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