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