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