Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
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