Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@morganw85078
And here you are, doing the exact thing you accuse me of. Child, do you realize that people have time off? That not everyone works every hour of the day, just most of them? I think you're a bit jealous that i've managed to find work, whereas all you can do is lay down in your parent's basement and repeat nazi rhetoric online for some sort of validation. Do you not know how youtube notifications work? Thank you for exposing you have no life, and furthermore, have no respect for the people who work to maintain your slovenly lifestyle, something not even you do. It's odd how you're so willing to do exactly what you accuse me of, all without a single thought of your hypocrisy going through your mind. Oh, and child, as we've been over - i'm not a socialist. Lazy rightists are all the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Pangora2 Again - did you read my response? At all? I would think things like American-made industries, based in america, founded in america, ect would have a choice of whether or not to support the nazis... and yet many did. They offered their services to the regime, of their own will. If they wanted out, they simply to never show up, they were perfectly safe across the ocean. Germany wasn't exporting steel or goods, they were being offered it, especially things like oil, for their backing, payment, and protection. Of course, again, you would realize this if you did even a smidgeon of individual research... but it appears you couldn't even manage that. Wake up, child.
2
-
@fattony638 I would agree with you generally, but would disagree on one quick point:
Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" wasn't meant to be, at least by Marx, what we consider a "dictatorship" today. A dictatorship simply means that a group, political party, or person hold supreme political power. Marx thought that to transition from lower-stage communism to higher-stage communism (he didn't differentiate between socialism and communism, that was done by lenin) that one group should hold supreme political power - the proletariat. Hence, "dictatorship of the proletariat." This doesn't always mean a strong state, in fact Marx said one of the best examples of a DotP in his lifetime was the Paris Commune. However, even under a strong state, it must be a system of the proletariat. If such a system exists with, as you said, people living their whole lives under a system rejecting public accountability, said system couldn't call itself socialist. That's why most socialists wouldn't call the USSR an example of socialism, because no matter the supposed goal, the system was never of the proletariat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dfmrcv862 Well at least you can admit your mistake there, lets see if you can do it elsewhere.
infight
What is far right about their policies? You're joking, right? Extreme nationalism, corportatism, ethnostates, social darwinism, traditonalism, and so on. There's a start.
The nazis were literally extreme nationalists, not just people with some "pride in their nation," stop strawmanning. Also - there is left and right wing nationalism. Left wing is protectionist and liberationist, and right wing is conservative and expansionist. The nazis fell firmly within the right.
...You really don't know much about fascism, huh. Fascism is not an economic ideology. Fascism contained many economic systems, from the austro-fascist Mises economy, to the italian corpoatist economy. However, each example take power away from the people as a whole, and further concentrates it, either in the hands of a corporate-state hybrid, or simply the rich donors of the dictator. Fascism is far right because it has exclusively far right social views, and has no set economic agenda. Why are you trying to shift the goalposts?
2
-
@sonderweg9927 No, I think its plainly obvious i'm grasping the nonsense you're throwing at me... but i've been refuting it this whole time. Because it is false.
"There is no meaningful or functional distinction to be made between fascism and socialism?" How many times has fascism advocated for the rights of women or minorities, how many times have fascists led social movements based around civil rights and equality, how many socialist systems have been extremely conservative, ethno-nationalist, traditionalist, ect. The problem is, you are focusing on one and only one "similarity" and then ignoring all the differences. That's like me saying there's no difference between an army general and a serial killer because they both kill people. And the worst part is, your "point" isn't even true. Fascism doesn't abolish private property, fascism protects the property of those strong enough to dominate for it, while attacking those they feel don't deserve it. Socialism doesn't abolish personal rights in the slightest, in fact most socialists advocate for expanding them. Socialism is not a system where everyone owns nothing, neither is fascism. Socialism is a system where everyone owns everything, fascism is a system where the strong own everything. You're a liar.
The problem you're making is that you're ignoring human nature and the definition of socialism, and amalgamating your made up preconceptions about socialist societies and your false perceptions of human nature into a massive strawman. Socialism, and by extension communism, was literally devised as a way to increase the freedom and autonomy of an individual, by moving their political power beyond government representatives, and directly into the government and workplaces. The community under socialism doesn't need to be a hivemind, in fact it wouldn't work with a hivemind, the point is that every individual owns the product of their own labor directly, not worrying about having to go through a middleman of a boss or CEO that takes the money they make and makes decisions about what they have to do. If one gives people the ability to actually control their production and workplace, as well as their government, there is no need for them to be an "organism," they could easily operate in self interest and be helping people at the same time. Your assertion that a few individuals will operate property in the name of the community is not only unfounded, it goes directly against the purpose of socialism. Fascism, on the other hand, literally has a goal of concentrating the production in the hands of a few people, not based on the desires of the community, but on the supposed superiority of those who rise to the top. These are as different as you can get.
And... no. Because the community is a collection of individuals, giving property to "the people" in any meaningful way wouldn't mean reinstating private property, because private property by necessity restricts the people as a whole from owning pretty much everything. If you give something to the people... you give it to the people. And yes, people are individuals. We've known how this works for a few hundred years now. Your assertion that the property could only ever be given to representatives is again, unfounded and would be fundamentally anti-socialist. And if you think that what the nazis did, by giving property to the rich and powerful who offered help, services, and loyalty to work against the people, is remotely similar then you might be insane.
The thing is, people can see what i'm talking about. That's why for nearly the last century, nobody has attempted to conflate fascism and socialism, because their ideological differences are plain to see. Hell, we can see this from your own argument, the only "similarity" you could find is that they're both basically not free market capitalism, and you should have discovered after reading this that they're both not capitalism in very different ways. Fascism isn't just contempted because it goes against individual freedom and "dignity," it is held under contempt because it is a genocidal ideology that if given the chance would concentrate power in the hands of the 'strong," while quite literally killing most of everyone else off. Socialism is "bad" to the same people because they believe the system is inefficient, or would never work. How is disliking a system because it promotes a planned and state-mandated world wide genocide and removal of workers rights the same as disliking a system because you don't think it would work? The comparison between the two isn't common, and it historically, hasn't been. The only reason people like you exist spouting this nonsense is because there's a new movement of radical right wing historical denialism that seeks to redefine basic political ideologies to take all blame away from the right. Oh, and your comments on the "actions" and "rhetoric" of socialists? ...They already don't behave or talk like that. No socialist promotes the idea of "a future where people own nothing and there so called "needs" are merely met, while they give everything." Literally not one. The only people who carry that definition of socialism are anti-socialists, which means it isn't the socialists who need to change their goals and rhetoric, its you who needs to stop pretending like you understand their goals or rhetoric. You're a liar, plain and simple, and fascism and socialism are nearly as different as can be. By denying that, you are going against history and apologizing for fascism. Any attempt to remove that distinction is a transparent attempt by far rightists to obscure your monstrous, immoral position, and continue to allow for a new rise of fascism.
2
-
@sonderweg9927
Ah, more insults, projection, and already addressed points! Wow, i'm so shocked. Not really though, you've admitted to this all before.
As I already told you, I was operating on your definitions of inhumane when I wrote the first response discussing this. Rather than address those points, you attacked a one-letter typo, and when I pointed out how the points were still based off of your given definition in the following two comments, you ignored that and decided to keep insulting me. You're now somehow pretending that I have never encountered the word inhumane which is... odd, given that I used it in the first paragraph, and operated off of your definition since you first used the term. But again, all you have is insults. We know this.
The problem here is, your base of knowledge... isn't factual. In the slightest. I have time and time again addressed how your responses are not based in fact, in history, or in the material reality of the system you espouse, and every time you get angrier and angrier at me because I refuse to take your rhetoric at face value. This is, after all, what you consider "knowledge" to be - agreeing with you. And when one like me comes along to disprove you, you simply can't handle that. Every single one of your points is based on nothing, and when I point that out, you simply try to insult me by saying I don't understand "facts" that you have done nothing to prove exist when questioned on.
beliefs
And yes. I think that people who work, who actually create and form things, should be those who own the wealth they create. You justify a system of theft in which the only job someone needs to hold to get rich is the job of "owning" something, which is of course a societal construct that adds nothing to the world, and helps in no concrete, material ways. Work might not be the best, but your system still needs it, in fact it needs more work put in than any other system. You would just prefer to offload the work onto others. Therefore, your assertion that wealth can be easily created through the absence of work is false, not only because it has no basis in reality, but because the only wealth that those who own things get is wealth they take from those who actually work. You want an economy or a system with less work? Great, then get rid of capitalism and all of the useless jobs it creates. You want to work less? Thank the socialists that want to give you and everyone else that opportunity.
You also continue to assert that a system in which the vast majority of people do not own their work and are forced to work under someone else, through which they have their own work stolen from them, is somehow "consensual." This is... utterly baffling. How is a system in which you work, or die, any better than any other system in which the same happens? In capitalism, if you don't work and you don't own, you starve. How is this different from being shot for not working in a prison, or a labor camp? The only real difference is that under capitalism, there is no one man to try for murder. The whole system is guilty. Of course, you are unable to provide any sort of reason that institutionalized coercion, theft, and murder are consensual... because they aren't. Are you seriously going to argue that murder is consensual? Knowing the depths of your depravity, I wouldn't doubt it. Your market takes goods from other parts in the world and overloads them on a select few countries, wasting tons of food and supplies every year. You seem to not understand basic economic theory, nor the basic working reality of the system you espouse. Again, i'm not surprised. It is you we're talking about after all.
Ah, and here it is! You finally addressing one of my points! Well, no, that's giving you a bit too much credit. This is you attempting to address one of my points, mentioning it by word and all... but then coming up with an excuse about how it's too hard for you to even try to formulate basic economic theory. No need, however, since I am already far more knowledgeable in this area than you. Money isn't real. The only reason it's accepted is because people are willing to accept it, it's the norm. The world, collectively, owes more money to eachother than money that exists. A dollar is a slip of paper that under any other system, or any other time, means nothing. Again - basic history, basic economics. But for a person who can't even explain the basics of money, humanity, theft, or consent, i'm not surprised you don't know that.
Buddy. Did you forget you chose to disengage hours ago now? One who was actually confident in their ideas would have done so ages ago, before that first attempt to run away, even. But you didn't. Why? Because your ego is tied to you "winning" here. Because you know that if you engage with me further, more of your unchallenged notions will become challenged, and you might start to learn a thing or two. And you can't have that, can you? Just admit it - you need my validation, my approval. You need this victory because without it, you are insecure in your ideas. That's also why you keep responding with nothing but insults, and ignoring every tie I effortlessly destroy your accusations. Because you and I both know that you can't actually address them... I'm right. In any case, I have shown you time and time again. I am not a marxist, clearly, and unlike you, I am not an authoritarian person. I don't believe in the fascistic principles of eternal competition and a system where someone can be powerful just because they own things. Unlike you, I believe in the emancipation of the individual. Unlike you, I care about people's rights, which is why I want to expand them. Unlike you, I care about human wellbeing, which is why I reject your system of murder and fraud. Unlike you, I don't believe in my system as a religion, that cannot be escaped. And unlike you, I understand that murder and theft aren't consensual. All you have done is proven yourself as nearly everything you accuse me of. An authoritarian liar who doesn't understand the history of their own movement, that being, right wing authoritarianism and fascism.
But go ahead kid. Call the anarchist a fascist, with zero proof. We know none exists. That's why you've never given any.
Bye bye.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 That isn't even true, for two reasons. One, it's a reference to Buffalo, NY, which is a place. Two, if they were based off the sauce, I could just say "right, and buffalo sauce is made from real buffalo." You've just made me make the same argument, with more steps. Of course, none of this matters, because everyone knows what I mean. It's a way of dunking on TIK, and the liars that support his historical revisionism. He doesn't spread the truth on anything really, and to claim he does is devaluing the word "truth."
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 You know thar just saying it doesn't make it true, right? What am I saying, of course you don't. I have to wonder if you've even watched the videos, because I have yet to see a person who has that actually agrees with him. Want to know why? Well, let me ask you this. Do you want to have a state, at all? How about companies, do you like any of those? Hey, do you like "organized society?" Well, according to TIK, all of those things makes you a leftist, a socialist, and a fascist apparently. No, I kid you not, he said that any form of advocacy for the state is socialism, corporations are socialist entities, and he painted the left as wanting (his words) an "organized society," which he framed as a bad thing. I would be happy to provide more quotes of his, and links, of him claiming these things. Oh, but it gets better. Not only that, but whenever anyone actually puts in the effort to directly address his claims, timestamps, quotes, and all, he calls them a marxist, a postmodernist, a fascist, a holocaust denier, a racist, an anti-semite, and so on. And then he links one of his own videos as citation as to why he is correct. Do you see the issue with that, perhaps? I should hope so. The issue is that he brushes off all coherent responses as marxist propaganda, all while defining his terms however he pleases. This is why I question if you've watched the video, or even scrolled through his comments. Because no one can, in good faith, claim that he addresses any of the counter arguments given to him. I would agree, revisionism isn't inherently bad, when it's based off of new information. But his argument isn't based off of that, it's based off of him going back in time to use long-dead definitions of words to push his own historical narrative. I couldn't care less about any narratives, i'm not a socialist, and don't care to defend socialism. But i'm also no fan of liars, and ideologue-historians, and TIK regularly puts himself into those two categories.
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 You say that, yet your actions don't really line up with it. If he moved you away from "socialism," I can only now assume that you must be some sort of extremist minarchist/ancap, which isn't a very reliable lens to view history through. I don't much care if you agree with his nonsense, that doesn't actually prove it to be true. His assessment comes from the historical base terms, in a language that isn't really spoken any more, before literally thousands of years of etymological development. Back then, the words "freedom" and "family" were interchangeable. To base the definitions of current words off of those, and worse yet, to insert your definitions into historical writings when that is decidedly not what the writers meant, is utterly ahistorical. The issue is, to define all of these things as states, you have to redefine what it even means to be a state. In a world where the local McDonalds and Boy Scouts are somehow their own states, the meaning of the word is utterly gone. The worst part is though, as i've said, very few of the people he cites actually thought of individuals and states anywhere near this way, which makes his application extremely suspect. So realistically the reasoning isn't there, the evidence isn't there, and the arguments aren't either. There's a reason he boasts about going back that far, it's because going back any less nets you with extremely different definitions. So i'll ask you this, even apart from those arguments - if a state is literally anything that isn't an individual, and statism is also socialist, who was the first socialist?
And if you've done that and not found much of anything, i'm afraid the issue here might be with you. In just the last few days i've seen a few people write down extensive criticisms, approaching from ery different angles, most of which his video does not address. And most of those I have not seen him actually address. I remember the last one he actually did address was filled with more accusations of marxism, propaganda, ect, and seemed more hostile than anything. Of course, he didn't address the rebuttal of that response, but I suppose that doesn't matter. And the issue is that he assumes that these points are addressed in his response, when they really aren't. Some people have even brought up problems with some things like his definitions, to which he linked the videos they had problems with. Does that not seem like at least a bit of a cop-out?
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 You said you moved away from "socialism," and given that TIK calls corporations and the state socialist, and you agreed, I assumed you moved away from those as well.
You clearly have no understanding of what a state is, but you apparently also agree with TIK while somehow moing away from socialism... right into what he would still call socialism. Don't forget, according to him you're still a socialist, that much hasn't changed.
TIK, objectively, does redefine it. And you continue to be complicit in that redefinition. Let's look at the Oxford definition for a corporation. "A large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law." Ok, so what's a company? "A commercial business." So what's a business? "a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade." That is, by definition, private. Your definition doesn't even include most actual states. A corporation is not public, it is private. It has no government, it has rulers, but they are not a government, they are private heads of the company. If anything "made up of small parts that collectively own and control it" is a state, then sorry buddy, as the individual is made of cells they are in fact a state. They are not a state, not even by your definition though. You see, the problem is that you use these exceedingly vague definitions that nobody actually uses, and tie them to words that actually have meaning. For example, a state is "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." There is no "political community" under corporations, nor are they organized by anyone other than the individual owners, nor would they qualify as a nation or a territory. And as I keep telling you, even if TIK uses this definition, other people don't. Him trying to say all socialism is state control because according to him democratic ownership of industry is one type of state control is a leap in logic he never actually substantiates. He's up against the common understanding of these words, and he does not bring adequate argumentation to justify his absurd assertions.
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 Except that's nonsense. A company has no territory, nor any nation. As I said, there is no "political community," nor is there a government, under a company. A company is not a public entity, it is a private entity. A private entity is "...any entity that is not a unit of government, including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, companies, nonprofit organizations or other legal entities or a natural persons." His argument is long debunked, but even worse, it doesn't even make the leap that he does. You see, if we call all those things state control, then clearly some kinds of "state" are very different from others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 That makes no sense. For one, because it's just wrong. Despite what TIK would have you believe, private doesn't just mean individual, it just means non-government owned. As in, not owned by the government you are operating under. On top of that,i'm sorry,"families?" What even is a family in this context? You've just opened up a whole new areas of rules.
That's not a contradiction, that's called nuance. Yes, they are not made up of multiple political communities, because there is no system of governing under a company. There is no diversity of politics under a company, there is the owner, and there is you. There is a difference between ruling and governing. I can rule my own property, as in have total control over what happens with it, even as a singular individual. I cannot govern it, though. They don't "govern" their own "state," they have neither of those things. And taking up physical space does not mean one has territory. All of those spread out office buildings? They are not connected by land, or borders, they are small independent private ventures. That does not constitute territory, or a nation.
Saying "but i'm right and we both know it" when it seems more and more like you know you're wring here isn't a good look.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yeabuddy1610 The dictionary. It's a great place, you know, for seeing the definitions of words. You should try to consult that when looking at definitions, not dead languages. Let me help you. Private means "belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only." The closest definition to the one I espouse that is currently used is "pertaining to or affecting a particular person or a small group of persons; individual; personal:" And that is obviously flawed, one because it isn't relating to the economic idea of private property, but two because corporations, that have a relatively small amount of "owners," would still be private.
Maybe, just maybe, you should look at modern dictionaries for the modern definitions of words.
Thanks, it actually is quite nuanced.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sslave7815
But they aren't, these are literally definitions put forward by adam smith.
And yeah, that isn't true. There is a fundamental difference between a small market stand and a major, multi-national company. Not just a scale one, but in the very way said enterprises operate, and how profit and property is managed. This is, quite literally, a result of the definition and application of private property changing so much over time.
The concept did very much change, and it was not even widely implemented in early forms, that wouldn't come until very recently. That isn't marxist, again. Furthermore, the distinction isn't just socialist, and it's absurd to say that the type of ownership a factory worker has over profit and the type of ownership an individual has over a toothbrush is the same.
And yeah, no problem, I can understand that, but "hundreds" was the intended message, yeah.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2