americans at the same time, and who managed to beat them into submission. The soviet union was a weaker country overall, but to say "capitalism" won the way when your examples were readily found in nazi geramny is quite ironic.
Fascism and socialism are not the same thing, as you and I both know. The systems that lead to suffering, toil, cronyism, corruption, and institutionalised order can be capitalist, fascist, socialist, ect. Nothing is perfect. Ironically enough about your quote there, orwell called the nazis nothing more than conservatives and said the USSR wasn't socialist.
1
-
@OntologicalQuandry I know exactly what i'm talking about, which is why every time it's so easy to rebut your historical revisionism. I know you didn't read it, just like you didn't read the others, because it proves you wrong.
I have proved, objectively, that socialism and fascism are not even close to the same thing, and do not work for the same ends at all. I have proven you to be wrong, and you ignore it.
You yourself have acted as a baseless relativist,and now you run away.
You can assert that all you want, but when i'm the only one so far to provide objective citation, you make a fool of yourself
Back to the point: Hitler described himself as a nationalist, as he said nationalism and socialism were the same thing. He had no socialist policies, as he didn't give the means of production to collective hands. He had no socialist platforms, because he was protecting the upper classes. He never even came close to giving, or wanting to give, the people collective control of the means of production. He didn't have any socialist goals, as we both know. He didn't just decide marx was the wrong kid, he decided the left itself, as well as socialism at large, would never work, and so he put in place far-right fascism. It's amazing, you continue to call me a socialist, but not once have actually provided any reasoning. We get it, you don't like socialists. And yet every socialist alive and dead agrees that hitler was not one, which you miss out on. Such a fractured ideology should only be able to agree on the most fundamental truths, eh?
I don't care what you think works or not, I care about classification of systems, something you happily ignore.
Not everything you don't like is the same thing champ. You know that, as do i, your you ignore it completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
MajorLeague Ah, and some more fun little acts of projection. This is a nice little game. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
MajorLeague o you're just going to keep ignoring it. Fine. Ah, and some more fun little acts of projection. This is a nice little game. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 I said that it was associated with the right, not that it was right wing. That's what you were talking about, and so what I responded to. IS that why people hate communism? Because they can't read? Look dude I don't care about your insults at all, they don't actually contribute to any sort of conversation here. Communism is literally a stateless, classless, moneyless society and I don't think you need to give up your freedom there. If "free food and x" means ideologies were similar than nearly every ideology is similar, and you can throw the USA in there. In fascism, the good man is straight, white, non-disabled, a fascist. In communism it's literally everybody. That's the worker. Your myth of the only difference being a focus on nationalism or internationalism is blatantly incorrect, as the nazis despised socialism in all form, in more ways than just internationalism. Where did he give the people of his nation collective control of the means of production?
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 He very much, explicitly, was a fascist. You don't get to redefine terms you don't understand. Hitler was a fascist, and that's pretty well known. Mussolini wasn't a socialist when creating his policies, he was kicked out of the socialist party for being anti-socialist and Mussolini himself called fascism right wing. They "came out of socialism" in no way, shape, or form. They came from conservatives like Evola, Spengler, and Schmitt. All fascists were right wing and conservative by design, but I think in your little example you've forgotten about Engelbert Dolfuss. You're also forgetting that Hitler defended property, religion, family and his own little capitalist industry, but whatever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 Oh so now you're peddling more myths and nonsense. Beautiful. Franco, like all other fascists, was an open conservative, so of course he sided with the right. Fascists generally didn't like eachother, you can see as much between mussolini and hitler. Hitler sided with capitalists over workers as well, and was actually elected due to their efforts, but I suppose you'll ignore that. Again, ignoring other fascists of the era and their associations, but I suppose you'll ignore that. Franco was an ally to hitler though, and like hitler he was a fascist, which is the important part. Trying to excuse for the conservative tendencies of fascism, and the capitalist allies of hitler, isn't a good look. Hitler wasn't a socialist in any form, no matter how often you spam your old same debunked talking points.
When you have to call all of contemporary history a marxist hoax, you're closer to the nazis than anyone you want to accuse of being nazis. Those three men were all fascists, and while all were moderately different, all pushed the same nonsense.
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 That isn't why they were fascists, champ. Wow, you're really good at winning arguments you made up. So your argument is that they were authoritarian, all the people you mentioned. And? That doesn't make them fascists, or socialists, not by a long shot. I've already been over how your liberal politicians have done terrible things, but you seem to not remember it. Modern liberalism is the single biggest cause of death in the world. We have them to thank for the economic conditions of today. Most liberals know that communism is different from far right fascism, be it of Mussolini or of Hitler, but people like you presume your ignorance speaks fro the crowd. If you say they didn't mean a word of what they said, then not a single one was socialist, and not a single one communist, which kind of disproves your point. You ignore all the cases of the success of socialist, socialist driven and socialist backed movements, but of course you would. I would agree, the examples are bad, but your argument is absolutely awful for justifying why you would equate them. Liberals don't care about a single thing you mentioned, not if it doesn't benefit them. If we're talking about mass death and warfare, then you have to add capitalism to the list, that's just a fact. But please, continue to ignore the point and try to convince everyone that your dead ideology is anything but.
Liberals did give into that nonsense, that's why the nazis rose to power. Liberals don't care about power relationships or unjust hierarchies, they just want to be free to oppress further. Hell, most liberals do all they can to restrict rights. I'm not a collectivist, but your description of collectivism fits liberals perfectly. Just switch the theoretical masses with fake numbers on a graph.
1
-
@skeletalbassman1028 And i'll say it one more time as well - I don't care what your absurd justification for your self-contradictory point is, it's nonsense. As for the nazis, most of the privatized land didn't go to direct party members, but it would be wrong to say that the state had no control over it. However, this was true of most wartime economies of the time, and was by no means exclusive to hitler or the nazis. It was still private, they still owned it and operated it, but did so within the bounds of what the state allowed. It's a bit like lending out an item, the person you're lending it to doesn't fully own it, but that doesn't mean that they can't use it while you have it lent out. Most private individuals didn't oppose the state, why would they? They got a good deal of wealth from the nazi economy, and the nazis had certain incentives that kept the companies working with the party. Anyway, nobody here is calling the nazis capitalist, not at all. They just simply weren't leftist, or socialist. But they certainly were, in their misguided way, trying to protect "the west," or at least continue on with what they thought it represented. Spengler was a huge influence on the nazis and italian fascists alike, after all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AnthonyHunt77 God, more assertions on top of assertions. In honestly no I am not a communist, thought talking to you i'd love to become one simply to prove you wrong. After all, you seem to not understand communism. And what do you mean, "non controversial?" If you mean that it isn't controversial in that no actual historians care about it and all of recorded history when viewed objectively contradicts this video fully, then you'd be right. It is uncontroversially incorrect. So is every historian alive, including the ones that TIK cites, a communist? Not everyone who understands history and disagrees with this piece of propaganda is even on the left. And i'm sorry, what? Are you a communist then? Since you seem to hate freedom of speech and open debate? You are useless in terms of critical thinking, all you have are mccarthy-esque accusations with no basis. If correctly disagreeing with this piece of propaganda that has no care for history makes me a communist, a communist I am.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MIT Mathematica again you have conceded in your previous posts that the supportive , positive , favorable and praising statements on far-right anti-Socialist ideology by Hitler are authentic as proof via the the original 122 Hitler speeches that are housed in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408. Website - Archives.gov
Phone: 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272.
Stop evading the original question with your circular attempt at distracting from the original fact that you can’t disprove the authenticity of Hitler’s favorable and positive statements on far-right anti-Socialism. It is uncontroversial fact they are authentic as per the is indisputable evidence provided by the most credible speeches, definitions, and experts i provided to you. You keep deflecting from both my correction on the missing context from your quotes, and the additional quotes I provided that quite clearly prove you wrong instantly. I agree, the National Archives are accurate, the problem is, your quotes are missing the surrounding context and definitions. Which makes you someone who wants to twist the facts of the National Archives (which readily hold proof of hitler's far-right anti-socialism) into your own ahistorical ideological zealotry. So why do you continue to defend your anti-socialist ally hitler? And why do you pretend to be a new person?
but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong.
So let's add some context, shall we?
Quotes from Hitler -
Quotes regarding the nazis -
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
"1. '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, even 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.
“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. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. 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.”
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oslier3633 Which still, i'm not sure you understand, most people don't have. Nor do they have the time to learn how to operate one, and how to turn a profit from it. Same with setting up a website, for that you need to educate yourself on how to do that, as well as have access to a device, internet to connect it to, and a shipping service. None of which is free.
Besides all those things, the thing stopping most people from buying a mill is that if everyone did it, it wouldn't be profitable. There's only so many people willing to buy from you, champ.
1
-
@oslier3633 What reality do you live in where most people have iphones? What sort of strawman bullshit is that? Many people have phones, most are low price, used, and old. Mine cost $43. Most people aren't factory workers, but even if they were, industrial machinery needs to be manned by many different people, and needs much more space and energy than the personal machines you're talking about. And when did I say workers didn't know how to operate their own means of productions? Obviously they do, that's why they have jobs. You're suggesting they learn totally new skills for little to no payoff. You learned how to make a website online? Great, most don't know how to make it professional enough to convince people to use their business, and the best tutorials are behind paywalls. A computer costs a shit ton, a stable internet connection costs a shit ton, the cabling costs a shit ton, and so on.
And I hate to break it to you, but when people want to buy screws, they go to a home depot. They're not going to trust some random person online, and also, not everyone needs screws.
You're making up a lot of bullshit to justify the fact that your system does not allow everyone to own the means of production. Your system restricts, which is why we're at this point. The people who work in factories, janitors, sewage workers, ect? They work 100x more than any CEO, and yet look at where they are. You assume anyone with the willpower can succeed, then tell me... why hasn't everyone succeeded yet? If it was that easy, literally everyone would do it, or at least tens of millions more than are right now.
What's the explanation? You're a liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oslier3633 Nope. You literally can't. Not everyone can be a factory owner, there has to be employees. Otherwise, the factory won't run. I don't want anyone but my own's means of production, i'm not a capitalist.
People dont own their own tools because they can't, someone always has to work with someone else's tools, under someone else's employment. At least under your system.
The people who made the factory don't have a say, you're saying? But it was their work, their labor, their tools. Why do you want to steal that work from them, all because of some imaginary title of "ownership" with no physical backing?
Yes, most people can't afford the materials and space in order to make their own establishment. I hate to break it to you, but under capitalism, land costs money. Capitalism isn't the system that lets you do whatever you want, it never has been, and never claimed to be. Which still makes you a liar. The internet? You realize educating yourself requires time and effort, right, which many people would prefer to actually spend making money the way they know how. Why do you not understand the realities of the working class? It's painfully obvious you don't understand that capitalism is extremely restrictive, and it is a system of theft.
And, as you show, a system of violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oslier3633 "more double think"
Well yeah when you make up my points of course you'll find contradictions. Because those aren't my points. Where did I say everyone should be self employed?
And yes, if you want to eat, if you want to sleep, if you want medicine, you work. The "free market" is backed by force and coercion.
Nobody knows about your business because why should they bother trying to find out? According to you, the majority of people are lazy and will do what's easiest, so they're just going to head down to a local hardware store.
Capitalism was a word coined by an anarchist, child. Why do you have such an obsession with lying? The capitalist system rejects freedom and individuality.
It isn't free at all, you're forced to work and sell your time and body to even survive, to eat, to drink, to make it another day. That is force.
No, you can not, and never have been able to do whatever you want. If you could, why are so many poor? You refuse to answer. Of course, you think its because they're lazy, but if that was the case, then why do they work the hardest?
1
-
@UltraKardas Your "corrections," as to be expected, are laughably false and i've already addressed them.
So, your first "point."
#1 - Already disproved this. Some socialists don't even want a state, and state control of government programs existed thousands of years before the first socialist was even conceived. Alongside that, as we've been over, the GLF and NSV were both programs used to diminish leftist support and control, and increase the power of private corporations. They were restrictions on already existing capitalist policies.
That means that neither of those programs were anything close to socialist, both definitionally, and in practice. I understand that it takes quite a few tries of telling you the same facts for them to stick in your brain, but you seem not to understand what socialism even is, as these policies are both entirely anti-socialist, and were not in any sense overseen by the government. Not that that would matter, as we've been over - since socialism isn't just "when the government does stuff."
By the way, the GLF was not nationalized, it was directly under private control. It was directly appointed by the corrupt private business owners that supported the nazi party, which again, was a majority of business owners. The GLFs leader was of course a nazi, and a rich, private business owner. Like a lot of nazis, actually. The GLF served specifically to remove the ability to collectively bargain by the workers. Almost like it was an anti-socialist policy... which is objectively was.
You are brainless.
#2. Asserting something without proof twice doesn't make it any more true, and I have heard more capitalists support that statement than socialists.
#3. funnily enough, this quote from you is a direct paraphrase of your buddy hitler, and i hope you'll be pleased to know that both of you were very wrong
#4. This is a statement that requires extraordinary evidence. Evidence that, as we can see, you do not provide, as no evidence for this claim exists - it isn't true. The government did not "own everything" in germany (nor would that be socialism, as we've been over) in fact it privatized more than it inherited in terms of public property. Also, funnily enough, this line from you: " There was no private property that the Nazi's couldn't confiscate" proves that there was private property, and businesses in nazi germany openly competed with eachother in the private market. Stop lying
#5. I'm an anarchist, you're the idiot. Quick correction.
#6. Exactly, socialists align with the left, and the nazis align with the right... so they aren't socialists. Bernie and AOC are social democrats (capitalists) but even they have the common sense to point out that modern nazis and fascists, without exception, align with the right. They march with trump supporters, support far right politicians they like, so on. So yeah, nazis are on the right.
See, the problem is, you don't understand what right and left are. The right, for example, has a few that like firearms... but many who don't (Reagan, Leopold, Hitler, ect.) The left, on the other hand, has plenty who do support firearms. (Marx, Bakunin, DeLeon, ect) Huge parts of the right hate israel, and despise others living their own, happiest lives. The right seems to hate capitalism when it allows big companies to not platform them, the right despises free speech and seeks to outlaw it when it allows people to "disrespect the flag/nation," and so on. Your problem is that you're comparing the modern, moderate right with the historical far right.
Bernie and AOC, the capitalists? Yeah, unlike the far right, who advocate for nationalism, selective privatization, extreme conservatism and traditionalism, and so on, they aren't anything like the nazis. Those who advocate for the closest to nazi policies today are the "patriotic education" right wing.
The nazis openly despised centralization, which is why they called it a Bolshevik scheme to take power away from germany. The modern far right advocates for welfare and healthcare... for white citizens only, and in all other cases say it should be privatized. The left, on the other hand, calls for non-discriminatory, non-hierarchical policy. So yeah, the modern right is calling for the same thing the nazis were. So, hey. Wrong, braindead, and easily proven so.
It's ok, child. There's nothing wrong with admitting you got disproven by me, especially when it is so obvious to everyone reading this. You, after all, have yet to even respond to a single one of my arguments. You just need the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong, and that not everyone who knows more than you is a socialist. In fact, calling historians socialists was how nazi germany justified burning books and killing the educated. Your nonsense isn't fooling anyone.
A child can tell a flower is a flower, and any child, especially a modern german one, would be happy to tell you that the far right, socialist hating, deeply conservative and traditionalist, pro-privatization nazis were, yes, all of those things. The nazis hated centralization, but I guess you would have to have done some research to know that.
You can't even address my other points, which is why you have yet to do so, and why your response was so much shorter than mine. For example, you don't even attempt to rebut the facts that welfare is much older than socialism, that socialism is not just government control, that the nazis had a more restricted welfare and healthcare policy than the capitalist nation before them, and that the modern anti-socialist right calls for the same policies you call socialist. Not one of those things have been addressed, argued against, or even acknowledged by you. This is because if you actually recognize my arguments, you would have to admit you're wrong... which you are :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
@Sprite Cola
"But those aren't socialist programs at all. Those were programs that literally even existed in germany before the nazis took over, back when germany was a capitalist state. Universal Healthcare was cut under the nazis, it was literally less expansive then it had been under a capitalist government. So you're calling the vast majority of capitalists socialists now. Not surprising you don't acknowledge this, as you are unable to be truthful.
No, your "arguments" addressed none of mine, and as i'll go on to show you and already have shown you, your only actual "responses" to me are complete strawman argument.
Like here, because I never once said "socialism needs multiple worker unions" despite your use of quotations, implying I said that sentence... which I didn't. What I actually said was "A single "worker union" that was put in place to abolish all worker unions and gave no actual power to the worker, instead handing it all back to their bosses, is fundamentally anti-socialist. You Still have yet to address this fact, so you make up statements from me. Also, private property literally is, in and of itself, centralized power. Jesus they don't give you children any education on economics today, do they? The GLF was run by nazis, the majority of which were private property owners. It wasn't a worker union, even you admitted this.
The problem is, you confuse what you want "socialism" to be (anything you deem bad) with what the definition actually is. And when I point out the discrepancy between the two examples, you rant and rave at me because you have this irrational desire to call literally everything "socialist." Not surprising as it takes higher brain power to make the connection to theory, and applying that theory into the real world. You assert that "socialism is only possible if the means of production is controlled by the state," but socialism is literally defined as community ownership, so how can you claim it is socialism if the state doesn't represent the community?
You have made up an issue that doesn't actually exist, a supposed issue of "who gets to use it and when?" And the answer is literally in the name... the community. Those who were already working in a place would determine how they work at that place. Capitalists already do this for their workers, the only difference is that now the workers are doing it themselves. You have no need for "regulation," in fact more regulation exists under capitalism.
So no, socialism is not and never has been the complete centralization of all production, because a system in which the government owns everything but the community has no say over how it is owned or operated isn't a socialist system at all. you call places like china and north korea socialist, despite the fact that neither of those countries fits any definition of socialism, china for example much more fits the definition of corporatist capitalism. That's why they don't own Tencent at all, it is literally a private corporation.
And as we've been over, this is an assertion you keep making, but you refuse to provide proof for. Because no proof exists - its alie. The german government encouraged competition, private property, and the boss controlling their workers. They depised the idea of owning every job, that's why they let the private market control the workers directly.
They didn't "set wages" at all champ, that was done by the private business owners who ran the GLF.
Socialism is not, and never has been, state control of the economy. That is why socialists despise right wing totalitarianism and state ownership (like monarchism, imperialism, fascism, ect) and why historically, a huge portion of socialists have advocated for a stateless society. You on the other hand are just making up definitions, because you believe in the necessity of a "system of management..." just like every fascist and totalitarian believes in.
Yeah, again, not true. Capitalism inherently appeals to the government, destroys its own trade, manufactures both supply and demand in order to make the most profit while helping the least people. You seem to not understand that regulated capitalism... isn't socialism. You don't seem to understand that helping the rich isn't socialism. Hell, you point out an amazing example of China's cutthroat competition, and china's companies being friends with the government, so they don't have to pay their employees. This is the natural result of capitalism.
For example, Hitler was fond of working with international industrialists, like Ford, to achieve certain projects of his. He openly let companies bid and compete among eachother to realize his dreams.
Capitalism stifles markets, individuality, and creativity. Capitalism forces profit instead of innovation, exploitation instead of help. But, as you are a fan of nazis and their far right friends, I doubt you would ever dare to think for yourself about how much capitalism confines and depersonalizes most people. You can't even be honest enough with yourself to say that self proclaimed right wing anti socialists, who support anti socialist policies, are in fact right wing anti-socialists.
Bernie is a capitalist, but your image of him as a conspiracy figure is closely in line with your heroes, the nazis, which to this day invoke antisemetic tropes like you just did to hate him. The conspiracy theory that a rich, jewish politician wants to institute a leftist dystopia in your country, despite that politician not even being anything outside the overton window, is quite literally a nazi conspiracy theory. And of course, not true at all
And you're joking, right? First off, you make the mistake of calling germany socialist (they were your anti-socialist heroes, remember) but the USSR was literally famous for its film industry, in fact, many russian films from the era still exist today, and are being remade into books, movies, and games as we speak. You're literally taking your ignorance on other countries as a fact.
But, a totalitarian like yourself never had any brain power. The best thing fascist sympathizers like you ever did was make yourself into big enough fools that nobody would ever take you seriously.
You wouldn't admit to your ideological allies in the far right, even as you told them to lead the socialists off to camps. Stop supporting far right nazis."
1
-
@UltraKardas Except that again, I have proved you wrong about everything.
The welfare charity for example was literally run by private business, who wanted to eliminate worker competition and worker autonomy to provide more power to the owners. So they were fundamentally anti-socialist, which you would realize if you actually knew what the definition of socialism was.
They were absorbed into the corporate engine of right wing anti-socialist nazi germany. Socialism is not, and has never been, "all about state control." This is an assertions by propagandized, fascistic individuals. Also, private property is literally only a stance taken by capitalists, socialists are far from the only anti-private property people. What defines socialism is what private property is replaced by... community control.
You lost the argument, fash. I've provided you facts, and you "provide" me with insults and assertions. Sure, I can continue correcting you and watching you make a fool of yourself as long as you want. Eventually you're going to have to admit that the nazis were objectively far right anti-socialists.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas Yeah but that literally isn't true, though. For example, monarchists were strongly opposed to private property, and they objectively weren't socialists. Anarchists are also opposed to private property, they aren't socialists either. And, if everyone was say, shot off to the moon, or suddenly vanished off of the earth, then private property would cease to exist, as would ownership as a whole. does this make those situations socialist? Does that make animals socialist, because they have no concept of private property? If "anti-socialist means private property," does that mean that monarchists, anarchists, or primitivists are all fans of private property now?? As we've been over, what defines socialism is not "abolishing private property," but replacing private property with community ownership. Also, that's all a moot point, because in no way, shape, or form was private property abolished in nazi germany.
BTW, the government was literally funded and primarily influenced by private individuals. Which is why the NSV was ran by a businessman and a landowner.
All other charities were amalgamated into that anti-socialist whole. As we've been over, you don't understand the definition of socialism, and you certainly don't understand the definition of anti-socialism. Socialism isn't "when no charities." You've been debunked again.
1
-
@UltraKardas Literally every program Nazi Germany made was highly anti-socialist. That means they either abolished different worker run institutions like how all autonomous unions charities were dismantled for the private market's anti-communal-welfare mentality.
You had the anti-communal labor front that controlled the wages of every worker in every job, that dictated the pay, the time off, and the rights of every worker, all according to whatever their bosses wanted, while giving no actual communal power to the workers.
No communal systems or collective bargaining was allowed. You had one massive anti-worker "union" that controlled wages for every worker, and was only directed by said worker's private bosses. Literally every part of Germany was in the hands of corrupt private individuals working with a corrupt state, to the point that the entire country was controlled by the Anti-Socialist Nazi Party.
You had entire industries run by the private Germans for the sake of indoctrination. Germany had a tourist industry just to make other people anti-leftists.
Socialists/communists and fascists are about as far from eachother are you can get. Socialists just want community control, with or without a state. Communists don't even want a state. And fascists love to work with private industry to destroy leftist thought and power.
The funny thing is, everything I said here was true, and I have proven that to you time and time again. However, like a true far-right cultist, you just repeat back the same lies without even providing a rebuttal for why you still believe them. Abolishing private property isn't socialist, and it didn't happen under nazi germany, and nothing about nazi germany was "communal." (calling it that is literally holocaust denial) this is a point you've been corrected on time and time again, and yet you provide no rebuttal to the facts i present, only deflection. Just admit it, fash. We can tell from your hatred of socialism you would have been a happy nazi.
1
-
@UltraKardas
I have, though. You only deny it because you have no other basis to prop up your ahistorical views. I have given you the objective, historical definition of socialism, one you despise because it proves you wrong so easily and efficiently. You long ago stopped trying to prove my facts wrong, and instead switched to asserting the same disproven nonsense.
You are so wrong that its literally the easiest thing to do to disprove you, which I have.
Nazi germany despised command economies, and used the economy of the soviet union under stalin (not lenin's NEP) as proof of the inefficiency of command economies. This is the fourth time I have shown you this, not once have you even addressed it, opting instead to repeat the same lies time and time again. The nazis despised communal programs, which is why the German Labor Front and their restrictive healthcare systems existed, as an effort to dissuade communal power and collective bargaining. The private corporations still held the vast majority of their power, and yes! This ability was handed to them by the nazis.
The nazis weren't socialists. That's why they attempted to redefine the word "socialism" after rightfully being called out by actual socialists. You are literally so brainless, that you correctly call Italy Fascist, then falsely call Nazi Germany socialist, without realizing fascism is inherently anti-socialist.
And yes, they were both fascist systems, with many similarities, those being extreme nationalism, traditionalism, opposition to leftism and socialism of all forms, corporatist economic systems, and so on. Socialism and fascism are antithetical to eachother, howerver, the anti-socialist fascism of the nazis and the anti-socialist fascism of the italians were similar.
And yes, congratulations! You found out that Mussolini changed ideologies.
Mussolini started out as a member of the socialist party, but was quickly expelled. He then wrote books and articles outlining the system he now preferred, called fascism, and he explicitly denounced socialism and leftism in these works, saying that fascism was system that left both socialism and capitalism behind, while belonging to the right.
There is so much you can't even disprove... which is why you repeat the same old disproven talking points without once addressing my rebuttal 🤣
1
-
@UltraKardas Ironic how you call others projectors for proving you wrong. There's a little word called projection. :)
Social Democrats are capitalists, but i'm willing to bet that you'd call them socialists anyway, so deep is your economic ignorance. And yes, socialists can be rivals, many were. That does not mean every rival of a socialist, however, is just a different type of socialist. The nazis still weren't socialists. You're arguing someone must be a cannibal because they opposed cannibalism.
Nazi germany was anti-socialist. It had anti-socialist policies, a corporatist government, ran by anti-socialists, and found its strongest allies among international capitalists like Ford and Koch Sr.
And thank you for admitting that capitalists have rivals too! You'd be happy to admit they also had friends, right?
...friends like the nazi party, which propped itself up on sympathetic international industrialists.
Funny how you have absolutely fabricated false information about the restrictive "social healthcare" of the nazis, which was more private under the nazis than under their capitalist forbearers. And of course, social security is a product of capitalism, and the nazis weren't socialists, but then again, that's all been proven to you before, time and time again.
And yes, the nazis were anti-union. Anti all union, but especially leftist unions. Instead, they abolished all collective bargaining, and reorganized what was left into a "union" made with the explicit goal of helping private owners, as you have admitted in the past. A private "union."
And I have to agree, yes, you are willing to lie about the truth about the nazis, past the point of absurdity. Every time you respond, I write a response paragraphs longer than yours, addressing each sentence and statement individually, systematically dismantling them with facts you don't have the historical knowledge to oppose. Your next response then is usually short, and full of the same disproven assertions you are afraid to admit are incorrect.
The nazis weren't socialists, and asserting others only helps modern nazis, which ironically enough it seems you'll find you don't seem that opposed to, fash.
1
-
@UltraKardas
But... they weren't socialists. Objectively :) You know this fact, which is why you refuse to even respond to be me before, although to be fair your prior responses always failed to address my arguments so this isn't too much of a change. Of course, the "socialist" in their name was a lie, especially given hitler opposed it, and then attempted to redefine the word. Their economic policy, government actions, worker policy, healthcare, and welfare were all distinctly non-socialist or anti-socialist policies.
The nazis had 100% anit-socialist policy, as we've been over, and as I proved to you as you ran away. The government didn't control the wages, the private market did. There wasn't "social security," that was a wholly american policy. They in fact bolstered the private option, over and over again, and put more control into private hands. Socialized healthcare? They restricted it from the capitalist policies that had preceded them. They wanted something done? They bribed the private market. And the funny thing is, none of the policies you describe, lies as they are.. would make the nazis socialists. :)
They made anti-socialist allies (Ford, Koch, IBM, ect) openly despised the programs of actual leftist nations, and openly admitted to being anti-socialist. You don't know what a strawman is, just like you don't know the definition of socialism.
The funny thing is, China in the modern day is capitalist, while North Korea is quite literally a self identified monarchy. The nazis, of course, were far right anti-socialists. None of them fit the definition of socialism, that being "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," all for different reasons. The reasons the nazis had is that ideologically, they never even wanted to be socialist. They hated socialism more than you.
You can insult people who understand history better than you all you want, after all, you can't respond to a single one of our arguments. It only takes a single glance at the definition of socialism, as well as a overview of the history of the nazis, to determine the truth, that they were far right anti-socialists, like you :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesterbeats2898 first off, learn to use punctuation. Second off, what? I did disprove everything they said, over and over again. First off, china isn't fascist going by the definition, they are simply a state capitalist economy putting out propaganda claiming the opposite. Furthermore, even if they were fascists, that doesn't mean we can assume anything about historical unrelated fascist groups, given that even said groups disagreed with eachother. In any case, no, I'm sorry, china is not fascist and nazi germany was not socialist, these are the facts of the matter and I have yet to see a coherent rebuttal to them. The nazis weren't socialists in a different sense... They just weren't socialists at all. That simple.
1
-
1
-
@Timenaught actually, unlike you nazi supporters, I proudly back up every single argument with an example, or citation, which is why you all never seem able to actually address my arguments, just as you refuse to engage with a single one of them in your comment right here. rather, you engage in petty insults and assertions with no base in reality. If I am so willing to say "I'm right because I say so," why have I provided so many sources and quoted that support reality?
The nazi party literally privatized huge swathes of industry, despite TIKs attempted redefinition of that word, and empowered huge amounts of private business within their economy. Socialism has never been state ownership, as of course you know, and of course the nazi party in no way took complete state ownership of private property. In fact, private property was never abolished, as I showed time and time again. You're free to disagree, but try to provide sources, not just assertions. You also seem to believe TIKs u cited conspiracy theory that anyone claims the Nazis were capitalists.
All of you nazi supporters say the same thing, that despite citing quotes and timestamps from all of TIKs videos, I somehow have never seen them. This is your attempted to shut down the truth, as you wholly refuse to deal with someone like me that can do effortlessly prove you wrong. for example, have you even watched the video? If you did, you would know he has an entire section dedicated to making excuses for the fact that the vast majority of his historical sources disagree with him totally. Now, is that an insult, or will you admit to being a liar about my part in debunking TIK?
And funny, that last line perfectly explains you TIK fans, eager nazis all too willing to run rampant through comment sections asserting total nonsense, and attempting to censor those that prove them wrong. Like you're doing, nazi fan boy. And like i'm calling you out for, though i'm sure you'll proudly deny it and then go on accusing others of being nazis for... daring to call out nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThatDrummerFrank It really isn't. For one, Marxists aimed to do a lot of things, because Marxism isn't a specific economic or political doctrine, it's a historical lens based on materialism and dialectics. But anyway, hitler really didn't want to socialize the aryan race, He didn't want to remove any sort of class inequalities, give them democratic or direct control of the MoP, and if they didn't align with his ideology or his idea of a perfect person, he didn't even want to help them. His point on socializing people didn't make much sense, and it seems like he was just trying to use the word "socialize" to draw a connection to socialism. Because even if you do create an ethnostate, that doesn't mean that the race in question has socialized control or collective control of the MoP. It means members of that race exclusively have control of the MoP. We already had a system like that according to marx, all people were workers, yet all workers did not own the MoP. Hitler's attempt to kick out all people he didn't like wouldn't have caused socialism, but just new class inequalities and semi-private ownership within the single race. It's a bit f a word play, because while the race would technically be in control of the means of production, it would be members of the reace individually, and not the race as a whole. But socialism has never really been about race anyway, it's also worth mentioning that socialism was about class and workers before marx, and that hitler didn't learn from other socialist movements but new, revolutionary conservative movements, but I think I already said that. Anyway, I hope that answers your question. :)
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar.
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself.
A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. "
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily.
Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch.
The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it!
Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical.
German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view.
Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx.
Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Exactly, nice try trying to rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism
The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
This quote:
“National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1]
In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact.
Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out:
"Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. "
He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought.
Sources:
[1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159.
[2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
//:/
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica.
Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind.
The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis.
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie.
Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history.
Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.
Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption."
As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word.
Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it.
His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title.
The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily.
Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism
The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
This quote:
“National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1]
In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact.
Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out:
"Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. "
He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought.
Sources:
[1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159.
[2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samuelboucher1454 ...So you are a liar, then? One that doesn't even have a convincing lie? The nazis weren't socialists, and you really don't have any arguments otherwise. "They were fighting for workers rights against capitalists?" They were literally throwing millions of workers, of all ethnicities, genders, nationalities and races into death camps, while allying with overseas capitalists to fund their expansion. They didn't consider themselves socialists either, they pretty clearly rejected any past meanings of socialism and tried to apply the title where they now it didn't belong. TIK's definition of socialism is incorrect, but even if it was correct, they did not aim for or achieve "collective control of the economy," they wanted the economy in the hands of the state and corporations. The problem is, you don't actually know what socialism is, and think that the vast majority of socialist ideas are just some strain of "international communists." The only way to think they were somehow socialist is to take all of socialism and pretend its simply a branch of a larger whole, and lump in far right ideologies that have nothing to do with socialism, all while redefining words and misusing labels, which would be a stupid and historically inaccurate thing to do. And yet, you just did it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriswysocki8816 And that definition doesn't really work. First, because the very idea of left vs right was invented to describe those who wanted a republic, and those that wanted a monarchy, with the monarchy being on the right. So the idea of left vs right being state intervention vs libertarianism doesn't make sense. Also, the word "libertarian" literally used to describe leftists, anarchism is a left wing ideology, and socialism doesn't even need a state to operate. So what's a better definition? Well, here's one that's been proposed, that works a bit better. And that definition is hierarchy vs equality, right vs left. In other words, look at some left wing ideologies. Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy, Anarchism. In the moderate section, Social Democracy, the left wants to minimize hierarchy and maintain equality. As you get more extreme, you can get things like statist socialism, which guarantees and enforces equality by the state, or communism and anarchism, which guarantees equality as a collective, mutually, without a state, The right, on the other hand, has Libertarian Capitalism, Corporatism, Ancap, Monarchism and Fascism. On the moderate side you have capitalism, which allows people to climb the ladder of hierarchy so to say, and while it allows for equality, it does not strive for it. Corporatism strives for a hierarchy of strong corporations at the top, enforced by the market and the state alike. There is monarchism and fascism, where the hierarchy is rigidly enforced and those on the top stay on top,either through inherent racial hierarchies, or a divine right of kings. And then Ancap, where there is no government interference and hierarchy is free to spring up. Obviously, that's not to say that one side is better than the other, I think you would say that too much of both is bad. But that is the most comprehensive and solid definition I have actually heard for left vs right. The concept itself is flawed, but obviously saying more vs less government doesn't wok at all. One more thing to mention - the nazis and italian fascists allied with the right constantly, and called themselves right wing.
1
-
@chriswysocki8816 You can easily research the definition as well, it isn't that hard. Fascists, objectively, were not socialists, and in the founding texts of fascism they decried their hatred for socialism and capitalism alike. They were not socialists, but conservatives, social darwinists, and traditionalists. The nazis sent socialists to the camps first mate, they allied with conservatives and capitalists while doing so. That isn't socialist in the slightest. The nazis not only weren't leftists, but by any objective metric cannot be found to be socialists. Of course they're a shit ideology, but lumping them in with socialists does no good but to deflect from the actual rise of fascism in the world. Also, as I keep reminding you, the fascists called themselves right wing, and cannot be considered socialists according to even you. That much is evident.
1
-
@chriswysocki8816 And I hate to be frank but it isn't something you can really disagree with, (though feel free to say that you do, you have the right) it's out best understanding of history. The nazi regime did not take over the entire state nor the economy, but even then (as I keep explaining) that would not be a socialist or leftist system. Was it totalitarian? Of course. Was it socialist, or leftist? Not by any rational definition.
And that's your personal bias. Let me ask you this, if the true danger is on the left, then what do you imagine the left wing vs right wing terrorism rates are? In, let's say, the past decade. 76% was far right. I would reccomend really reading into the start of the nazi movement, they allied with conservatives and capitalists frequently, then they surpassed them. That's not to detract from the regimes of the left at the same time, but to call hitler a socialist is to try to write off the right as perfect historical benefactors, when in reality they were anything but. Yes, Stalin and Mao were monsters.But the problem is you're weakening your argument by including situations that don't logically follow. Take Venezuela, for example - 70% private economy. Hardly some massive socialist undertaking. But more importantly, take hitler. His movement did not come from the same place, did not want the same things, did not do the same things as those other regimes. To act as if they were all "socialist" is like trying to barricade the door with an open window behind you. You focus all of your effort against the socialists, but when the fascists come from the opposite direction you won't see them coming. Hell, they might help you take care of the socialists before they turn on you. I know this is somewhat dramatic for something that seems unbelievable, but it really can happen here, and when it does, it won't do you any good to try calling the warring left and right all "socialists." It doesn't make much sense, and you're only hurting your own argument by trying to lump them all together when categorically it doesn't make sense to do that.
1
-
@danielbowman7226
So you haven't watched the video, then. You could have simply admitted as much, it makes this whole thing so much easier. After all... he says the opposite of you. And i'm sure you did child, despite the fact that you haven't even grown up yet.
If that's what you think, you may want to check again. It was the conservative parties who the nazis allied with to usurp democracy and eventually turn a republic into a dictatorship, not leftists. But knowing that would require a bit of historical context, which as we both know, you are lacking.
I'm sure minarchists and libertarians were in concentration camps... that's why mises was the head of a fascist economy, right? Oh, no, did you forget that part? Again - educate yourself.
And ah yes, another assertion. Yes, kid, i'm sure that neonazis loved the man who wants to cut back on border security and has a black woman as a vice president. I see no reason ethno-nationalists would have a problem with either of those things, at all! Again - break out of your bubble. Try to apply actual logic to your statements, not just buzzwords and constantly-repeated talking points from your echo chambers.
1
-
@danielbowman7226
And yet, the video is baseless. TIK himself admits that the only sources he offers that agree with him are biased and non-historical. The historians he cites, all of them, disagree with his conclusion.
The nazis quite literally only got into power because conservatives got them there and capitalists were more than happy to fund their political party.
The conservatives quite literally were given high level government roles because they were instrumental in the nazi's rise to power. This is a basic fact, one that you seem not to have been taught, which is odd.
Fascism is based off of traditionalism, nationalism, and corportatism. That's the basic fact. And Mises, quite literally, ran a fascist economy, working directly under a fascist dictator, with whom he considered himself a friend. Again, guess nobody even taught you that.
I know, kid. You want to pretend you come from a "socialist" country because its easier than actually learning to debate. Lucky for you i'm not a socialist, but I don't think you even know what a socialist is to begin with.
Ahh, and here you are repeating actual neo-nazi talking points. Wow, interesting that someone who claims to be opposed to that is repeating their own words. You refused to address my point, but instead brought up how Richard Spencer endorsed Biden. Of course, you don't actually know the reason for this, like I said all you can do is repeat talking points. Do you want to know the reason? It's quite simple - Spencer quite literally said it. He thought Biden would have more conservative policies relating to borders and the BLM protests than trump, and in fairness, Biden's political record doesn't do much to disprove that.
So your evidence is a man who fooled himself into endorsing someone because he thought that the man was more right wing than he was. This is, of course, ignoring the four years of political endorsements trump go from the KKK, neo-nazis, white supremacists, modern monarchists, ect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cjd2889 God, I'm loving this conversation so far. Because it's so apparent that you really didn't know about this. Yes, the policy of containment was usually enforced by the US trying to bring about the end of a nation, either through open proxy war, or assassinations/coups. It was also a preemptive effort to combat socialism, long before any such nations could have actually felt the so-called adverse effects of it, and when most nations were actually hugely benefiting. And I do really love how little about this you know. Would you say that union leaders, free speech activists, and democratically elected leaders were despots? Or were you confused, because it's the despots we replaced those people with. And as for movements, not against (you should read what I say) but for socialism or conducted by socialists in their own country, of course they did their best to put them down violently, or at least slander them, regardless of if it worked or not.If you want to talk about regimes disposing of protesters, or torturing millions of people, well then welcome to the US, where we purposefully installed regimes that did exactly that, supposedly in the effort to combat authoritarianism. Ironic, right? I know you don't know this yet, and should have asked, but i'm not a socialist. I'm just not a child who was fooled into thinking the US has never done anything wrong. If i wanted a bullet to the back of the head, i'd just speak out against the United States Government in some other country. Of course, you don't know what socialism actually is, but that's to be expected. When you want to talk about failed states, we can talk about the regimes imposed by the US. Until then, you might want to bush up on your history.
1
-
@cjd2889 Oh jeez, you're really teaching me a thing or two, eh? It's almost like you can't actually address my arguments, so you strawman them to shit, and then address those. So let's deal with that. First off, I don't go by some subjective definition., I go by the one that's been used since the beginning. I know you all don't like it, because you call anyone left of Reagan a socialist so of course the definition doesn't work, but it's the one I use. As for "revisionist history," I love that you all, and I mean you all, have this idea of "Marxist academia." Now where have I heard that before? Hm... No, can't think of it. Anyway, I couldn't care less what you think of experts, or your own historical revisionism. First off, you'll notice that not once did I mention Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, or China. China did put down a socialist movement, however, so you've got at least that running for you. See, the thing is, there's a reason I didn't mention them. Don't get me wrong, the USA had ways of fucking with all of those countries, like proxy wars, trade restrictions, embargos, ect. By the way, when did you all start calling venezuela socialist? Was it before or after you found out about the 70% private economy.And I would agree, largely the leaders of those countries and movements are to blame for the later abysmal conditions, although again, the US certainly had a role to play among many. However, this entire point, as you may notice, doesn't once address anything I actually said. It's generally just you ranting about the corruption inherent to authoritarianism, not once actually addressing the authoritarianism the USA put into power. Of course these leaders were bad, did I say otherwise? But your hypothesis that the USA and other capitalist countries had nothing to do with the spread of socialism, or lack thereof, is insanely wrong. The only examples you actually give were Libya and Iraq, which were far from the only ones. We can go into, say , Chile. Where the USA not only sponsored the Coup, but sponsored the next dictator, even as he was coaxing rats into orifices and throwing people out of helicopters. Did you know that the average nutrition of Chile after a few years of Pinochet's rule was worse than the average nazi concentration camp's? You attempt to write this all off as just "career politicians trying to increase the power of the state," which is again, wrong. Politicians aren't eldritch entities that feed off the state or something, no, if they do something it's because they benefit. And how did they stand to benefit? Well, the wealthy elite didn't like socialist takeovers, so of course they called up the USA to help them resist it. Oh yeah, and we know, you don't know what socialism is, because you're now trying to say that Richard Nixon was some kind of socialist-adjacent figure. As for anti-socialist movements in the US (again, not what I said) we have multiple red scares, and no I hate to break it to you, but they weren't justified. They sent off my great-uncle in a boat to freeze to death on the Siberian wasteland because he dared be a union leader. Not the most justified stuff. The idea that the Russians were trying to propagandize Americans is somewhat true, but there was a growing leftist movement anyway, because the USA has just now begun to openly suck ass, which politicians pretended was some huge conspiracy. Oh, and the anti-civil rights movement was certainly partially anti-socialist. And isn't it funny, your lack of introspection? You accuse me of siding with socialists, before once considering that it's possible that it has nothing to do with socialism, but it's just history?
1
-
@cjd2889 Oh, i'm well aware of that. The fact that you didn't address my arguments is what proves that, not what I say on the matter. Making something up implies that it's false, which my point wasn't. I brought up my great-uncle to point out a real event, and while you are correct in that the internet, anonymous as it is cannot prove that I was related to this person, the event did happen, and was widely recognized. That event being the sailing of the Red Ark. You can choose whether or not to believe my familial ties to it, but it did happen. And i'm sure you don't want to delve into the history of that "Marxist Professors " things, so sure, we won't get into them. The reason I brought up Nixon was that he was a big part of the anti-socialist effort, and personally called for and permitted the coup in Chile, which was my later example. While politicians do gain from increasing government power, that's largely only because they can leverage that power for more out of the private market. And I would argue giving the government the ability to just kill people they don't like is a bit worse that public property, but that's just me. I used "eldritch abominations" to draw attention to the fact that they aren't just irrational beings we can't understand that like the state for some reason, no, they do things because they personally will profit from them. And yes, I do think that for the most part some of these countries would at least have done better if the USA had left them well enough alone. Why? Because, for example, Allende wasn't torturing people to death. He wasn't tossing free speech advocates out of helicopters. And, best of all, he could have been voted out. Like it or not, that's better than Pinochet's rule. In any case, I am aware that the vast majority of their wealth came from the oil industry, which they did nationalize, but that hardly makes them socialist. Socialism isn't "when the government owns one industry that did well before the USA put sanctions on them. Socialism is, and always has been, when the workers own the means of production. And yes, by "always," I do mean both pre-marx and anti-marx socialism. And I would agree that there was a certain amount of strongarming in regards to the other buisnesses, but certainly not enough to be considered unofficial nationalization by any means. I said teaching sarcastically obviously, but I knew that you weren't here to try to impart knowledge in a good faith way. After all, to you, pointing out the history of the USA and other anti-socialist efforts is somehow "defending socialism," despite my previous comments showing otherwise. What was that line you used? Oh right. "Or do you think that you saying something just magically makes it true?" But I guess that doesn't matter as much. Sure mate, have a good one, and best of luck in everything.
1
-
The issue there is that you've stumbled onto exactly why hitler isn't a socialist. TIK considered there to be a binary between pure capitalism, which he says is stateless, and everything else, which he calls socialist. Hell, he even calls corporations themselves a socialist invention. All he does is prove that Hitler was totalitarian, but he openly admits that he just thinks totalitarianism, in all forms, is socialism, which is absurd. I thank you for your nuance, but the entire argument is based off of definitions of socialism that are as oddly constructed as the definition of capitalism, which you correctly point out doesn't really fit our traditional understanding or usage of the term. I'd be happy to debate this further, but from what i've seen the amount of redefinition in this video and others by him kind of prove the opposite of their point, that in order to call hitler a socialist, you have to redefine the term into something no socialist calls for, or something even anti-socialist entities like businesses could be qualified as. It's absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Victorian Spiritualist First off, you absolutely can get rid of hierarchies, sorry. I know the right loves them, but they are far from a natural part of this world. Oh, yeah, and hierarchies are mostly private. That's, you know, how the private market works, since its built entirely off of hierarchy, and people becoming stronger or more successful than others. While hierarchy can be public, it is not exclusively so, as economic illiterates like you might suggest. Public is not just "structures by which society are organized," and in fact, neither do hierarchies adhere to that definition. Therefore, private hierarchies are commonplace. And, of course, none of your nonsense goes against the objective truth that most if not all corporations are private entities, at all times, like it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuckles1954 You know that the democrats used to be right wing, correct? I know you're an ignorant child, but you really should know that pretty simply. After all, the democrats used to complain that everything they didn't like was communism, just like republicans do today, while the republicans used to have actual socialists in their party. Everything you are talking about proves my point, that the right is fascist. It's amazing how little self awareness you have, but of course, that's to be expected from a supporter of fascism such as yourself. The republican party in early years was a fan of big government, they were northern, left wing, liberal,industrialists. The early republicans even called themselves liberals, and as I said, used to have socialists in their party. Of course the first few black people in congress were liberal republicans. You seem to somehow be an idiot if you think that there were zero republican slave owners, but i agree, the conservative democrats did terrible things, while the liberal lincoln (who even was endorsed by karl marx ) freed the slaves. Of course right wingers back then loved republicans, they do today as well. Wilson was a cultural conservative, which is why he sided with the KKK, who openly admit to being a far right conservative organization. Right wingers wanted FDR to do that, and didn't want FDR to join the war in the first place, because they sympathized with hitler. Eisenhower had an >90% tax rate, while his more right wing counterparts didn't like his left wing efforts. Martin Luther King openly called himself a socialist, and it's incredibly disrespectful for you to connect him to the part he said reminded him of the KKK. The group that refused to vote for the civil right bill was conservatives, while liberals proposed (and carried) and signed the bill. Robert Byrd, unlike the modern republicans, gave up the KKK when he was younger and admitted he was more conservative when he joined. Meanwhile, right wingers commit the vast majority of all terror attacks and hate crimes, and support the KKK and the racist police. Socialists fought to free the slaves and give people equal rights.
Hitler didn't want to call himself a socialist, his party made that decision without him, and he went on to say he despised all forms of socialism and said that the left would end the world while the right would save it. He was right wing.
You seem not to realize that not only was the democratic party mostly right wing back in those days, but they were (and still are) capitalist. You just disproved your own point. Considering the right wing of the time literally gave hitler the idea for racial laws, and it's republican owned organizations today that defend those same racial laws, it's clear how they're still the same. FDR beat hitler in a war, while the right wing didn't want to join, because they agreed with hitler, while FDR and hitler agreed on essentially nothing. I know you're a propagandized idiot, but at least try to keep logically consistent. You realize that the democrats are capitalists, right? Saying they are similar to hitler proves that hitler was not a socialist. The right hates freedom, we know this. It's priceless to get information from the modern day right, who worship figures like hitler, because even though they deny it hitler was the perfect embodiment of everything they wanted from society. It's amazing when republicans see the light to their fascist ways, and move leftwards, as has been happening for years now. And yes, the New York Times, a capitalist paper, supported Hitler. What does that say? Liberalism means capitalism, child, and yes it's killed hundreds of millions, we know this. But you seem not to realize that you are a liberal, and that all this response has proven is that you deny what hitler actually wanted so you can ignore the fact that you agree with him on pretty much everything. There's a reason conservatives loved (and still love hitler.) It's because they can recognize one of their own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip my comments were true, and they remain true. Why did I delete them? Because they fell on deaf ears, and I have no desire to waste even more of my time with children like yourself, which can't even understand the truth when they see it. I said as much in the comments. Do you even know what my comments said, child? Obviously not... So your goal here is to insult. Not critique.
"Now after that opening, I'm picturing you as the boy's Teacher from The Incredibles when he goes "See you see that!!! He is Guilty!" "
At least try to take this seriously. You accused me of not even believing my own words, and then instantly go off about how you see this as nothing more than a game. It's deeply sad, really.
And I hate to break it to you, but I'm not here for entertainment. Defending history isn't entertaining, it's necessary. That's why I deleted those comments - because I find no enjoyment in arguing, and when it is no longer necessary, I see no reason to. Is it that hard to understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip ...but that logic doesn't hold up. You say that I have no reason to delete them, so the only reason must be that I feel ashamed of a loss. But that isn't true, I do have a reason - I don't feel like responding to comments. I don't feel like making myself a figure for people to respond to in a giant thread that's the pinned comment on a video. And I realize it's pointless, so in a way to symbolically finalize the acceptance of this fact to myself, i deleted them. That's my reason.
You assert that the only reason I would delete them is because i'm ashamed of them... but i'm not. In fact, I said the same to you earlier today, and that comment is still sitting proud. I've said the same before, time and time again, even TIK will tell you. So how am I afraid of a loss when i'm still making the same point elsewhere?
If me deleting my arguments, to you, seems like the "knee jerk reaction of a fool," it seems like you're trying to project your own opinion of online arguments onto me. And I don't actually agree with your logic, so why would I follow it?
Like, your whole "point" here is that according to your outlook, a deleted comment is an admission of failure. But I don't have that outlook. So why would your views be applicable to my actions?
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip So I don't like your "logic" and thus i'm not "logic minded?" We've been over this, you think about things one way, I don't.
And... I don't care how people perceive me? Especially in this comment section, people have insulted me, tried to guess my ideological leaning, hell called me slurs, all without actually caring about the statement of my words or characters. You already thought I was a liar, and thought I was being dishonest, so why would I care what you glean from my actions? Hell, they don't even see my responses or my account, and TIK was slandering me in the same comment section, why do you assume that they would have had a favorable or even neutral perception of me anyway? You can see the whole conversation, and there's nothing in there of substance. I don't care about "defending myself" as to why i deleted the comments, because i'm confident in my reasoning, and those who disagree wouldn't have liked me anyway.
And here's exactly my point. You would have disagreed anyway, TIK would have slandered me anyway, I would have been insulted and looked down upon anyway. And, I hate to break this to you, but literally nobody is going to see those comments and then recognize me in another thread. That isn't how people operate. You can smile all you like, but you already admitted you were wrong.
Oh, and i'm pretty sure i'm living rent free in TIK's head ;)
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip "If you were confident you wouldn't of deleted them." Already addressed this - and you couldn't respond to it. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true for you, champ. And yeah, they lied about me, insulted me. I'm here because I feel like it.
And... yeah. People will see a name. But I hate to break it to you, again, most people won't pay attention to that. And those who do most likely won't engage with me, and the few that do, likely won't remember. Why would someone with no profile picture, no comments to reply to, and no presence in the thread, be worth remembering? and So, again, I really don't care.
This isn't an "argument." This is me explaining my reasoning, and you being annoyed when I don't share your same perceptions on online discourse.
So, in conclusion - I don't care.
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip ...the proof of them lying wasn't in the comments, though. So it wouldn't have mattered if i kept them up?
And yeah, I still don't care about people's opinions of me, personally, which is what that thread was apparently on. I'm not sure what that's so hard to grasp. I do care about history though, which is why i'm still here.
And again - this isn't an argument. I've been explaining my thought process this entire time, and for some reason you want to argue that you know how I see the world better than I do? Why are you trying to argue my own thoughts and beliefs, and what I do and don't care about? I don't care if you think that my thoughts are "excuses," because it was objectively my thought process. I don't want to waste my time, yes, and yet you keep trying to bait me into doing so. Which is why i'm here. I do think its intensely funny though, that you're trying to treat this like a debate, with excuses and contradictions. No, i'm telling you about myself, and if you don't like what i'm saying or how I think... too bad?
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip
I "throw around" projection because you're projecting, and this response only proves my point. You write for an absurd amount of time just to end up back where we started.
The problem is, you don't realize that perception is influenced by your own personal beliefs... which one can project onto others. You can call me insane all you want, but this is basic fact. Take your shooting example. If someone was shot, someone else may perceive it and assume self defense. Someone else might see it and assume murder. And yet another might see it and assume it might have something to do with conflict from a failed marriage, because they pick up on certain details and project their own expectations and beliefs onto the occurrence.
And again, this proves my point. You are inserting and projecting your own feelings onto my behavior, by asserting that somehow I follow your internal logic with my actions. I, for example, don't see deleting a response to be an admission of anything, anyone can delete a response at any time for whatever reason they want. However, you seem to think that if you were to delete a comment, it would be an admission of failure. And what you've done is project this belief onto me, and assume that I operate by your logic, and that me deleting a response has the same motive as you doing so.
Your "clear difference" misses your own actions.
The problem is, you aren't all people. Your perception is warped by you projecting things onto others. You say you're discussing the "perception" others will have on my actions, but you don't speak with any objectivity in that. Rather, you project your own views onto everyone else and assume everyone thinks exactly like you do. In other words - your projections warps your perception. Which is the point i've been making this whole time, but I doubt you'd understand that, given your own desire to go off on tangents not at all related to the subject matter. It's kind of sad how you don't realize this basic fact about your worldview, and the arguments I literally presented to you. And it is your fault for not understanding how your individual bias is projected onto your perceptions. Which, sadly, doesn't help your other arguments in the slightest. I mean, if you don't understand how non-objective and biased your "perceptions" are, my god, what other terms do you try to project upon and warp because you can't conceptualize anyone thinking differently than you? Well, we already know the answer to that, don't we? After all, i've seen you do that exact thing time and time again.
In short - your problem is that what you think is logical, or how people respond, is based off of how you think. Not how others think. And you're projecting your thought process onto me, to try to glean my motivations.
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip
...and yet I explained it to you. In full detail. Did you miss that bit? I'm guessing so.
"Projecting is when you attribute something you're going through with someone else, and I already explained that.:
uh... yes. Which is exactly what I said. For example, someone with a failed marriage making jokes on the subject matter, someone who is gay doing the same, ect. Oh, and someone who is insecure about their points and ability to debate online because they view debate through a certain lens... accusing me of doing that. You see the point, the one i've now had to explain to you three times? You have a very specific set of beliefs and views regarding online debate. You think, (and you said as much yourself) that if you deleted a comment, you would see it as a loss. And so, you are projecting that viewpoint onto me, when I don't think that way at all. You tried to guess at my motives based on your own motives, and failed. You don't seem to realize, as i've explained to you time and time again, that your perception of my actions is warped by you projecting onto them. You say deleting my comments proves i'm insecure in my arguments? Prove it. What arguments? What did I say in those comments that I did not say to your face, right here? Well, nothing. But that doesn't line up with your projection, does it?
Perceptions is based off of how someone views things and events, as a person. And I hate to break this to you, but as people, we have biases. And some of those biases can manifest in us projecting our mindset onto someone else. I'll repeat it again - I had my reasons to delete comments. I've told you those reasons. None of them have anything to do with me not feeling the points are valid given i've said the same things I put in those comments elsewhere, and even to you. So, in conclusion - you are projecting your own views onto me. Sorry, I don't agree.
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip
Ah, but that isn't true, is it? You started this whole thing off by attempting to paint my actions as some sort of sign of my motivations towards deleting those comments. When you failed at that, you then failed at this new goal, calling the old one "irrelevant." I know my reasons are good, and I really don't care what someone like you thinks of that.
And. We've been over this. At least you admit you're a person who will never listen, no matter how objective or logical my statements. You have been trying to "argue" what people see my actions as, and when I either tell you that I don't care, or showing you my actual motivation, you insult me and deflect yet again. You keep trying to call out "contradictions," and when I point out that you seem not to know the meaning of the word, or are making incorrect assumptions and ignoring my actual words, you simply reassert said points, usually with added insults. My actions line up with my motivation. As i've told you. And yes, you're projecting. We've been over this, and you haven't been able to even address that point.
And I know you're trying to deflect away from your prior point of attempting to paint my actions as motivated by some sort of insecurity or guilt, but this new angle is just as bad if not worse. I'll give you a hint here - people don't care about that thread. Those who read it likely won't remember or internalize more than a word of that. I don't care about justifying my actions to people like you, who ignore reality in favor of projecting their own views onto me.
And that's how you know that i've made an impression on you. When someone in an argument starts talking about how they're laughing, or smiling, in an attempt to show confidence or security... you can usually tell that they're really acting exactly the opposite.
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip "Attempted to deny starting the conversation." Yes, i'm sure you have any proof of that, that's why you said it after all, right? So... provide some? Oh wait, no, I get it. You decided to purposefully lie about my statements because you know i'm right, and you don't want to have to deal with that fact by actually responding to my statements. And I agree, the evidence proving all my points is right there. You can step around the fact, try to weasel your way out of it, by lying and flat out denying. But that wouldn't change that fact. Again, your actions prove a lack of integrity, just like you lying now, and denying your clear projection this entire time. This whole argument in circles about this issue is entirely on you. If you have a problem with reality, too bad. I don't care.
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip Amazing 'comeback' as usual. Not really surprised.
And god, your arguments elsewhere haven't gotten any better. At least they can't get less factual, you've already gone rock bottom there. It is a good thing that you're admitting to the conspiratorial mindset inherent to TIK's revisionism though, thinking that historians are somehow as a group are somehow all lying. And of course people have bias, yes, but it seems that your bias is overtaking historians, and your own refusal to admit to factual information is somehow used as a bludgeon against history. For example, you seem to think that historians know less about classifying state capitalism and socialism, despite the fact that they clearly understand terms much more than you.
And given how TIK lies about pretty much everything Marx said and meant, I would doubt you understand what at any point he advocated for. Oh, and TIK has nothing that's "properly cited." And again, this is putting your bias before facts. You assume that a historian long credited with creating a comprehensive overview of the subject he studied... knows less than a youtuber. And what's your reasoning? Well, you agree with the youtuber. So you don't know what you're talking about, and took other people's words for it. Shameful.
1
-
1
-
Mate, this is the problem. The "5 hour video" doesn't rebut a single argument, and the sourcing you're talking about comes primarily from biased takes on economies he doesn't understand, or literally just right wing public speakers and alt-right youtubers. That is not researched, or sourced, but we know you just like the long list and don't want to actually deal with the logic. Also, your definition of socialism does not work. At all. By your definition, many capitalists would be socialists, and many socialists would be non-socialists. Because it doesn't work. If you try to blame literally everything you don't like on a single ideology by redefining it, like TIK does, you have admitted that you aren't even talking about the same thing. Expanding the government is not socialist. You are literally advocating for, in your words, Crushing a group you don't understand because you built up a strawman of it in your head. You know that our current government is the one rounding people up off the street, not identifying themselves, and not reading people their rights, right? IS trump a socialist to you? Stop larping, for just one second, and realize that your fantasy definition of socialism isn't accurate in the slightest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1