Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IsaacPSmith Oh this is woefully ironic. In accusing other people of ad hominem attacks and insults, you quite literally use your own insults to describe them, calling them "Marxists" and "Socialists," which is not only inaccurate, but clearly carries a negative association with you. As for them being the ones doing it the most, TIK has only addressed my arguments by calling me a troll, a postmodernist, a Marxist, a racist, an anti semite, ect. Meanwhile, TIK gets called out for that, and that's the real insult to you? Put down your bias for half a second and view the world objectively.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bandit6272 Lmao, you're still proving my point. "Put up or shut up," what, to who, you? You've proven yourself to be a liar and unable to operate in any sort of good faith, why would I care what you say? After all, apparently you know that I don't use facts or arguments, despite seeing me using both, but not actually reading through any of my responses. You don't even know what ad hominem means. I have no reason to debate with a person who came out swinging with insults before they even knew the facts. Oh, and of course you don't want some "wall of text" - nuance is beyond you.
And I know you hate the idea of factual information debunking propaganda, but maybe make it a little less obvious? TIK's video is a lie, you know it, he knows it, he even admits his sources prove it. His own sources. If you want to respond to arguments against TIK, might want to read those sources first. If you want to respond to me, then find one of my other responses, of which there are literally hundreds. You have no right to dictate the rules of debate whe you've proven that you don't even follow them. I've proven TIK wrong, but that doesn't even matter, his own sources do so. And no matter how much you desperately whine for my time and attention, you are not owned it. I have no need to engage with a bad-faith moron like you when all the arguments you've made have been debunked time and time again through this comment section. So? Put up or shut up. If you have an argument, kid, make it. And if you don't (which we know you don't) you're just going to ignore the point and refuse to make an argument, right? I can't wait to see how you deflect.
😁
2
-
@bandit6272 I mean, you answered your own question there. You believe a lie, and willingly perpetuate it. Maybe you aren't conscious in it, so you're just ignorant, but its one or the other.
And there you go, changing your story again. What a great case for yourself you're making there, not even remembering your own statements.
And if you admit that you have indeed seen my arguments
then you should know that you are free to go back and address all of the arguments you want... and yet you choose not to. Almost like you're just trying to "mock" and waste time.
You just compared me to a child and said I was "screeching," and yet i'm the one with ad hominem? Do you have a spec of self awareness?
The lies i've pointed out seem to hurt your ideology, which is likely why you are so dead set on crying about them.
Its clear as day, you've made it clear.
I've made my case against people like you time and time again. You aren't owed my time, and apparently you have seen my arguments before, so feel free to find an old one. Until then, you'll only get back what you're giving to me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zerozatan Well that's the problem with the video, it makes false assumptions, bases faulty analysis on those assumptions, and makes arguments based off of those. The very core of the video is worth addressing, false. All arguments that issue thereafter are tainted by those same assumptions. That's what makes addressing those arguments so difficult, because TIK ends up not only making these assumptions within this video, but ends up citing other videos, like his Public vs Private video, which are equally filled with such faulty arguments, which would mean to address this video I would have to go through half his channel, and what's the point of that when I could just point to the fact that TIK says his own sources disagree with him, and encourage those interested to read into them. Anyway, i've never once said that me disagreeing with his viewers counts as disproving him, and i'm not sure where you got that. And since you call yourself a "student of history," then before addressing the first point you give me at the bottom, i'll give you that same advice. Don't take TIK on his word. Hell, don't take anyone on their word, including me. If you believe this video, look through his sources, and see how many actually have to do with history, and how many are just from conservative think tanks or are modern political mannifestos. When you actually get to the historical stuff, you'll find that historians roundly disagree with TIK, and with good reason. I would recommend starting with Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy. Also, another observation - there shouldn't be "another side" here. There's a reason historians have agreed on and presented the nazis as non-socialists, and you can either believe TIK and assume they're in on some conspiracy or victims of propaganda somehow none of them can see past... or assume that they might know what they're talking about. Now, your question.
First off - There are three ways to address this point, all of which I will bring up, and all of which I would be happy to elaborate on in future responses. First, the definition of socialism. Second, the reality of the nazi economy and ideology. And third, the type of "control" executed. They all intersect, so i'll simply go over the basics of each now. First off, socialism is not state control. While socialism could, theoretically, be achieved through the state, the state is not the determining factor, otherwise everything from monarchism to minarchism would be some type of "socialism." You have to remember, socialism is an ideology that was only really formed in the 17th century, and would only be ideologically cemented in the 18th-19th. Government control of labor or production had existed for literally hundreds if not thousands of years, so unless you consider socialism some sort of hyper-ideology that has been here since the advent of civilization, that doesn't check out. Hell, back when socialism was first cementing as an ideology, monarchism was rampant, a system in which the government pretty much had a "god given right" to anything it wanted. Why did those early socialists hate that so much, then? And, if socialism was government control, then how would the libertarian socialist movement exist, and find agreement as well as competition with more statist socialists? Hell, one of the biggest branches of socialism is one based off of direct worker ownership, government need not apply. So what is socialism? Well, simply, socialism is social control of the means of production, social control being various types of representative collective control.
Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey" By Donald Busky.
Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.
"The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study" By Scott Arnold
"What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."
"International Encyclopedia of Political Science" by Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; abd Leonardo Morlino
Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates... cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
The Economics and Politics of Socialism" By Brus Routledge
"This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.
New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition" by Alec Nove
A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
Readers Guide to the Social Sciences." by Jonathan Michie. Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.
"The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought" by Mason Hastings and Adrian Pyper, . Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership.
And these are all recent citations, if you want to go more historical, look into books like "The Philosophy of Poverty," by Proudhon, or "Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx or even Malatesta's "Anarchy."
Remember, when these people say "social control," that is defined as "a form of common ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems." While it can be done through the state, the core tenet of that definition is *common ownership, or ownership of the people as a whole. If those people are not represented, it is not common, thus not social, thus not socialist.
2
-
MIT Mathematica @MIT Mathematica it's ok dude you can drop the act. Nobody would be this defensive if I wasn't on point. So why did you change accounts? Is it because you got disproven so many times and you want to pretend that isn't the case? You used the exact same quotes and copy pasted insults, and the exact same framing. Its you bud.
In any case, as I've said previously, and you have yet to address - those quotes you mentioned are from, as you pointed out, propaganda speeches. These do not include his definitions, his words in private, or his actual actions. And you, a proven liar, know this. So why do you not include this context? Is it because you would rather not admit to hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti socialism? Is it because you agree with hitler, or want to defend him? What is it, liar?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@auo2365 But I already addressed this - the figures you mention murdered others for specific reasons. To take stalin and trotsky for example, Trotsky was not exiled because he was a communist, or because he was say, a man, or white, or any other random classification. He was exiled because he opposed stalin's specific rule. The thing is, you have to look at the specific reasoning behind each case, the umbrella label "interparty violence" doesn't cut it. The nazis didn't kill socialists because they were some different kinds of socialists, or had different methods or goals (though they did) they killed socialists specifically because the values, the morals, the systems proposed by all branches of socialism directly conflict with the views held by the nazis. The socialists, as a whole, were purged for the same reason that union leaders were.
2
-
@auo2365
But that's the thing - each of those listed purges you showed had a reasoning, those included, and those excluded. In most of the cases, the reasoning was that they threatened the power of the leader, usually by holding a different strain of an ideology, and thus they were purged, while the "loyal" were excluded from the purges. The thing is, hitler's purges have the same pattern, and if you want to see the reasoning, even without looking at his words or later actions, just look on who he purged. He purged the weak and disabled, and campaigned on the state spending too much on them. He purged the gay, trans, ect, and those that supported them, because of supposed degeneracy. He purged the union leaders and their outspoken supporters. He purged the socialists from his own party. Even ignoring that last part, do you see a trend? And now, who didn't he purge? Well, he didn't purge conservative party leadership, in fact they made up his first cabinet and vice-chancellor positions. He only got rid of some later when they explicitly threatened nazi rule. Same with private businessmen, unless they were jewish, gay, leftist, ect, he didn't purge them, in fact he even invited international industrialists to fund his efforts. You see the trend? He purged those he did because of who they were, and it was only the more right leaning folk that he didn't purge until they threatened him.
Socialism is an ideological threat to nazism, just the same as a person being openly gay, or jewish, or pro-union is. Socialists, thus, could not be "excluded" from his purges. He purged the socialists because they were socialists, even if they didn't openly oppose him. The soviets purged other socialists only when they posed a threat. However, they killed capitalists because their very existence was a threat. You see the distinction? I mean, look at the patterns. Hitler purges the groups that leftists historically defend, along with the leftists advocating for their defense, and only attacks rightists or their allies when they cease to be helpful/become hostile.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Davidoff Ah, so you're one of those types that is shown the absurdity of his arguments, and then just decides the person who literally brought them up to you knows less than you just because they pointed out how nonsense his "points" are. I don't think you have thought about this. For example, you say that because a company becomes publicly traded, this means that it is invested in by the public, and that it then has a responsibility to fulfil the desires of its investors. You say that this somehow makes a company less private... but this is literally all companies do, ever. All companies are at the whims of people in the public, that's why they need to advertise and even just create products in the first place. If they want to continue existing, they have a legal responsibility to make a profit, and a responsibility to their customers to make things that do so. Corporations have always had to measure the desires of thousands, even millions of people, that's how business works, and its the most private you can get. Here's your statement, but revised accounting for this fact.
"Well if you think about it, a company that tries to get profit from the public means that people from the public have put their investments into this company, and are now customers of that company. That means that the companies interests are no longer private among themselves, but also have to consider their customer's needs, and there can be thousands of customers investing into this company. In such a case, how could this company be considered private, in the sense that it can act on private interests, if it has a legal obligation to the customers?"
You see how absurd your statement is?
And I didn't say he said, in this particular video, that corporations are socialist. I said he believes it because it has been a consistent assertion of his all throughout his comment section and other videos of his, and you are free to ask him his opinion on this to find out yourself. And no, socialism has nothing to do with corporations, even if they did have actual government connection, which public stocks are not. This just tells me you fundementally don't understand what socialism even is. Like TIK.
I think you need to reevaluate your views, given that you are literally supporting someone who openly revises definitions, which you can hardly defend, and a fact you now admit to openly. I don't think you can defend a single "argument" he made.
2
-
@Davidoff
I'm sorry, but insults don't make up for your lack of argument.
Public or private stocks are not the same as public or private property. While one might be more restricted, and the other is open to the general public, they are both wholly creations of private interests. Pretending otherwise is plainly absurd and follows no economic logic.
Again, you can insult me all you want, but I am in no way seeing a rebuttal from you, in the slightest, which is a shame.
You can claim nothing you said is absurd (backed up only by insults) but the vast majority of people, i'm afraid, prove you wrong. Yes, it is absurd to claim a company isn't private because they trade stocks publicly.
And i'm sorry, are you really that pissed off that i'm right? I didn't say "I uhh well he said in another video and I interpreted it as this but I swear my interpretation is correct because i understand the english language better than anyone else," I pointed out how his definitions make no logical sense, backed up by the basic practice of studying etymology and even just glancing at a modern dictionary. This isn't a case of interpretation, or "my understanding." This is a case of his words openly conflicting with established reality. I am directly telling you what TIK has made clear, and you are denying it because you understand how absurd his redefinitions are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2